Inland Steel Bar Co. v. U.S., s. 94-1460

• Decision Date: 09 April 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. 94-1460,94-1491,s. 94-1460
• Citation: 86 F.3d 1174
• Parties: NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. INLAND STEEL BAR CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED ENGINEERING STEELS, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 1174

86 F.3d 1174

18 ITRD 1480

NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

INLAND STEEL BAR CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED ENGINEERING STEELS, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 94-1460, 94-1491.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 1996

Rehearing Denied; Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Declined

June 25, 1996.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and PLAGER, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The United States appeals the judgment of the Court of International Trade, Consol. Case No. 93-04-00234 (June 7, 1994), vacating the final determination of the United States Department of Commerce in Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom, 58 Fed.Reg. 6237 (Dep't Comm. Jan. 27, 1993) (final affirmative countervailing duty determination), as modified on remand in Remand Determination: Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom (Oct. 12, 1993) ("Remand Determination "). Commerce had determined that the arm's length sale of a subsidized government-owned company does not automatically terminate the countervailability of previously bestowed subsidies. Thus, it concluded that a portion of the subsidies provided to British Steel Corporation before 1986 passed through to United Engineering Steel Corporation, a joint venture comprised of productive units from British Steel and Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds, a privately owned company. 58 Fed.Reg. at 6240. Commerce also determined that a portion of the sales price paid by a private party for "all or part of a government-owned company can, at least in part, constitute repayment of prior subsidies." Remand Determination at 1-2. In vacating this decision to the extent that Commerce determined that "previously bestowed subsidies are passed through to a successor company sold in an arm's length transaction," Slip Op. at 1, the Court of International Trade held that the arm's-length sale of the company extinguished any remaining "competitive advantage" from the prior subsidies, Slip Op. at 14, because the price presumably included the market value of any continuing competitive benefit.

For the reasons set forth in our opinion in Saarstahl AG v. United States, Nos. 94-1457,-1475, we reverse and remand.

PLAGER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. In 1986, British Steel (BSC), a government-owned company that had received numerous subsidies (loan cancellations, equity infusions, and regional development grants) from the British Government between 1977 and 1984, sold its Special Steels Business to United Engineering Steels Ltd. (UES), a joint venture set...