Eurodif S.A. v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-124. Court No. 02-00219.

Decision Date03 August 2006
Docket NumberSlip Op. 06-124. Court No. 02-00219.
PartiesEURODIF S.A., Compagnie Generale Des Matieres NucMakes and Cogema, Inc., et.al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Before: POGUE, WALLACH, and EATON, Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

On May 18, 2006, we remanded the captioned case to the Department of Commerce ("Commerce") to exclude low enriched uranium enriched under so-called separative work unit contracts from the scope of the antidumping duty order. See Eurodif S.A. v. United States, 30 CIT ___, ___, 431 F.Supp.2d 1350 (2006). Commerce has since filed a remand determination; the parties have commented thereon. Upon review of that determination, and the parties' comments and rebuttals thereto, we find that Commerce has complied with our remand order. We understand the parties' technical comments on the language of the order and the certification that importers will have to complete upon the entry of low enriched uranium. These technical objections, however, would be better addressed in the context of a concrete dispute over a specific entry. Cf. Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v. DOI, 538 U.S. 803, 812, 123 S.Ct. 2026, 155 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2003); 19 C.F.R. § 351.225 (outlining the procedure for "scope" determinations). Therefore, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the Department of Commerce's remand determination is sustained.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Eurodif S.A. v. U.S., 2007-1005.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • September 21, 2007
    ...referred to as "USEC") appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of International Trade. Eurodif S.A. v. United States, 442 F.Supp.2d 1367 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2006). In 2005, we issued two interlocutory opinions in the same case, Eurodif S.A. v. United States, 411 F.3d 1355 (Fed.Cir.20......
  • Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 06-125. Court No. 04-00608.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • August 10, 2006

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