British Steel PLC v. US, Slip Op. 95-17. Court No. 93-09-00550-CVD
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
| Writing for the Court | CARMAN |
| Citation | 879 F. Supp. 1254 |
| Parties | BRITISH STEEL PLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. USINAS SIDERURGICAS de MINAS GERAIS, S.A., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. INLAND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LTV STEEL CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LACLEDE STEEL CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. LUKENS STEEL CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 95-17. Court No. 93-09-00550-CVD,93-09-00558-CVD,93-09-00567-CVD through 93-09-00570-CVD. |
879 F. Supp. 1254
BRITISH STEEL PLC, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
USINAS SIDERURGICAS de MINAS GERAIS, S.A., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
INLAND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
LTV STEEL CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
LACLEDE STEEL CO., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
LUKENS STEEL CO., INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Slip Op. 95-17. Court Nos. 93-09-00550-CVD, 93-09-00558-CVD, 93-09-00567-CVD through 93-09-00570-CVD.
United States Court of International Trade.
February 9, 1995.
Regarding Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais, S.A., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00558-CVD: Willkie Farr & Gallagher (Christopher S. Stokes), (William H. Barringer, Nancy A. Fischer), on brief, (Christopher S. Stokes), on oral argument, for USIMINAS; Dickstein Shapiro & Morin (Arthur J. Lafave, III, Douglas N. Jacobson), for Companhia Siderurgica Nacional; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Robert E. Lighthizer, John J. Mangan), (Barry J. Gilman, D. Scott Nance), on brief, (Barry J. Gilman, D. Scott Nance), on oral argument, for Gulf States Steel, Inc., et al.; Dewey Ballantine (Michael H. Stein), (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, John R. Magnus, Guy C. Smith, Jeffrey D. Nuechterlein), on brief, (John A. Ragosta), on oral argument, for Gulf States Steel, Inc., et al.
Regarding Inland Steel Industries, Inc. et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00567-CVD: Dewey Ballantine (Michael H. Stein), (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, John R. Magnus, Jeffrey D. Nuechterlein), on brief, (John A. Ragosta, Martha J. Talley, John R. Magnus), on oral argument, for Inland Steel Indus., Inc., et al.; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (John J. Mangan, Robert E. Lighthizer), (D. Scott Nance), on brief, (Barry J. Gilman, D. Scott Nance), on oral argument, for Inland Steel Indus., Inc., et al.; Weil, Gotshal & Manges (Stuart M. Rosen), (M. Jean Anderson, Jeffrey P. Bialos, Diane M. McDevitt, Scott Maberry; and Stuart M. Rosen, Mark F. Friedman, Jonathan Bloom), on brief, (M. Jean Anderson, Stuart M. Rosen), on oral argument, for Usinor Sacilor, Sollac and GTS.
Regarding LTV Steel Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00568-CVD: Dewey Ballantine (Michael H. Stein), (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, Jeffrey D. Nuechterlein, Guy C. Smith, O. Julia Weller), on brief, (John A. Ragosta, Martha J. Talley, O. Julia Weller), on oral argument, for LTV Steel Co., et al.; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (John J. Mangan, Robert E. Lighthizer), (D. Scott Nance), on brief, (D. Scott Nance), on oral argument, for LTV Steel Co., et al.; Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt, P.C. (Gail T. Cumins), for Thyssen Stahl AG, et al.; LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. (Pierre F. de Ravel d'Esclapon, Mary Patricia Michel), for AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke; Hogan & Hartson (Lewis E. Leibowitz), for Fried, Krupp AG Hoesch-Krupp, et al.
Regarding Laclede Steel Co., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00569-CVD: Dewey Ballantine (Michael H. Stein), (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, John R. Magnus, Jeffrey D. Nuechterlein), on brief, (John A. Ragosta, Martha J. Talley), on oral argument, for Laclede Steel Co., et al. Armco Steel Co., et al. and Bethlehem Steel Corp., et al.; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (John J. Mangan, Robert E. Lighthizer), (D. Scott Nance), on brief, (D. Scott Nance), on oral argument,
Regarding Lukens Steel Co., et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00570-CVD: Dewey Ballantine (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, Jeffrey D. Nuechterlein, Guy C. Smith, Scott L. Forseth), on brief, (John A. Ragosta, Martha J. Talley, Scott L. Forseth), on oral argument, for Lukens Steel Co., et al.; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (John J. Mangan, Robert E. Lighthizer), (D. Scott Nance), on brief, (D. Scott Nance), on oral argument, for Lukens Steel Co., et al.; Shearman & Sterling (Jeffrey M. Winton), (Robert E. Herzstein, Joseph A. Jiampietro), on brief, for Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
Regarding Geneva Steel, et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00566-CVD: Dewey Ballantine (Michael H. Stein), (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, Michael R. Geroe), on brief, (John A. Ragosta, Martha J. Talley, Michael R. Geroe), on oral argument, for Geneva Steel, et al.; Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Gunter von Conrad), for Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, S.A.; LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae (Melvin S. Schwechter), for S.A. Forgess de Clabecq; O'Melveny & Myers (Peggy A. Clarke), for Sidmar N.V. and TradeARBED, Inc.
Regarding Empresa Nacional Siderurgica, S.A. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00625-CVD: George V. Egge, Jr., P.C. (George V. Egge, Jr.), for Empresa Nacional Siderurgica, S.A., et al.; Dewey Ballantine (Michael H. Stein), (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, Scott L. Forseth), on brief, (John A. Ragosta, Martha J. Talley, Scott L. Forseth), on oral argument, for Bethlehem Steel Corp., et al.
Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen. of the U.S.; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, (A. David Lafer), (Marc E. Montalbine, Jeffrey M. Telep), on brief; Stephen J. Powell, (Terrence J. McCartin, Robert E. Nielsen, David W. Richardson, Elizabeth C. Seastrum, Marguerite Trossevin), on brief, Office of Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, of counsel, for defendant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1261
STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................... 1263
SECTION ONE: PRIVATIZATION .............................................. 1263
I. CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS FROM MEXICO ............................. 1264
BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1264
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ..................................... 1266
A. The Foreign Producers .................................. 1266
B. The Domestic Producers ................................. 1267
C. The Department of Commerce ............................. 1268
DISCUSSION ..................................................... 1270
II. CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS FROM BRAZIL ............................. 1277
BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1277
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ..................................... 1278
A. The Foreign Producers .................................. 1278
B. The Domestic Producers ................................. 1278
C. The Department of Commerce ............................. 1279
DISCUSSION ..................................................... 1279
III. CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM ................. 1280
BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1280
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ..................................... 1280
A. The Foreign Producers .................................. 1280
B. The Domestic Producers ................................. 1281
C. The Department of Commerce ............................. 1281
DISCUSSION ..................................................... 1282
IV. CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS FROM GERMANY ............................ 1283
BACKGROUND ..................................................... 1283
...879 F. Supp. 1261CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES .................................... 1284 A. The Domestic Producers ................................. 1284 B. The Foreign Producers .................................. 1284 C. The Department of Commerce ............................. 1285 DISCUSSION .................................................... 1285 V. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON ISSUE PRECLUSION ......... 1288 CONCLUSION .................................................... 1288 SECTION TWO: ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY .................................... 1289 BACKGROUND .................................................... 1289 ISSUE PRESENTED ............................................... 1290 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES .................................... 1290 A. Plaintiffs ............................................. 1290 B. Defendant .............................................. 1292 C. Defendant-Intervenors .................................. 1292 DISCUSSION .................................................... 1293 CONCLUSION
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peer Bearing Co. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 01-125.
...burden the agency with an unending cycle of notices, comments, and responses. British Steel PLC v. United States, 19 CIT 176, 255, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1317 (1995). While Timken notes that "Commerce [did not] vet [sic.] the idea of using Indonesian statistics during the comment period," Timken......
-
Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-33.
...burden the agency with an unending cycle of notices, comments, and responses." British Steel plc v. United States, 19 CIT 176, 255, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1317 (1995), aff'd in part, rev'd on other grounds, 127 F.3d 1471 (Fed.Cir.1997). The BIA provisions were among the "administrative reforms" ......
-
Geneva Steel v. US, Slip Op. 96-7. Court No. 93-09-00566-CVD.
...agency's position with respect to the matters addressed in the provisions." British Steel plc v. United States, 19 CIT ___, ___ n. 48, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1294 n. 48 (1995) (citation omitted). Furthermore, because Commerce "has not yet published the provisions contained in the Proposed Regula......
-
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 15–14.
...AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 192 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.Cir.1999) (citing British Steel plc v. United States, 19 CIT 176, 270, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1328 (1995) ).Here, the facts supply the “causal nexus” that Delverde and AK Steel demand. It is undisputed that the Affiliated Producer (an aut......
-
Peer Bearing Co. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 01-125.
...burden the agency with an unending cycle of notices, comments, and responses. British Steel PLC v. United States, 19 CIT 176, 255, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1317 (1995). While Timken notes that "Commerce [did not] vet [sic.] the idea of using Indonesian statistics during the comment period," Timken......
-
Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores v. U.S., Slip Op. 98-33.
...burden the agency with an unending cycle of notices, comments, and responses." British Steel plc v. United States, 19 CIT 176, 255, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1317 (1995), aff'd in part, rev'd on other grounds, 127 F.3d 1471 (Fed.Cir.1997). The BIA provisions were among the "administrative reforms" ......
-
Geneva Steel v. US, Slip Op. 96-7. Court No. 93-09-00566-CVD.
...agency's position with respect to the matters addressed in the provisions." British Steel plc v. United States, 19 CIT ___, ___ n. 48, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1294 n. 48 (1995) (citation omitted). Furthermore, because Commerce "has not yet published the provisions contained in the Proposed Regula......
-
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 15–14.
...AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 192 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.Cir.1999) (citing British Steel plc v. United States, 19 CIT 176, 270, 879 F.Supp. 1254, 1328 (1995) ).Here, the facts supply the “causal nexus” that Delverde and AK Steel demand. It is undisputed that the Affiliated Producer (an aut......