Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. U.S., Slip. Op. 02-110.

• Citation: 239 F.Supp.2d 1381
• Decision Date: 10 September 2002
• Docket Number: Slip. Op. 02-110.,No. 99-06-00369.,99-06-00369.
• Parties: ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Yieh United Steel Corp., Defendant-Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

239 F.Supp.2d 1381

ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Yieh United Steel Corp., Defendant-Intervenor.

Slip. Op. 02-110.

No. 99-06-00369.

United States Court of International Trade.

September 10, 2002.

Collier Shannon Scott PLLC, (David A. Hartquist, Jeffrey S. Beckington, Adam H. Gordon), Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbus, OH, David M. Cohen, Director, Lucius B. Lau, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Scott D. McBride, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, Arlington, VA, for Defendant.

White & Case, (William J. Clinton, Adams Lee), Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WALLACH, District Judge.

On March 31, 1999, the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce") published its Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan, 64 Fed.Reg. 15,493 (March 31, 1999) ("Final Determination"). The Final Determination covered the investigation of Taiwanese producer/exporter Yieh United Steel Corp. ("YUSCO") and Taiwanese middleman Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. ("Ta Chen"). In the Final Determination, Commerce found that Ta Chen had engaged in middleman dumping during the period of investigation and stated that it would utilize two cash deposit dumping rates for YUSCO: one rate for sales of subject merchandise produced by YUSCO and sold to the United States through middleman Ta Chen, and another rate for sales of subject merchandise produced by YUSCO and sold to the United States through channels other than Ta Chen. See Final Determination at 15,494.

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco, Inc., Butler Armco Independent Union, J & L Speciality Steel, Inc., North American Stainless United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent Organization (collectively "Plaintiffs") challenged Commerce's decision to assign multiple cash deposit dumping rates depending on whether the subject merchandise was exported to the United States through the middleman or through another distribution channel. On December 28, 2000, this court issued Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 215 F.Supp.2d 1322 (C.I.T.2000) ("Allegheny I"), in which the court remanded the action with respect to Commerce's issuance of two cash deposit rates. Following Allegheny I, Commerce filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand on March 21, 2001 ("First Remand Determination"), in which it modified its middleman dumping methodology to apply a single weighted-average cash deposit rate for sales of subject merchandise produced by YUSCO.

By court order dated August 30, 2001 and in light of this court's intervening decision in Tung Mung Dev. Co. v. United States, slip op. 01-83, 2001 WL 844484 (July 3, 2001) ("Tung Mung I"), this court remanded to Commerce the First Remand Determination. See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 99-06-00369 (Order dated 8-30-01, not published) ("Court Order"). In the Court Order, this court directed Commerce to (1) reconsider its determination to apply a single weighted-average cash deposit rate for United States sales of subject merchandise made by YUSCO; and (2) provide a reasonable explanation and substantial evidence for its change in practice or apply a combination rate, consistent with its prior practice, if it did not provide a reasonable explanation and substantial evidence for such change in practice. See id.

On November 28, 2001, Commerce responded to the Court Order by filing its second Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 99-06-00369 (July 3, 2001) ("Second Remand Determination"). On remand, Commerce determined that it is appropriate to apply a middleman dumping computation using a combination rate rather than a single weighted-average cash deposit rate to YUSCO's subject merchandise. Using this methodology, Commerce assigned a combination rate comprised of a cash deposit rate of 10.20 percent ad valorem to YUSCO's sales to the United States through middleman Ta Chen and 8.02 percent ad valorem to YUSCO's sales to the United States through channels other than Ta Chen. See Second Remand Determination at 29.

Plaintiffs challenge Commerce's Second Remand Determination on the following bases: (1) Commerce's selection of combination rates on the premise that application of combination rates will "avoid penalizing the producer for dumping for which it is not responsible" is flawed because antidumping duties are a tax...