USX Corporation v. United States

682 F. Supp. 60 (1988)

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

USX Corporation v. United States

United States Court of International Trade
682 F. Supp. 60 (1988)

Facts

Cold-rolled carbon steel plates and sheets were imported into the United States from Argentina and sold at less than fair market value. The evidence also showed that there were no barriers to entry in the first place, such that there would be no reason for the Argentinean producers to engage in price discrimination through predatory pricing by setting the price below marginal cost. The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) (defendant) concluded that this meant there had been no violation of either the Antidumping Act of 1921 or the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (the acts). The ITC construed both of the acts as requiring injury to competition instead of mere injury to the domestic market that produced the product in question. USX Corporation (plaintiff) challenged this conclusion of the ITC in the United States Court of International Trade, arguing that the ITC’s conclusion was against the plain text of both acts. USX maintained that neither act required an intent on the part of the Argentinean producers to engage in price discrimination, contrary to the interpretation of the ITC. As originally written, the antidumping legislation contained an intent provision declaring that foreign producers of goods sold in the United States would be liable if they sold such goods in the United States below marginal cost with the intent of later raising the price to recoup the cost. But this intent requirement was later removed, and it was not in effect at the time of the events giving rise to this case. In other words, USX maintained that the antidumping legislation protected the American domestic market from harm resulting from any foreign competition to begin with, instead of merely protecting the industry from anticompetitive harm.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Restani, 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 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 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