415 F.Supp.3d 1395 (CIT. 2019), 17-00018, Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrist A.S. v. United States

Docket Nº:No. 17-00018, Slip Op. No. 19-166 United States Court of International Trade
Citation:415 F.Supp.3d 1395
Opinion Judge:Choe-Groves, Judge:
Party Name:TOSCELIK PROFIL VE SAC ENDUSTRISI A.S.., Plaintiff, and Zekelman Industries, Consolidated Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Zekelman Industries, Defendant-Intervenor.
Attorney:David L. Simon, Law Office of David L. Simon, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Tosç elik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A. Ş . Elizabeth A. Speck, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With her...
Case Date:December 18, 2019
Court:United States District Court, Federal Circuit

Page 1395

415 F.Supp.3d 1395 (CIT. 2019)

TOSCELIK PROFIL VE SAC ENDUSTRISI A.S.., Plaintiff, and Zekelman Industries, Consolidated Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant,

and

Zekelman Industries, Defendant-Intervenor.

No. 17-00018

Slip Op. No. 19-166

United States Court of International Trade

December 18, 2019

Page 1396

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1397

David L. Simon, Law Office of David L. Simon, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Tosç elik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A. Ş .

Elizabeth A. Speck, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With her on the briefs were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Of counsel was David W. Richardson, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.

Roger B. Schagrin and Paul W. Jameson, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff and Defendant-Intervenor Zekelman Industries.

OPINION AND ORDER

Choe-Groves, Judge:

This action arises out of the final results of the administrative review of welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey. See Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey, 81 Fed.Reg. 92,785 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 20, 2016) (final results of administrative review; 2014-2015), as amended, 82 Fed.Reg. 11,002 (Dep’t Commerce Feb. 17, 2017) (amended final results of antidumping duty administrative review; 2014-2015). Before the court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Second Court Remand, May 30, 2019, ECF No. 67-1 ("Second Remand Results "). For the reasons discussed below, the Second Remand Results are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

The court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action. See Tosç elik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş . v. United States, 42 C.I.T. __, 321 F.Supp.3d 1270 (2018) ("Tosç elik I "); Tosç elik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş . v. United States, 42 C.I.T. __, 375 F.Supp.3d 1312 (2019) ("Tosç elik II "). In Tosç elik I , the court remanded to Commerce for reconsideration of Tosç elik’s duty drawback adjustment and the circumstance of sale adjustment as to warehousing expenses. Tosç elik I at 1281.

After the first remand, Commerce recalculated Tosç elik’s duty drawback adjustment by allocating import duties exempted by reason of export of finished product over total exports, as reported by Tosç elik. Tosç elik II at 1314. Because Commerce perceived an imbalance in its comparison between Tosç elik’s export price and normal value, Commerce made an additional circumstance of sale adjustment. Id. Commerce

Page 1398

also granted a circumstance of sale adjustment to Tosç elik for warehousing expenses. Id. at 1316-17. The court concluded that Commerce’s modified calculation of Tosç elik’s duty drawback adjustment was not in accordance with the law, but sustained Commerce’s circumstance of sale adjustment for warehousing expenses. Id. at 1317. The court remanded to Commerce for further proceedings. Id.

In the Second Remand Results, Commerce "amended its duty drawback calculation methodology ... to ensure that [Commerce’s] dumping calculation is duty neutral, meaning that the same amount of duties are accounted for on both sides of the dumping equation," by: "(1) making a per-unit adjustment to U.S. price in the full amount of the per-unit duty drawback granted on export, as claimed by Tos[ç ]elik; and (2) making a circumstance of sale ... adjustment to [constructed value] and home market price to add the same amount of the per-unit amount of import duties added to U.S. price." Second Remand Results at 1-2.

Tosç elik filed comments on the Second Remand Results, Comments Pl. Tosç elik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş . Final Results Redetermination Pursuant to Second Remand, Jul. 31, 2019, ECF No. 82 ("Pl.s Comments"). Zekelman filed comments in opposition. Def.-Intervenors Comments in Oppn to the Second Remand Redetermination, Jul. 31, 2019, ECF No. 81. Defendant responded. Def.s Resp. to Comments on...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP