Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FRANK J. LUCCHINO v. FOREIGN COUNTRIES BRAZIL (04/17/84)

decided: April 17, 1984.

FRANK J. LUCCHINO, CONTROLLER OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PETITIONER
v.
FOREIGN COUNTRIES OF BRAZIL, SOUTH KOREA, SPAIN, MEXICO AND ARGENTINA, RESPONDENTS



Original Jurisdiction in case of Frank J. Lucchino, Controller of Allegheny County v. Foreign Countries of Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina.

COUNSEL

Doris A. Smith, Solicitor, with her, Louis S. Gold, Assistant Solicitor, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondents, Countries of Brazil, Spain, Argentina and South Korea.

Office of the Embassy and Office of the Consulate General, by Ambassador Arturo Osorno R.T., with him, Ricardo Abarca, for respondent, Country of Mexico.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Memorandum Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 407]

Frank J. Lucchino, controller of Allegheny County, has filed a petition for determination of discrimination against the foreign countries of Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina pursuant to the Pennsylvania Trade Practices Act, 71 P.S. § 773.101.*fn1 Respondent Mexico has filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that it is immune from this Court's jurisdiction under the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976*fn2 and under the judicially-determined Act of State Doctrine. There has been no response, to

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 408]

    date, from the countries of Brazil, South Korea, Spain and Argentina. We deny Mexico's motion to dismiss. After reviewing the evidence presented by Lucchino in support of his petition, we hold that the respondent foreign countries have discriminated against the steel and aluminum industries of Pennsylvania.

A hearing was held on the petition for determination of discrimination on February 1, 1984. Various exhibits were admitted into evidence and the record remained open for the submission of additional evidence. The evidence was admitted on February 15, 1984, following which the record was closed. Based upon this evidence, the Court has made the following findings of fact:

1. That Frank J. Lucchino is a taxpayer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and is Controller of Allegheny County.

2. That the Respondent foreign countries, Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina were served with a copy of the petition and notice of time of hearing pursuant to the Pennsylvania Trade Practices Act, 71 P.S. § 773.106(a), by registered mail, return receipt requested.

3. That notwithstanding proper service of the petition upon the respondent foreign countries, Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina, the respondent foreign countries Brazil, South Korea, Spain and Argentina did not appear or present any testimony during the hearing seeking a determination of discrimination.

4. That only respondent foreign country, Mexico, attended the hearing, but only to the extent of submitting a document seeking dismissal of the petition as it pertained to the respondent, Mexico.

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 4095]

. That Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina are sovereign countries in which steel, iron and aluminum products are produced.

6. That the steel, iron and aluminum products manufactured in Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina are the same or substantially similar to the steel, iron and aluminum products manufactured within the Commonwealth.

7. That the steel, iron and aluminum products manufactured in Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina are exported to the United States of America and, in particular, to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

8. That the steel, iron and aluminum products manufactured in Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Mexico and Argentina exported for use within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are the same or substantially similar to steel, iron and aluminum products used in public works projects in their finished or unfinished condition within the Commonwealth.

9. That the International Trade Administration has determined that Brazil has conferred certain benefits to manufacturers of steel, iron and aluminum products within Brazil.

10. That the International Trade Administration has determined that the benefits conferred by Brazil to manufacturers of steel, iron and aluminum products within Brazil, pertain to the following steel, iron and aluminum products: welded carbon steel pipes and tubes; carbon steel wire rod; tool steel; certain stainless steel products including hot-rolled stainless steel bar; stainless steel wire rod and cold-formed stainless steel bar; pre-stressed concrete

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 410]

    steel wire strand; hot-rolled carbon steel plate in coil; hot-rolled carbon steel sheet and cold-rolled carbon steel sheet.

11. That the International Trade Administration has determined that the benefits conferred by Brazil to manufacturers of steel, iron and aluminum products within Brazil pertaining to the products identified in Finding of Fact No. 10, include the following: Industrial Products Tax (IPI) export credit premium; preferential working capital financing for exports; income tax exemptions for export earnings; long-term loans; IPI rebates for capital investment; Industrial Development Council (CDI) program; accelerated depreciation for capital goods manufactured in Brazil; government provision of equity capital; government assistance in repaying foreign loans; short-term financing (Resolution 674); funding for expansion through IPI tax rebates; Resolution 68 (FINEX); and raw materials (iron ore) supplied at government controlled rates.

12. That the International Trade Administration has determined that the benefits conferred by Brazil, enumerated in Finding of Fact No. 11, pertaining to the products mentioned in Finding of Fact No. 10, constitute subsidization by Brazil of said products and the manufacturing thereof.

13. That the International Trade Commission has determined that as a result of the various programs conferring subsidies by Brazil to manufacturers of steel, iron and aluminum products within Brazil, identified in Finding of Fact No. 11, the United States domestic steel industry has been materially injured by reason of the subsidized imports from Brazil.

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 41114]

. That manufacturers within the Commonwealth producing the same or substantially similar products as those products identified in Finding of Fact No. 10, include Carpenter Technology Corp.; Electrally Corp.; Jessop Steel Co.; Latrobe Steel Co.; National Forge Co.; Teledyne Vasco; Universal Cyclops Specialty Steel Division; Cyclops Corp.; Bethlehem Steel Corp.; Lukens, Inc.; U.S. Steel Corp.; and Jones and Laughlin Steel.

15. The International Trade Administration and International Trade Commission determinations regarding Brazil are contained in petitioner Brazil's Exhibits 1 through 9.

16. That eleven, or 27.5% of all steel mills which produce hot-rolled carbon steel sheet and coiled plate within the United States ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.