British Steel PLC v. US, Slip Op. 95-17. Court No. 93-09-00550-CVD

CourtU.S. Court of International Trade
Writing for the CourtCARMAN
Citation879 F. Supp. 1254
PartiesBRITISH 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 Date09 February 1995
Docket NumberSlip 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.


879 F. Supp. 1255
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1256
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1257
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1258
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
879 F. Supp. 1259
Regarding British Steel plc v. United States, Consol. Court No. 93-09-00550-CVD: Steptoe & Johnson (Richard O. Cunningham, Peter Lichtenbaum), (Sheldon E. Hochberg, William L. Martin, II), on brief, (Richard O. Cunningham, Sheldon E. Hochberg), on oral argument, for British Steel plc; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Mark R. Joelson), (Marcela B. Stras, Roger C. Wilson), on brief, for the Government of the United Kingdom, et al.; Dewey Ballantine (Michael H. Stein), (Alan Wm. Wolff, Martha J. Talley, John A. Ragosta, John R. Magnus, Jeffrey D. Nuechterlein, Guy C. Smith, Philip Karter), on brief, (John A. Ragosta, Martha J. Talley, Philip Karter), on oral argument, for Geneva Steel, et al.; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (John J. Mangan, Robert E. Lighthizer), (D. Scott Nance, Barry J. Gilman), on brief, (D. Scott Nance, Barry J. Gilman), on oral argument, for Geneva Steel, et al

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,

879 F. Supp. 1260
for Laclede Steel Co., et al., Armco Steel Co., et al., and Bethlehem Steel Corp., et al.; Morrison & Foerster (Donald B. Cameron), (Julie C. Mendoza, Craig A. Lewis, M. Diana Helweg, Sue-Lynn Koo, Carl R. Sanchez), on brief, (Donald B. Cameron, Julie C. Mendoza), on oral argument, for Dongbu Steel Co., et al

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. 1261
CONTENTIONS 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
84 practice notes
  • Peer Bearing Co. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 01-125.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 25, 2001
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • March 25, 1998
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • January 3, 1996
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • February 6, 2015
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • Peer Bearing Co. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 01-125.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • October 25, 2001
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • March 25, 1998
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • January 3, 1996
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • February 6, 2015
    ...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......
  • 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