Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
444 F.3d 1369 (2006)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determined that imported Russian silicon metal had been sold for less than fair value (LTFV) in the United States, in violation of United States antidumping law. Under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b), the International Trade Commission (commission) (defendant) was tasked with determining whether LTFV sales had materially injured or threatened to injure domestic producers. The statute directed the commission to consider the volume of goods imported by the firms subject to investigation, the effect of these imports on the product’s price, and the effect of the imports on domestic producers. Caselaw established that the commission must show that the LTFV sales caused the injury to domestic producers. In a case involving Ukrainian magnesium, the Federal Circuit held that the commission must explain why excluding the dumped goods would have helped domestic producers if goods imported from nations not under investigation (nonsubject imports) could also take market share from domestic producers. Like magnesium, silicon metal was a fungible commodity. Silicon metal was supplied by 10 nations other than the United States, and nonsubject imports held from 73 to 83 percent of the United States market. Some nonsubject silicon metal was priced below that sold by domestic producers. The commission found that Russian imports had increased, prices had fallen, and domestic producers had lost market share. The commission concluded that the Russian imports caused the price decline, noting that after the Russian imports had been excluded, prices had increased on some contracts. The commission did not explain the significance of the price increases. A Russian producer, Bratsk Aluminum Smelter (Bratsk) (plaintiff), argued that the commission must show that nonsubject imports would not have displaced domestic producers’ sales had the dumped goods been excluded. The commission did not make such a showing. The commission held that domestic producers were materially injured by the Russian imports.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.