Mittal Canada, Inc. v. United States, (2006)

Extract

---

Mittal Canada, Inc. v. United States, (2006)

PAGE: 1

MITTAL CANADA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORP., and KEYSTONE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant-

Intervenors.

OPINION [Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.]

Dated: September 22, 2006 Cameron & Hornbostel LLP (Dennis James, Jr. and Alexandra E.A. Minoff) for Plaintiff Mittal Canada, Inc.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Marisa Beth Goldstein, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration; Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Michael D. Panzera), for Defendant United States.

Kelley Drye Collier Shannon (Mary Tuck Staley, Paul Charles Rosenthal, and Robin H. Gilbert) for Defendant-Intervenors Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. and Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.

Before: Richard W. Goldberg,

Senior Judge Court No. 05-00689

PAGE: 2

GOLDBERG, Senior Judge: This case presents the Court with plaintiff Mittal Canada, Inc.'s ("Mittal") challenge to liquidation instructions that the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce") issued to United States Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") on December 15, 2005. The events leading to this dispute are described in the Court's opinion of February 10, 2006 that denied Mittal's request for preliminary injunctive relief enjoining Customs from liquidating the entries at issue. See Mittal Can., Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT ___, ___-__, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1348-50 (2006) ("Mittal-PI").

Since the denial of the preliminary injunction motion,

Customs has liquidated the entries at issue consistent with the liquidation instructions that Mittal's case calls into question. Mittal has moved for summary judgment on its underlying claim, requesting that the Court enter judgment in its favor and remand to Commerce with instructions to order Customs to reliquidate the entries at 3.86 percent and refund the difference between that amount and the 8.11 percent at which they were already liquidated. See Pl.'s Br. at 36. For the reasons stated in Mittal-PI, and because in this case liquidation does not operate to divest the United States Court of International Trade ("CIT") of jurisdiction, see Shinyei Corp. of Am. v. United States, 355 F.3d 1297, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Court has jurisdiction over this case un...

See the full content of this document

---