Alhambra Foundry v. United States, 83-4-00500.

Decision Date05 May 1986
Docket NumberNo. 83-4-00500.,83-4-00500.
Citation635 F. Supp. 1475,10 CIT 330
PartiesALHAMBRA FOUNDRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and South Bay Foundry, et al., Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Simonelli & Hall (Michael H. Hall, Washington, D.C., on the motion), for plaintiffs.

Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, (A. David Lafer, Washington, D.C., on the motion), for defendant.

Brownstein, Zeidman & Schomer (David Amerine and Irwin Altschuler, Washington, D.C., on the motion), for intervenors.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CARMAN, Judge.

After reviewing a final affirmative countervailing duty determination brought before this Court by plaintiff's motion under Rule 56.1 of the Court, the Court affirmed the determination of the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration (ITA) regarding twelve of the challenges asserted by plaintiffs and remanded the case regarding the remaining three challenges. Defendant now moves for vacatur of that part of this Court's decision of December 30, 1985, remanding the case to the ITA. Plaintiffs oppose defendant's motion for vacatur of the remand, while intervenors have filed a memorandum supporting the motion.

In Slip Op. 85-130, the Court remanded the case for further clarification and determination regarding the following issues:

(1) the calculation of FONEI (Fund for Industrial Development) and FOGAIN (Fund for the Guarantee of Medium and Small Industry) benefits;
(2) the calculation of the benefit of the state tax exemption received; and
(3) the exchange rates used by the ITA in calculating the net benefit used.

Subsequent to the remand order, the ITA completed its first annual administrative review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a) (1982). As the results of this review will serve as the basis for the actual duty assessment on any unliquidated entries covered by the final determination, as well as for the cash deposits of estimated duties for future entries, defendant contends that the results of the remand would have no practical effect since they will never be used for duty assessment nor for deposits of estimated duties. In short, argues defendant, "there are no entries, present or prospective, which can be affected by any change that may be found upon remand." Defendant's Brief 3.

In Silver Reed America, Inc. v. United States, 9 C.I.T. ___, Slip Op. 85-51 (May 1, 1985), the court was faced with an analogous situation in which it had remanded an antidumping determination for reconsideration of a level of trade adjustment. But as subsequently completed administrative reviews govern the rates of final duty assessment and future estimated duty deposits, the Court concluded that recalculation of the dumping margins in the final less than fair value determination would have no effect. The court stated:

Following an antidumping order, actual duty assessment is based upon an administrative review, either an "early determination" under 19 U.S.C. § 1673e(c) or periodic review determination pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). The results of such administrative reviews serve as the basis for actual duty assessments with regard to the entries covered by the particular determination and as the basis for cash deposits of estimated duties for future entries.

Id. at 6. Further, administrative review determinations are subject to judicial review under 19 U.S.C. § 1516(a)(2). The court went on to hold, then, that "under the statutory framework here, judicial review must be based upon the administrative record of the particular proceeding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Borlem SA-Empreedimentos Industriais v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 29, 1989
    ...dismissed, 4 Fed.Cir. (T) 80, 788 F.2d 1539 (1986), vacated in part, (CIT order of Nov. 20, 1986); Alhambra Foundry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 10 CIT 330, 635 F.Supp. 1475 (1986), such corrections may not be so easily obtained. The majority of the ITC has pointed out that the standard it m......
  • United Engineering & Forging v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • November 18, 1991
    ...F.Supp. 1066 (1990), Fabricas El Carmen, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 12 CIT 129, 680 F.Supp. 1577 (1988), Alhambra Foundry v. United States, 10 CIT 330, 635 F.Supp. 1475 (1986), and Silver Reed America, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 221, 1985 WL 25761 (1985), and that the exception to thi......
  • PPG Industries, Inc. v. US, 85-02-00264.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • April 20, 1987
    ...are based on the net subsidy determined in the final countervailing duty order and determination. See Alhambra Foundry v. United States, ___ CIT ___, 635 F.Supp. 1475 (1986). In the instant case, any remand directing the ITA to alter the amount of deposit rates determined in the final affir......
  • Nuove Industrie Elettriche di Legnano v. US, Court No. 88-01-00030.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • June 1, 1990
    ...CIT ___, 680 F.Supp. 1577 (1988); PPG Industries, Inc. v. United States, 11 CIT 303, 660 F.Supp. 965 (1987); Alhambra Foundry v. United States, 10 CIT 330, 635 F.Supp. 1475 (1986); and Silver Reed America, Inc. v. United States, 9 CIT 221, 1985 WL 25761 (1985). These cases indicate that sub......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT