Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., MAHLE BEHR
TROY INC., MAHLE BEHR USA INC., MAHLE
BEHR DAYTON L.L.C., MAHLE BEHR
CHARLESTON INC., MAHLE BEHR
MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC., MAHLE
MANUFACTURING MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Plaintiffs
PROAMPAC INTERMEDIATE, INC., AMPAC
HOLDINGS, LLC, JEN-COAT, INC., DBA
PROLAMINA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES, ALUMINUM ASSOCIATION
TRADE ENFORCEMENT WORKING GROUP AND
ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, JW ALUMINUM
COMPANY, NOVELIS CORPORATION, REYNOLDS
CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2020-1136
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in Nos. 1:18-cv-00087-MAB, 1:18-cv-00105-MAB,
Judge Mark A. Barnett.
Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2020
2 VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES
______________________
Decided: July 23, 2020
______________________
MARK LUDWIKOWSKI, Clark Hill PLC, Washington, DC,
for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by WILLIAM C.
SJOBERG, COURTNEY GAYLE TAYLOR; ROBERT KEVIN
WILLIAMS, Chicago, IL.
ANDREA C. CASSON, Office of the General Counsel,
United States International Trade Commission, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also repre-
sented by DOMINIC L. BIANCHI, BRIAN RUSSELL SOISET.
JOHN M. HERRMANN, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP,
Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Aluminum As-
sociation Trade Enforcement Working Group and its Indi-
vidual Members, JW Aluminum Company, Novelis
Corporation, Reynolds Consumer Products LLC. Also rep-
resented by KATHLEEN CANNON, GRACE WHANG KIM,
JOSHUA MOREY, PAUL C. ROSENTHAL.
______________________
Before O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
This case involves an antidumping and countervailing
duty investigation of aluminum foil. ProAmpac appeals
the United States Court of International Trade’s decision
affirming the United States International Trade Commis-
sion’s determination that ultra-thin aluminum foil was not
a separate domestic like product from other gauges of alu-
minum foil. Because substantial evidence supports the
Commission’s decision, we affirm.
Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 3
I
In 2017, domestic producers of aluminum foil filed an-
tidumping and countervailing duty petitions regarding im-
ports of aluminum foil from China. Valeo N. Am., Inc. v.
United States,
404 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1308–09
(Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). The petitions covered aluminum foil
having a thickness of 0.2 millimeters or less, in reels ex-
ceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width.
Id. at 1309. “The
petitions listed a range of uses for aluminum foil, including
its use in the manufacture [of] thermal insulation for the
construction industry, fin stock for air conditioners, electri-
cal coils for transformers, capacitors for radios and televi-
sions, and insulation for storage tanks.”
Id. (alteration in
original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
While “Commerce determines whether foreign imports
into the United States are either being dumped or subsi-
dized (or both),” the United States International Trade
Commission (Commission) “determine[s] whether these
dumped or subsidized imports are causing material injury
to a domestic industry in the United States.” Changzhou
Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
100 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1319 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see
19 U.S.C. §§ 1671, 1673. The
Commission “identif[ies] the corresponding universe of
items produced in the United States [by the affected indus-
try] that are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with the items in the scope of the
investigation.” Changzhou Trina Solar, 100 F. Supp. 3d
at 1319 (citing
19 U.S.C. §§ 1673(i), 1671(a)) (internal quo-
tation marks omitted) (additional citation and formatting
marks omitted).
Here, in the preliminary phase of its injury investiga-
tions, the Commission considered the correct definition of
the domestic like product, and whether there were clear di-
viding lines among the domestically produced products cor-
responding to the in-scope imported articles. Certain
Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 07/23/2020
4 VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES
parties argued that flat-rolled aluminum foil more than 45
microns (0.045 millimeters) thick was a separate domestic
like product. Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1309.
Others argued that ultra-thin aluminum foil less than
eight microns (0.008 millimeters) thick was a separate do-
mestic like product. Id.
The Commission conducted its six-factor domestic like
product analysis, considering: (1) physical characteristics
and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribu-
tion; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) common
manufacturing facilities, production processes, and produc-
tion employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. Id.
at 1312. See also, Cleo Inc. v. United States,
501 F.3d 1291,
1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Timken Co. v. United States,
913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996). “When weigh-
ing those factors, the Commission disregards minor differ-
ences and focuses on whether there are any clear dividing
lines between the products being examined.” Cleo,
501 F.3d at 1295. Here, the Commission found no clear di-
viding lines between the varieties and gauges of aluminum
foil identified by the parties, including ultra-thin alumi-
num foil, and therefore preliminarily found “a single do-
mestic like product consisting of all aluminum foil
coextensive with the scope of the investigations.” Valeo N.
Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1309 (quoting the Commis-
sion’s Preliminary Views).
During the final phase of its investigation, ProAmpac
disputed the Commission’s preliminary determination.
ProAmpac highlighted why it believed ultra-thin alumi-
num foil should be classified separately, including that few
domestic aluminum foil manufacturers produce ultra-thin
aluminum foil. See, e.g., J.A. 752–53.
The Commission issued its final determinations in
2018, affirming its preliminary decision that ultra-thin
aluminum foil was not a separate domestic like product.
Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 07/23/2020
VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES 5
Valeo N. Am., Inc., 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1311 (citing the Com-
mission’s Final Views).
ProAmpac appealed the Commission’s decision to the
United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT
sustained the Commission’s decision and entered judgment
in favor of the Commission. 1 Valeo N. Am., Inc.,
404 F. Supp. 3d at 1313–15, 1323. 2
ProAmpac timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
II
“Like the [CIT], this court reviews the Commission’s
determination for substantial evidence.” Cleo,
501 F.3d
at 1296; 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i), (b)(1)(B)(i). Under
the substantial evidence standard, we will affirm the Com-
mission’s determination if it is supported by the record as
a whole, even if some evidence detracts from the Commis-
sion’s conclusion. Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States,
744 F.2d 1556, 1562–64 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ProAmpac argues that substantial evidence does not
support the Commission’s domestic like product analysis
based on four of the six factors: physical characteristics and
uses; interchangeability; common manufacturing facilities,
production processes, and production employees; and price.
Appellant’s Br. 13–15. We conclude that ProAmpac’s argu-
ments do not show a lack of substantial evidence.
1 Valeo North America, Inc. and MAHLE Behr Troy,
Inc. also challenged the Commission’s determination re-
lated to a different type of aluminum product. These par-
ties have not appealed the CIT’s decision rejecting those
challenges.
2 The CIT also issued a confidential opinion, which
is not cited herein.
Case: 20-1136 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 07/23/2020
6 VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. UNITED STATES
The Commission considered evidence for all six factors
of the domestic like product analysis, acknowledged that
ultra-thin aluminum foil differed from thicker aluminum
foil in some respects, but ultimately concluded that such
differences were no more than would be expected in a
grouping of similar products. The Commission therefore
concluded that there was no clear dividing line between ul-
tra-thin aluminum foil and thicker gauge foils. ProAmpac
does not dispute the veracity of any particular fact the
Commission considered, nor does it identify any evidence
the Commission actually failed to consider. Instead, Pro-
Ampac asks this court to reweigh the evidence according to
its preferred interpretation. We decline to do so. Trent
Tube Div., Crucible Materials Corp. v. Avesta Sandvik Tube
AB,
975 F.2d 807, 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is not for this
court on appeal to reweigh the evidence or to reconsider
questions of fact anew.”).
III
In determining that ultra-thin aluminum foil should
not be defined as a separate domestic like product, the
Commission weighed evidence in support of, and against,
its decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commis-
sion’s decision. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED
