Trade

• Author: International Law Group

The Antidumping Act of 1916 (15 U.S.C. Section 72) allows private plaintiffs to bring actions in district court against parties that have violated, or conspired to violate, plaintiffs' business interests. It was enacted to counter unfair predatory practices by foreign competitors, and the remedy includes treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The 1916 Act does not expressly provide for injunctive relief.

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (WPSC) brought suit against three Japanese trading companies, Mitsui & Co., Inc., Marubeni America Corp., and Itochu International, Inc., under the 1916 Act to prevent them from importing hot-rolled steel into the U.S. WPSC is a domestic producer of that commodity. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants were selling such steel for less than the actual market value, and urged the court to apply its inherent powers to enjoin foreign competitors from illegally dumping products on the U.S. markets. In particular, plaintiff requested preliminary injunctive relief pending a final determination on the merits. The district court, however, concluded that the Act did not authorize such a remedy. Plaintiff then filed this interlocutory appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms. Whether a federal district court may grant injunctive relief under the 1916 Act is a matter of first impression in all jurisdictions. The language of the 1916 Act provides for treble damages, attorneys'...