Court of international trade judges, binational panelists, and judicial review of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty policies

Journal of World Trade

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 1996, Pages 103-120

  Ryan, Michael P ^a  

^a BROOKINGS INSTITUTION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030505754     PISSN: 10116702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. John H. Jackson and William Davey, Legal Problems of International Economic Relations, West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1986, p. 1234.
2. Munford P. Hall, III, Values Greatest Hits (and Misses): A Complete History of Judicial Decisions Concerning Value under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 - Volume One, Law and Policy in International Business 25, 1993, pp. 51-70. Hall concludes that: (i) due to the clarity of the statute, customs valuation appeals of administrative decisions of the Treasury Department's Customs Agency to the CIT are relatively rare; (ii) the administrative decisions of the Customs Agency are broad, deep, and explicit, so importers rarely seek judicial review; and (iii) the CIT shows considerable deference to the Customs Agency in the few cases which are appealed.
3. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Overview and Compilation of U.S. Trade Statutes, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1989, 53, at p. 62.
4. I am using the language "administrative review" because the practitioners do so, however, it means something different from "administrative review" by the CIT, which is akin to judicial review.
5. Henry J. Abraham, Judicial Procedure, Little Brown, Boston, MA, 1980, p. 296.
6. Judicial Staff Directory, Congressional Staff Directory, Ltd., Mt. Vernon, Virginia, various years.
7. Kenneth Davis, Administrative Law, West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1965, p. 71.
8. Ibid., pp. 114-15.
9. Ibid., p. 138.
10. Michelin Tire Corp. v. the United States, No. C.R.D. 79-6, 1 International Trade Reporter 1681 (Cust. Ct. 1979).
11. See, for example, U.S. Coalition for Fair Canadian Lumber Imports v. the United States, No 83-3-00414, Slip Op. 83-31, 4 International Trade Reporter 1896 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1983); Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. the United States, No. 84-3-00387, Slip. Op. 86-58, 9 International Trade Reporter 2512 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986); Alberta Pork Producers' Marketing Board v. the United States, No. 85-09-01257, Slip Op. 87-94, 9 International Trade Reporter 1129 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987); Hercules, Inc. v. the United States, No. 83-07-00951, Slip Op. 87-114, 9 International Trade Reporter 1472 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987).
12. Charles M. Gastle, Policy Alternatives for Reform of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas: Dispute Settlement Mechanisms, Law and Policy in International Business 26, 1995, pp. 738-743; Michael H. Greenberg, Chapter 19 of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement: Implications for the Court of International Trade, Law and Policy in International Business 25, 1993, pp. 38-39; Judith H. Bello, Midterm Report on Binational Dispute Settlement Under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, International Lawyer 25, 1991, pp. 493-495.
13. Charles M. Gastle, Policy Alternatives for Reform of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas: Dispute Settlement Mechanisms, Law and Policy in International Business 26, 1995, pp. 738-743; Michael H. Greenberg, Chapter 19 of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement: Implications for the Court of International Trade, Law and Policy in International Business 25, 1993, pp. 38-39; Judith H. Bello, Midterm Report on Binational Dispute Settlement Under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, International Lawyer 25, 1991, pp. 493-495.
14. Charles M. Gastle, Policy Alternatives for Reform of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas: Dispute Settlement Mechanisms, Law and Policy in International Business 26, 1995, pp. 738-743; Michael H. Greenberg, Chapter 19 of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement: Implications for the Court of International Trade, Law and Policy in International Business 25, 1993, pp. 38-39; Judith H. Bello, Midterm Report on Binational Dispute Settlement Under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, International Lawyer 25, 1991, pp. 493-495.
15. David S. Huntington, Settling Disputes under the North American Free Trade Agreement, Harvard International Law Journal 34, 1993, p. 407.
16. Homer Moyer, Chapter 19 of the NAFTA: Binational Panels as the Trade Courts of Last Resort, International Lawyer 27, 1993, p. 713.
17. Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Article 1901.2(1).
18. Moyer, supra, footnote 14, p. 714.
19. Huntington, supra, footnote 13; John M. Mercury, The Chapter 19 Experience 1989-94: A Check on Administered Protection? manuscript, 1994.
20. Huntington, supra, footnote 13; John M. Mercury, The Chapter 19 Experience 1989-94: A Check on Administered Protection? manuscript, 1994.
21. NAFTA, Annex 1901.2
22. U.S. Department of Commerce documents.
23. The twelve years of data compares with the data studied by other students of U.S. import policy. A few cases were appealed further to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Because of the small number of cases, I did not take account of them quantitatively but did so qualitatively.
24. For example, litigants often petitioned the CIT to gain/deny access to documents. The Doc and ITC appeared to be careful handlers of proprietary information. For further example, litigants often filed petitions regarding filing and court dates. The CIT generally denied extensions regardless of whether the request came from a U.S. producer, a foreign importer, or the government.
25. Mercury, supra, footnote 17; S. Baker and M. Barnett, United States-Canada Binational Panel Determinations: 1991-1994, both in North American Free Trade Agreements, Oceana Publications, New York, 1994.
26. Mercury, supra, footnote 17; S. Baker and M. Barnett, United States-Canada Binational Panel Determinations: 1991-1994, both in North American Free Trade Agreements, Oceana Publications, New York, 1994.
27. Gary Horlick, The United States Antidumping System, in John H. Jackson and Edwin Vermulst, Antidumping Law and Practice: A Comparative Study, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1989, pp. 99-166.
28. Thomas Ondeck and Michael Lawrence, Court of International Trade Deference to International Trade Commission and International Trade Administration Antidumping Determinations: An Empirical Look, Law and Policy in International Business 25, 1993, pp. 107-124.
29. Phillips Brothers, Inc. v. the United States, No. 84-4-00528, Slip Op. 86-16, International Trade Reporter (Ct. Int'l Trade 1986); Saudi Iron and Steel Co. v. the United States, Cons. No. 86-03-00283, Slip Op. 87-130, 9 International Trade Reporter 1749 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987).
30. Al Tech Speciality Steel Corp. v. the United States, CIT case #83-1-00118; Industrial Quimica del Nalon, S.A. v. the United States, CIT case #88-07-00492.
31. Koyo Seiko Company Ltd. v. the United States, CIT case #87-10-01012, p. 683.
32. Kerr-McGee v. the United States, CIT case #89-03-00152.
33. Daido Corp. v. the United States, CIT case #92-07-00429, p. 683.
34. Chung Ling Company Ltd. v. the United States, CIT case #90-10-00528.
35. NTN Toyo Bearing Company v. the United States, CIT case #87-11-01066, p. 639.
36. Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd. v. the United States, CIT case #85-01-00140.
37. SKF, USA, Inc. v. the United States, CIT case #89-06-00330.
38. Peer Bearing Company v. the United States, CIT case #89-06-00337, p. 255.
39. Tianjin Arts and Crafts Import and Export Corp. v. the United States, CIT case #90-04-00170, p. 420.
40. Shikoku Chemicals Corp. v. the United States, CIT case #91-05-00389, p. 388.
41. Michelin Tire Corp. v. the United States, No. 75-9-02467, Slip Op. 81-94, 3 International Trade Reporter 1186 1749 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1981).
42. Michelin Tire Corp. v. the United States, No. 75-9-02647, Slip Op. 82-115, 4 International Trade Reporter 1450 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1982).
43. Agrexco v. the United States, No. 80-10-01578, Slip Op. 85-13, 6 International Trade Reporter 1817 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1985).
44. Fabricas El Carmen v. the United States, No. 85-04-00558, Slip Op. 87-113, 9 International Trade Reporter 1129 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1987).
45. Cabot Corp. v. the United States, No. 83-7-1044, Slip Op. 85102, 7 International Trade Reporter 1337 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1985).
46. Maine Potato Council v. the United States, CIT case #84-1-00141, p. 293.
47. USX Corporation v. the United States, CIT case #85-03-00325, pp. 84-85.
48. Republic Steel Corporation v. the United States, CIT case #82-03-00372; Bingham & Taylor v. the United States, CIT case #85-07-00909; American Grape Growers Alliance for Fair Trade v. the United States, CIT case #84-04-00575.
49. Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. the United States, CIT case #88-09-00726.
50. Brother Industries Inc. v. the United States, CIT case #91-11-00794, p. 794. For a description of the context of the controversy, see Michael P. Ryan, Jeffrey Clark and Philipe Cruz, Will the real American Company please Stand Up: Brother's Antidumping Counter-Attack on Smith Corona, in Law Cases in International Affairs, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 1995.
51. Brother Industries Inc. v. the United States, CIT case #91-11-00794, p. 794. For a description of the context of the controversy, see Michael P. Ryan, Jeffrey Clark and Philipe Cruz, Will the real American Company please Stand Up: Brother's Antidumping Counter-Attack on Smith Corona, in Law Cases in International Affairs, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 1995.
52. See Mercury, supra, footnote 17.
53. Binational Panel case #89-1904-01.
54. Binational Panel case #90-1904-01; Binational Panel case #92-1904-04.
55. Binational Panel case #89-1904-07.
56. Binational Panel case #89-1904-11.
57. See Moyer, supra, footnote 14, p. 721.
58. Binational Panel case #91-1904-04.
59. Mercury, supra, footnote 17, p. 69.
60. Binational Panel case #92-1904-01.
61. Mercury, supra, footnote 17, p. 76.
62. Ibid., p. 78.
63. Charles M. Gastle and Jean-G. Castel, Should the North American Free Trade Agreement Dispute Settlement Mechanism in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Cases be Reformed in the Light of Softwood Lumber III? Law and Policy in International Business 26, 1995, p. 824.
64. I.M. Destler, American Trade Politics, Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 41-102, 129-172.
65. Presley L. Warner, Canada-United States Free Trade: The Case for Replacing Antidumping with Antitrust, Law and Policy in International Business 23, 1992, pp. 791-890.
66. Rolf Mirus, Binational Panels in the Settlement of Trade Disputes: A Canadian Perspective of the Review of Dumping and Subsidy Determinations under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, manuscript, 1994.
67. Anne-Marie Burley and Walter Mattli, Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration, International Organization 47, 1993, pp. 41-76.
68. D. Metropoulos, Constitutional Dimensions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Cornell International Law Journal 27, 1994, pp. 1-29.