991 F.Supp. 665 (CIT. 1997), 93-04-00230, Usinor Sacilor v. United States

Docket Nº:Court No. 93-04-00230.
Citation:991 F.Supp. 665
Case Date:December 18, 1997
Court:Court of International Trade

Page 665

991 F.Supp. 665 (CIT. 1997)

USINOR SACILOR, Unimétal, and Ascométal, Plaintiffs,


The UNITED STATES, Defendant,


Inland Steel Bar Company, Defendant-Intervenor.

Slip Op. 97-177.

Court No. 93-04-00230.

United States Court of International Trade.

Dec. 18, 1997

Weil, Gotshal & Manges (M. Jean Anderson and Gregory Husisian ) for Usinor Sacilor, Unimétal, and Ascométal, plaintiffs.

Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Reginald T. Blades, Jr.); Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce (Terrence J. McCartin ), of counsel, for defendant.

Wiley, Rein & Fielding (Charles Owen Verrill, Jr., Alan H. Price, and Peter S. Jordan ) for Inland Steel Bar Company, defendant-intervenor.



This matter is before the Court after the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration ("Commerce"), issued its final results of redetermination on July 28, 1997 (" Third Redetermination "). 1 Commerce issued the Third Redetermination pursuant to this Court's most recent remand decision, Usinor Sacilor v. United States, --- CIT ----, 966 F.Supp. 1242 (1997)

Page 666

(" Usinor III ").

In Usinor III, this Court held that Commerce, in its Second Redetermination, dated March 25, 1997, failed to comply with the Court's instructions in Usinor Sacilor v. United States, 21 CIT 37, 955 F.Supp. 1481 (1997) (" Usinor II "). In Usinor II, this Court held that under 19 U.S.C. § 1671 (1988), Commerce must consider all economic evidence available in the administrative record to determine the portion of a firm's total production that will be used to calculate a countervailing duty rate; Commerce's decision to rely solely on evidence that the French government intended to aid French domestic production, and on evidence that the French government had sufficient control over Usinor Sacilor to effectuate its intent ( i.e., the "intent-plus-control" test), when other evidence on the economic effects of the subsidies was available on the record, was not based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute in light of congressional intent. 21 CIT at ----, 955 F.Supp. at 1488. Thus, the Court in Usinor II remanded and directed that Commerce examine all relevant evidence, including the likely effects of the subsidies on non-French production. Id.

In Usinor III, the Court concluded that Commerce failed to comply with this directive in the Second Redetermination. 21 CIT at ----, 966 F.Supp. at 1244. Specifically, the Court in Usinor III held the evidence on record could not support Commerce's factual finding that the use of subsidies was not effected by Usinor Sacilor's transfer of funds to its non-French production facilities. Id. Thus, in Usinor III, the Court remanded to Commerce a third time, instructing it to consider "all direct economic evidence on the likely effects of subsidies and to adjust the countervailing duty in light of this evidence." Id. at 1244-45.

Today, the Court reviews Commerce's Third Redetermination. On this occasion, Commerce's redetermination is sustained. The Court also takes this opportunity to address assertions made by both defendant, Commerce, and defendant-intervenor, Inland Steel Bar Company ("Inland"), that the Court unlawfully...

To continue reading