Opinion ID: 212040
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Tolling Regulation and Commerce's Industry Support Determination

Text: 18 Before an antidumping and countervailing duty investigation can be initiated, the petition on which that investigation is based must meet certain industry support requirements. A petition is considered to be filed on behalf of an industry if: 19 (i) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and 20 (ii) the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition. 21 19 U.S.C. § 1673a(c)(4)(A) (2000). 22 Commerce determined that in order to be a producer, an entity must have a stake in the domestic industry in question. Commerce then defined having a stake as undertaking the actual production of the domestic like product within the United States. Remand Determination at 13. Commerce's industry support determination considered USEC to be the only domestic producer of LEU. Accordingly, Commerce found that there was sufficient domestic industry support to begin an antidumping and countervailing subsidy investigation. The Court of International Trade affirmed Commerce's determination that foreign uranium enrichers were producers for the purposes of § 1673a(c)(4)(A). 23 On appeal, appellants AHUG, Eurodif, CGMN and Cogema argue that American utility companies should be considered producers for the purposes of determining whether USEC's petition has sufficient industry support to trigger Commerce's antidumping and countervailing duty investigation. In support, they note that Commerce's tolling regulation orders Commerce not to consider a toller or subcontractor to be a manufacturer or producer where the toller or subcontractor does not acquire ownership, and does not control the relevant sale, of the subject merchandise or foreign like product. 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(h) (2004). According to the appellants, if the tolling regulation were applied in this case, Commerce could not initiate any antidumping or countervailing duty investigation because the domestic utilities would be considered producers for the purposes of an industry support determination — and given such a definition of producer, the dictates of § 1673a(c)(4)(A) would not be satisfied. They draw further support for their argument from prior Commerce determinations that held that control of the aspects of manufacture is sufficient to qualify an entity as a producer. Finally, they buttress their argument by alleging that Commerce improperly and inconsistently applied the tolling regulation by using it to determine the export price of LEU but declining to apply it in its industry support determination. 24 The Court of International Trade rejected AHUG's argument and sustained Commerce's interpretation of the term producer for the purpose of an industry support determination as well as its refusal to apply the tolling regulation to encompass American utilities within the definition of the term producer. USEC II, 281 F.Supp.2d at 1346. The court supported its holding by determining that Commerce's use of the tolling regulation was in keeping with the purposes of the industry support statute and that Commerce's interpretation of the word producer was reasonable and, thus, in accordance with law. Id. On this issue, we agree with the Court of International Trade and affirm Commerce's initial industry support determination. 25 Commerce's determination that domestic utilities were not producers of LEU is consistent with the purpose of § 1673a(c)(4)(A). Section 1673a(c)(4) speaks of industry support and, as expressed in legislative history, Congress intended the industry support statute to provide an opportunity for relief for an adversely affected industry and to prohibit petitions filed by persons with no stake in the result of the investigation. S.Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 47 (1979). This view was echoed by the Court of International Trade when it noted that [t]he language in the legislative history is broad and unqualified. It contrasts industries suffering adverse effect with those having no stake: the former have standing, the latter do not. Brother Indus. (USA), Inc. v. United States, 801 F.Supp. 751, 757 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1992). Commerce interpreted having a stake as requiring that a company perform some important or substantial manufacturing operation. Remand Determination at 14 (internal quotations and citations omitted). There is no basis to conclude that Commerce's interpretation in this context is unreasonable or not in accordance with law. 26 Further, determining the export price of a good and determining whether a petition has enough support for an investigation to be initiated are two different tasks that were delegated to Commerce for different purposes. Thus, using the tolling regulation in one context but not using it in another is a clearly insufficient basis upon which to conclude that Commerce's action was not in accordance with law. 27