Slip Op. 08-2
UN|TED STATES COURT OF lNTERNATlONAL TRADE
CONSOL|DATED F|BERS, |NC., STE|N F|BERS,
LTD., BERNET |NTERNAT|ONAL TRAD|NG,
LLC, AND Bl\/|T CO|\/lMOD|TY CORPORAT|ON, public version
P|aintiffs’ Before: Leo l\/|. Gordon, Judge
v Court NO. 06-00134
UN|TED STATES,
Defendant.
OP|N|ON
[Plaintiffs’ motion forjudgment on the agency record denied.]
Dated: January 10, 2008
deKieffer & Horqan (Greqorv S. Meneqaz, l\/lerritt R. Blakeslee, J. Kevin Horqan)
for Plaintiffs C0nsolidated Fibers, lnc., Stein Fibers, Ltd., Bernet international Trading,
LLC, and Bl\/lT Commodity Corporation.
James M. Lyons, General Counse|, Nea| J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counse|
for Litigation, Karl von Schriltz, Attorney-Advisor, United States |nternationa| Trade
Commission, for Defendant.
Kellv Drve Col|ier Shannon (Paul C. Rosenthal, Kathleen W. Cannon,
David C. Smith Jr.) for Defendant-lntervenors Dak Fibers, LLC, lnvista S.a.r.l., and
We|lman, |nc.
Gordon, Judge: Plaintiffs move for judgment on the agency record pursuant to
USC|T R. 56.1, challenging the United States international Trade Commission’s
("Commission") refusal to reconsider the original injury determination underlying the
antidumping duty order on polyester staple fiber ("PSF") from Korea and Taiwan. For
the reasons set forth below, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
Court No. 06-00134 Page 2
|. Background
ln l\/larch 2005 the Commission instituted five-year reviews ("sunset reviews") of
the antidumping duty orders on PSF from Korea and Taiwan. After the sunset reviews
commenced, Plaintiffs (importers of PSF) discovered evidence that some domestic
producers of PSF had allegedly conspired to fix PSF prices and allocate customers
during the original period of investigation and part of the sunset review period. Plaintiffs
were eager to share this information with the Commission because a comparable
revelation in another proceeding had led the Commission to rescind the original injury
determinations in that proceeding. See Ferrosilicon From Brazil, China, Kazakhstan,
Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela, lnv. Nos. 303-TA-23, 731-TA-566-570 and 731-TA-
641 (Reconsideration), USlTC Pub. 3218 (Aug. 1999) at 3, 8 ("Ferrosilicon
")-
ln the Ferrosilicon Reconsideration the Commission learned of a criminal price-
fixing conspiracy among the domestic ferrosi|icon producers through the Brazilian
ferrosi|icon producers’ request for a changed circumstances review pursuant to Section
751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b) (2000).‘ Troubled by
the revelation of an antitrust conspiracy affecting pricing in the domestic ferrosi|icon
market, the Commission took the unprecedented step of sua sponte suspending the
changed circumstances proceedings and commencing "reconsideration" proceedings to
review the original injury determinations underlying the antidumping and countervailing
duty orders on ferrosilicon. Ferrosilicon From Brazil, China, Kazakhstan, Russia,
1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 are to the relevant provision in Title 19 of the
U.S. Code, 2000 edition.
Court No. 06-00134 Page 3
Ukraine, and Venezuela, 64 Fed. Reg. 28,212 (lnt’l Trade Comm’n l\/lay 25, 1999)
(notice of suspension of changed circumstances review and commencement of
reconsideration proceeding). ln the course of those reconsiderations, the Commission
discovered that in the original investigations the domestic ferrosi|icon producers had
misrepresented that the "U.S. ferrosi|icon market was driven by unfettered price
competition," when in fact, "three ferrosi|icon producers, representing a significant
majority of 1993 U.S. production, had been convicted of conspiring to fix domestic
prices of commodity ferrosilicon" during a "substantia| portion of the time period on
which the Commission based its original determination." Ferrosilicon Reconsideration
at 3, 8. Because "[t]he Commission’s statute and longstanding Commission precedent
place the nature of price competition at the center of its injury analysis," j