416 F.Supp.3d 1402 (CIT. 2019), 16-00162, Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. United States

Docket Nº:No. 16-00162, Slip Op. No. 19-168
Citation:416 F.Supp.3d 1402
Opinion Judge:Choe-Groves, Judge:
Party Name:UTTAM GALVA STEELS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and ArcelorMittal USA LLC, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., California Steel Industries, Inc., United States Steel Corporation, and Nucor Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors.
Attorney:John M. Gurley and Diana Dimitriuc-Quaia, Arent Fox LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Uttam Galva Steels Limited. 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...
Case Date:December 18, 2019
Court:United States District Court, Federal Circuit

Page 1402

416 F.Supp.3d 1402 (CIT. 2019)

UTTAM GALVA STEELS LIMITED, Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant,

and

ArcelorMittal USA LLC, AK Steel Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., California Steel Industries, Inc., United States Steel Corporation, and Nucor Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors.

No. 16-00162

Slip Op. No. 19-168

United States Court of International Trade

December 18, 2019

John M. Gurley and Diana Dimitriuc-Quaia, Arent Fox LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Uttam Galva Steels Limited.

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 brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Brandon Jerrold Custard, 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 Defendant-Intervenors Steel Dynamics, Inc. and California Steel Industries, Inc.

R. Alan Luberda and Melissa M. Brewer, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor ArcelorMittal USA LLC.

Stephen A. Jones and Daniel L. Schneiderman, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor AK Steel Corporation.

Timothy C. Brightbill and Maureen E. Thorson, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Nucor Corporation.

Thomas M. Beline and Sarah E. Shulman, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corporation.

OPINION AND ORDER

Choe-Groves, Judge:

Page 1403

This action arises out of the final determination in an antidumping duty investigation by the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce") regarding certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, 81 Fed.Reg. 35,329 (Dep’t Commerce June 2, 2016) (final determination of sales at less-than-fair value), as amended, 81 Fed.Reg. 48,390 (Dep’t Commerce July 25, 2016) (amended final affirmative determination and issuance of antidumping duty orders). Before the court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, May 29, 2019, ECF No. 95 ("Second Remand Results "). For the reasons discussed below, the court sustains Commerce’s Second Remand Results .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case. See Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States, 42 C.I.T. __, 311 F.Supp.3d 1345 (2018) ("Uttam Galva I ") and Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States, 43 C.I.T. __, 374 F.Supp.3d 1360 (2019) ("Uttam Galva II "). The sole issue in Uttam Galva I was whether Commerce reasonably calculated Uttam Galva’s duty drawback adjustment by allocating import duties rebated and exempted by reason of export of finished product over total cost of production. Uttam Galva I at 1348. The court concluded that Commerce’s methodology contravened the plain language of the underlying statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(B), and remanded to Commerce with instructions to recalculate Uttam Galva’s duty drawback adjustment. Uttam Galva I at 1357.

On remand, Commerce recalculated Uttam Galva’s duty drawback adjustment by allocating import duties rebated and exempted by reason of export of finished product over total exports, as reported by Uttam Galva. Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Aug. 16, 2018, ECF No. 18 ("First Remand Results ") at 1-2. Commerce made an additional circumstance of sale adjustment because

Page 1404

Commerce perceived an imbalance in its comparison between Uttam Galva’s export price and normal value. See

id. at 2-4. The court concluded that: (1) Commerces circumstance of sale adjustment double-counted Uttam Galvas import duties within normal value because Commerces original calculation already incorporated the import duties incurred...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP