Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
846 F.3d 1364 (2017)
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) was responsible for enforcing anti-dumping laws, which determined whether foreign competitors of American companies were selling product in the United States at discriminatorily low prices. To determine whether a product violated anti-dumping laws, Commerce typically compared either the average or specific transactional price of imported merchandise to the average or specific transactional price of comparable merchandise. If Commerce detected a suspicious pattern of pricing that could not be explained using this methodology, Commerce compared average prices to specific transactional prices, instead of comparing average-to-average or transactional-to-transactional prices. Commerce limited its use of this second method by confining its application to sales that constituted targeted dumping, rather than to all sales by the supposedly offending importer. This was known as the Limiting Regulation. Mid Continent Nail Corp. (Mid Continent) (plaintiff) brought suit against Precision Fasteners, LLC, (Precision) (defendant) claiming violation of anti-dumping laws. Under the Limiting Regulation, Precision’s sales would not have violated anti-dumping laws. However, if the average-to-transactional methodology were applied to all of Precision’s sales, and not just to those sales that Commerce could identify as targeted dumping, Precision would have been in violation of the laws and a duty would have been imposed on Precision’s imports. Shortly prior to these events, Commerce withdrew the Limiting Regulation. Commerce preceded this withdrawal by publishing a request for comment, in which Commerce sought guidance regarding an appropriate test for determining targeted dumping. Commerce also published a proposed methodology for making this determination. Commerce then applied the average-to-transactional methodology to Precision and found a violation of anti-dumping laws. Precision appealed, arguing that the Limiting Regulation was never properly repealed and was thus still in force.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, J.)
What to do next…
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 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
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.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.