United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ASOCIACIÓN DE EXPORTADORES E INDUSTRIALES DE ACEITUNAS DE MESA, AGRO SEVILLA ACEITUNAS S. COOP. AND., ANGEL CAMACHO ALIMENTACIÓN, S.L., Plaintiffs-Appellants

ACEITUNAS GUADALQUIVIR, S.L.U., Plaintiff

v.

UNITED STATES, COALITION FOR FAIR TRADE IN RIPE OLIVES, Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2023-1162 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in No. 1:18-cv-00195-GSK, Judge Gary S. Katzmann. ______________________

Decided: May 20, 2023 ______________________

MATTHEW P. MCCULLOUGH, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs- appellants. Also represented by JAMES BEATY, JAMES P. DURLING, DANIEL L. PORTER. Case: 23-1162 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2024

2 ASOCIACIÓN DE EXPORTADORES E INDUSTRIALES v. US

TARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, SONIA W. MURPHY; ELIO GONZALEZ, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

RAYMOND PARETZKY, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives. Also represented by DAVID JOHN LEVINE. ______________________

Before PROST, BRYSON, and STARK, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Appellants, three organizations of Spanish olive pro- ducers (collectively “Asemesa”), appeal from a decision of the Court of International Trade (“the Trade Court”) re- garding a countervailing duty imposed on olives imported from Spain. Asemesa argues that an order from the De- partment of Commerce imposing a countervailing duty on imported olives was contrary to law and that the Trade Court should have overturned the order. The United States and the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives ar- gue that Commerce’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Trade Court’s decision should be upheld. We affirm. I 1. Under the Tariff Act of 1930, Congress authorized the Department of Commerce to impose countervailing du- ties as needed to offset subsidies granted by foreign coun- tries on goods exported to the United States. See Sioux Honey Ass’n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 1041, 1046– 47 (Fed. Cir. 2012). If, after an investigation, Commerce finds that there was such a subsidy for particular imported Case: 23-1162 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 05/20/2024

ASOCIACIÓN DE EXPORTADORES E INDUSTRIALES v. US 3

products, the International Trade Commission is required to conduct a parallel investigation to determine whether a domestic industry is being injured, threatened with being injured, or kept from being established by the subsidized imports. If the two agencies both make affirmative find- ings, Commerce is required to impose “a countervailing duty . . . equal to the amount of the net countervailable subsidy.” 19 U.S.C. § 1671(a). A foreign government will sometimes subsidize the pro- duction of raw agricultural products, which are then pro- cessed into finished goods before they are imported into the United States. In such cases, it would be futile for Com- merce to impose a duty on the subsidized raw product, which is not the product that is imported, so Commerce is authorized, in certain instances, to impose a duty on the finished product. In particular, Commerce is allowed to impo