Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
865 F.2d 240 (1989)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
The Commerce Department (Commerce) found that Algoma Steel Corporation, Ltd. (Algoma) (plaintiff), a Canadian producer of steel goods, sold oil country tubular goods (OCTG) at less than fair value (LTFV) in the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5), a United States antidumping law. Under this law, Commerce determined whether LTFV sales had been made and established a dumping margin based on a weighted average price adjusted for sales at more than fair value (MTFV). Commerce did not establish what percentage of a subject firm’s sales were MTFV. The International Trade Commission (ITC) (defendant), a separate agency, then determined whether United States producers were injured or threatened with injury without using the same data considered by Commerce. In this case, in the ITC proceeding, Algoma produced a computer printout showing that its LTFV sales were less than 50 percent of its OCTG sales during the six-month period at issue. The ITC declined to consider this evidence. Algoma appealed to the United States Court of International Trade, arguing that the ITC’s refusal amounted to legal error. The court affirmed the ITC. On appeal, Algoma argued that the ITC’s ruling was arbitrary and capricious, conflicting with United States statute law and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nichols, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.