Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States

444 F.3d 1369 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States

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

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership