Carpenter Technology Corp. v. United States, (2002)

Extract

---

Carpenter Technology Corp. v. United States, (2002)

PAGE: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

____________________________________

:

CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP., :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : :

THE UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant. : ____________________________________: Before: MUSGRAVE, JUDGE ____________________________________

: Consol. Court No. 00-09-00447

VIRAJ IMPOEXPO LTD., :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : :

THE UNITED STATES :

:

Defendant. : ____________________________________: [Antidumping duty review determination sustained in part, reversed and remanded in part.]

Decided: July 30, 2002

Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC, (Robin H. Gilbert), Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff Carpenter Technology Corporation.

Miller & Chevalier (Peter Koenig), Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff Viraj Impoexpo Ltd.

Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Lucius Lau, Kenneth J. Guido), for defendant The United States; (of counsel: William G. Isasi, Esq., U.S. Department of Commerce).

PAGE: 2

OPINION

Carpenter Technology Corporation ("Carpenter") and Viraj Impoexpo Ltd. ("Viraj") brought separate lawsuits to contest certain aspects of Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Initiation of Antidumping New Shipper Review, 65 Fed. Reg. 48965 (Aug. 10, 2000) ("Final Results").1 The Final Results utilize Viraj's reported data except for U.S. sales for which lacking corresponding third-country sales data, for which the office of International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce" or "the Department") utilized "facts otherwise available" to determine the margin of dumping. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. Carpenter contests Commerce's reversal of its preliminary determination that Viraj's questionnaire responses warranted an adverse inference and also its model matching methodology. Viraj contests Commerce's resort to facts available and also its choice thereof. Commerce contends the Final Results are correct.

Background

Viraj's stainles...

See the full content of this document

---