Czestochowa v. US

Citation890 F. Supp. 1053,19 CIT 758
Decision Date23 May 1995
Docket NumberSlip Op. 95-96. Court No. 93-09-00553-INJ.
PartiesStalexport and Huta CZESTOCHOWA; Rautaruukki Oy; Metalexportimport S.A.; Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, S.A.; U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, Inc. of Alabama, Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Lukens Steel Company and Sharon Steel Corporation; AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke, Plaintiffs, S.A. Forges de Clabecq, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, Inc. of Alabama, Inland Steel Industries, Inc., Lukens Steel Company and Sharon Steel Corporation; Usinor Sacilor, Sollac and GTS; Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, S.A.; AG Der Dillinger Huttenwerke; ILVA, S.P.A. and Ilva USA, Inc., Defendant-Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., New York City (Theodore Ness and Christian Hammerl), for plaintiffs, Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa.

Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufmann, Ltd., Washington, DC, for plaintiff Rautaruukki Oy.

Ackerson & Bishop Chartered, Washington, DC (Frederick P. Waite, Stewart A. Block and M. Roy Goldberg) prior representation, for plaintiff Rautaruukki Oy.

deKieffer Dibble & Horgan, Washington, DC (J. Kevin Horgan), for plaintiff Metalexportimport S.A.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Washington, DC, (Melvin S. Schwechter), for plaintiff-intervenor S.A. Forges de Clabecq.

Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, Washington, DC (Gunter von Conrad, Peter A. Martin and Mark T. Wasden), for plaintiff/defendant-intervenor Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, S.A.

Dewey Ballantine, Washington, DC (Alan Wm. Wolff and Michael H. Stein) and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Washington, DC (Robert E. Lighthizer, John J. Mangan, Stephen J. Narkin and M.J. Mace), for plaintiffs/defendant-intervenors, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corp., Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, Inc. of Ala., Sharon Steel Corp., Bethlehem Steel Corp., Inland Steel Industries, Inc. and Lukens Steel Co.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Washington, DC (Pierre F. de Ravel d'Esclapon and Mary Patricia Michel), for plaintiff/defendant-intervenor AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke.

Lyn M. Schlitt, Gen. Counsel, U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n, James A. Toupin, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Office of the General Counsel (James M. Lyons, Scott D. Anderson, Cynthia P. Johnson and Kathryn A. Gilchrist), Washington, DC, for defendant.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Washington, DC (Jeffrey P. Bialos, Angela J. Paolini Ellard, Martin S. Applebaum and A. Paul Victor), for defendant-intervenor Usinor Sacilor, Sollac and GTS.

Morrison & Foerster, Washington, DC (Donald B. Cameron, G. Brian Busey, Craig A. Lewis and M. Diana Helweg), for defendant-intervenor Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.

Rogers & Wells, Washington, DC (William Silverman and Ryan Trainer), for defendant-intervenor ILVA, S.p.A. and ILVA USA, Inc.

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Judge:

This action is before the Court on plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the administrative record pursuant to Rule 56.2 of the Rules of this Court. Foreign plaintiffs Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa ("Stalexport"), a Polish plate exporter and a Polish plate steel mill, respectively; Metalexportimport S.A. ("Metalexportimport"), a Romanian steel exporter; Rautaruukki Oy ("Rautaruukki"), a Finnish plate producer; and Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, S.A. ("Charleroi"), a Belgian plate producer, (collectively "Respondents"), challenge the United States International Trade Commission's (the "Commission" or the "ITC") affirmative final determination that an industry in the United States producing plate is materially injured by reason of less than fair value ("LTFV") cut-to-length steel plate products ("plate") from Belgium, Poland, Finland and Romania and by subsidized plate imports from Belgium. Respondents contend that the Commission erroneously cumulated Belgian, Polish, Finnish and Romanian plate imports in its material injury analysis. The views of the Commission1 are contained in Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom ("Final Determination")2, USITC Pub. No. 2664 at 211, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-332, 334, 336-342, 344 and 347-353 and Inv. Nos. 731-TA-573-579, 581-592, 594-597, 599-609 and 612-619 (Aug. 1993) (final determ.); 58 Fed.Reg. 43,905 (1993).3 Domestic producers of plate, U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corporation, Geneva Steel, Gulf States Steel, Inc. of Alabama, and Sharon Steel Corporation ("U.S. Steel Group"); and Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Inland Steel Industries, Inc. and Lukens Steel Company ("Bethlehem Group"), (collectively "U.S. Steel Group et al."), appear in support of the government.

Petitioners below, U.S. Steel Group et al. as plaintiffs (collectively "Petitioners"), oppose the Commission's negative material injury final determination for LTFV and subsidized plate products from France and Korea.4 Id. Petitioners allege that the Commission erroneously excluded French and Korean plate imports from cumulation in its material injury analysis. Defendant-intervenors Usinor Sacilor, Sollac and GTS ("Usinor") and Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., appear in support of the government.

The plate at issue was identified by Commerce as a separate "class or kind" of merchandise subject to investigation and described as follows:

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness.... Included in these investigations are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been "worked after rolling") — for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from these investigations is grade X-70 plate.

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, 58 Fed.Reg. 37,062, 37,064 (Dep't Comm. 1993) (final determ.); see also Final Determination at 213.

Cut-to-length plate is generally used in construction, industries producing machinery, industrial equipment, tools, rail freight cars, shipbuilding/marine equipment, and by service centers which reportedly sell the product to construction companies. Staff Report at I-34, I-35, table 9.

BACKGROUND

The final determinations herein appealed are the culmination of numerous concurrent ITC investigations based on petitions filed on June 30, 1992, alleging that an industry in the United States producing cut-to-length carbon steel plate is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and/or subsidized plate products from, inter alia, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Romania, France and Korea. These investigations encompassed twenty-one countries and covered the following four classes or kinds of imported flat-rolled carbon steel: hot-rolled carbon steel, cold-rolled carbon steel, corrosion-resistant carbon steel and cut-to-length steel plate.

On August 14, 1992, the Commission issued notice of its preliminary determination that there was a reasonable indication that the United States domestic steel plate industry was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of allegedly subsidized and dumped steel plate from, inter alia, Belgium, Poland, Finland, Romania, France and Korea. See Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products From Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, USITC Pub. No. 2549, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-319-354 and 731-TA-573-620 (Aug. 1992) (preliminary determ.); Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products, 57 Fed.Reg. 38,064 (1992).

Effective December 7, 1992 and February 4, 1993, the Commission instituted final material injury investigations under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the "Act"), as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) (1988), and under section 735(b) of the Act, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b) (1988), with respect to Belgium, Poland, Finland, Romania, France and Korea, which the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration ("Commerce"), had preliminarily determined were being subsidized by the governments of those countries and/or were being sold in the United States at LTFV. The Commission published notices of these investigations on December 18, 1992 and February 18, 1993. See Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Institution of Final Countervailing Duty Investigations, 57 Fed.Reg. 60,247 (USITC 1992); Certain Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Products From Argentina et al., 58 Fed.Reg. 8,974 (USITC 1993).

The Commissioners voted on the final subsidy and LTFV...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Makita Corp. v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 8 Julio 1997
    ...only the effects on PECTs were found to be significant by this group of commissioners. 39. See, e.g., Czestochowa v. United States, 19 CIT ___, ___, 890 F.Supp. 1053, 1076 (1995) ("the ITC is not statutorily required to use a particular methodology to review lost sales... or ... lost revenu......
  • Gerald Metals, Inc. v. US, Slip Op. 96-142. Court No. 95-06-00782.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 21 Agosto 1996
    ...whether its determinations are supported by substantial evidence and are in accordance with law." Stalexport and Huta Czestochowa v. United States, 19 CIT ___, 890 F.Supp. 1053, 1076 (1995) (citations omitted). Other factors were accounted for in the Commission's determination.52 The Commis......
  • Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 00-109.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 28 Agosto 2000
    ...not find that the ITC committed legal error by failing to collect or use specific price information.35 See Czestochowa v. United States, 19 CIT 758, 785, 890 F.Supp. 1053, 1075 (1995) ("[T]he statute does not require that the Commission assess the price-depressing effects of imports in any ......
  • Coalition for Brake Drum, Rotor Mfrs. v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-80.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • 13 Julio 1998
    ...Instead, the ITC found no information in the record indicating any potential for product-shifting. See Stalexport v. United States, 19 CIT 758, 784, 890 F.Supp. 1053, 1074 (1995) (threat determination may not be based on conjecture or Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the ITC failed to pr......
  • 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