Abandoning the Deference Rule in ITC Interpretations of the Antidumping Duty Law

In this article, I undertake a similar review of three recent Federal Circuit opinions involving an interpretation of the antidumping duty statute by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). In two instances,7 the CAFC upheld the ITC\u27s statutory interpretation of the antidumping duty law; in the third decision, the court rejected the ITC\u27s view. In this article, I argue that in the two cases where the Federal Circuit sustained the ITC\u27s interpretation of the antidumping duty law, the court conducted an independent review, notwithstanding its purported deference to the Commission\u27s expertise. In the third case, Bingham & Taylor Div., Virginia Industries, Inc. v. United States, the CAFC rejected the ITC\u27s interpretation of the antidumping duty law, concluding that the deference rule was not applicable. The result of these three cases is that the Federal Circuit has effectively abandoned the deference rule in its review of ITC interpretations of the antidumping duty law