749 F.Supp. 1147 (CIT. 1990), 86-06-00753, IPSCO, Inc. v. United States

Docket Nº:Court No. 86-06-00753.
Citation:749 F.Supp. 1147
Party Name:IPSCO, INC. and Ipsco Steel, Inc., Plaintiffs, and The Algoma Steel Corporation, Ltd., and Sonco Steel Tube Div., Ferrum, Inc., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Lone Star Steel Company, Defendant-Intervenor.
Case Date:October 30, 1990
Court:Court of International Trade

Page 1147

749 F.Supp. 1147 (CIT. 1990)

IPSCO, INC. and Ipsco Steel, Inc., Plaintiffs,

and

The Algoma Steel Corporation, Ltd.,

and

Sonco Steel Tube Div., Ferrum, Inc., Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v.

The UNITED STATES, Defendant,

and

Lone Star Steel Company, Defendant-Intervenor.

Court No. 86-06-00753.

United States Court of International Trade.

Oct. 30, 1990

Page 1148

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, Rufus E. Jarman, Jr., Josephine N. Belli, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Jeanne E. Davidson, Craig L. Jackson, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, for defendant.

Dewey, Ballentine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, Michael H. Stein, Washington, D.C., and Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Warren E. Connelly, Valerie A. Slater, Washington, D.C., for defendant-intervenor.

OPINION

RESTANI, Judge:

This challenge to an original antidumping determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce or ITA) regarding Canadian oil country tubular goods (OCTG) is before the court following a third remand.

All of the issues discussed here concern proper calculation of constructed value for foreign market value purposes. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e) (1988). In Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 12 CIT 384, 687 F.Supp. 633 (1988) ( Ipsco I ) the court addressed several issues including a cost allocation between limited services and prime OCTG and amortization of extraordinary costs of production. Remand on the first issue was ordered. In Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, 13 CIT 402, 714 F.Supp. 1211 (1989) ( Ipsco II ) the court remanded the first issue once more but with more specific instructions. Following the second remand the antidumping margin was reduced by 1.15 percent, but Ipsco objected that ITA erred in its recalculation because it did not utilize a full six months of data for a particular grade of OCTG. This issue was quite distinct from the allocation methodology discussed in Ipsco I and Ipsco II. Nonetheless, in Ipsco, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 90-37, at 7, 1990 WL 51968 (April 16, 1990) ( Ipsco III ) the court once more remanded for ITA to determine:

whether it used correct tonnage data and dollar to tonnage ratios and, if not, whether the error occurred in the original determination, whether it was germaine to the original determination, and whether Ipsco could have discovered the problem after the original determination through the exercise of the amount of diligence appropriate under the facts of the case.

In the third remand determination ITA states that due to the passage of time and departure of employees it cannot determine exactly why three...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP