741 F.Supp. 227 (CIT. 1990), 87-12-01189, Trent Tube Div., Crucible Materials Corp. v. United States

Docket Nº:Court No. 87-12-01189.
Citation:741 F.Supp. 227
Party Name:TRENT TUBE DIVISION, CRUCIBLE MATERIALS CORPORATION;Armco-Specialty Steel Division;Damascus Tubular Products; Allegheny Ludlum Corporation;Carpenter Technology Corporation; and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Avesta Sandvik Tube AB and Avesta Stainless, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors.
Case Date:July 06, 1990
Court:Court of International Trade
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 227

741 F.Supp. 227 (CIT. 1990)

TRENT TUBE DIVISION, CRUCIBLE MATERIALS CORPORATION;Armco-Specialty Steel Division;Damascus Tubular Products; Allegheny Ludlum Corporation;Carpenter Technology Corporation; and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant,

and

Avesta Sandvik Tube AB and Avesta Stainless, Inc., Defendants-Intervenors.

Court No. 87-12-01189.

United States Court of International Trade.

July 6, 1990

Page 228

Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, Kathleen Weaver Cannon and Nicholas D. Giordano, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.

James A. Toupin, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Office of the Gen. Counsel, United States Intern. Trade Com'n, William T. Kane, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

Freeman, Wasserman & Schneider, Patrick C. Reed and Jack Gumpert Wasserman, New York City, for defendants-intervenors.

OPINION

CARMAN, Judge.

On June 20, 1990, the Court issued Trent Tube v. United States, Slip Opinion 90-58 and order, --- CIT ----, which remanded to the International Trade Commission (ITC) the determination of Chairman Liebeler in Stainless Steel Pipes and Tubes from Sweden, USITC Pub. No. 2033 (Final) (Nov.1987). On June 29, 1990, defendant-intervenors Avesta Sandvik Tube AB, et al. brought an order to show cause and a motion for an ex parte stay of the Court's remand order of June 20, 1990. Defendant-intervenors contended that the Court made a mistake in law when it erroneously relied on 19 U.S.C. § 1677 as amended in 1988 instead of 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (1982) in Slip Opinion 90-58. Defendant-intervenors also moved for rehearing, amendment or alteration of the order and certification for appeal of the order to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court granted defendant-intervenors' motion for a stay until oral argument and ordered a hearing on defendant-intervenors' application. On the return date, July 3, 1990, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the liquidation of the merchandise in question and filed papers opposing defendant-intervenors' motions and the granting of the stay. The Court heard from all parties at the hearing and determined as follows:

The Court directed the ITC to use 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(iii) (1982) and 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii) (1982) in carrying out its remand.

The Court found that it mistakenly used 19 U.S.C. § 1677 as amended in 1988 in its analysis when it should have employed 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (1982). The Court found

Page 229

that its analysis in slip opinion 90-58 was not affected by the citation to the 1988 section and that its analysis applied in the same manner as though the Court had cited the 1982 section as the basis for its determination. The Court found that although it committed error, the result was not a material error of law sufficient to grant a rehearing.

The Court announced that it would issue an errata sheet as to Slip Opinion 90-58 and would issue the instant Slip Opinion further outlining the rationale of this decision.

The Court denied a rehearing of Slip Opinion 90-58.

The Court denied certification of the order to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Court denied amendment of the remand order since it directed the ITC in open court to apply the 1982 statute, where applicable.

The Court vacated the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP