KEJRIWAL IRON AND STEEL WORKS, LTD. v. US

• Decision Date: 11 October 1990
• Docket Number: Court No. 89-04-00172.
• Citation: 747 F. Supp. 756
• Parties: KEJRIWAL IRON AND STEEL WORKS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Alhambra Foundry Co., et al., Defendants-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

747 F. Supp. 756

KEJRIWAL IRON AND STEEL WORKS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant and Alhambra Foundry Co., et al., Defendants-Intervenors.

Court No. 89-04-00172.

United States Court of International Trade.

October 11, 1990.

Kaplan Russin & Vecchi, Dennis James, Jr. and Kathleen F. Patterson, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Platte B. Moring, III, Office of Chief

Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Andrea Fekkes Dynes, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

Collier Shannon & Scott, Paul C. Rosenthal and Carol A. Mitchell, Washington, D.C., for defendants-intervenors.

DiCARLO, Judge:

Defendant-intervenors challenge the amended results of the remand ordered in Kejriwal Iron & Steel Works, Ltd. v. United States, 14 CIT ___, 729 F.Supp. 1365 (1990) (Kejriwal I). In Kejriwal I, the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration was directed to: 1) correct computer input errors, 2) correct its failure to deduct several Indian taxes from the calculation of constructed value, 3) either explain how it arrived at the tonnage figures used to calculate the rebate provided under India's International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) or recalculate the rebate and explain why its new methodology is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence on the record, and 4) correct the double counting of interest expenses in the calculation of foreign market value. Upon review of the amended remand results, the Court finds them to be in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence.

BACKGROUND

Kejriwal challenged an antidumping order against imports of iron construction castings it manufactured in India. See Certain Iron Construction Castings From India: Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 54 Fed.Reg. 11,989 (March 23, 1989) (finding a 2.93 percent margin for Kejriwal). Initially, Commerce found Kejriwal had a de minimis margin and excluded it from the antidumping duty order. As a result of the remands ordered in Alhambra Foundry Co. v. United States, 12 CIT ___, 685 F.Supp. 1252 (1988) and Alhambra Foundry Co. v. United States, 12 CIT ___, 701 F.Supp. 221 (1988), Kejriwal was included in the amended antidumping duty order.

DISCUSSION

In the amended remand results, Commerce concluded that Kejriwal has a de minimis margin. Plaintiff has raised no objection to this conclusion. Defendant-intervenors raise several objections to the recalculation of the IPRS rebates. The IPRS is an Indian governmental program to compensate Indian producers for their higher than world-market cost for domestic pig-iron. See Alhambra, 12 CIT at ___, 685 F.Supp. at 1255. No objections have been raised regarding the other issues Commerce was directed to reconsider on remand. Accordingly, those aspects of the remand results are affirmed.

In Kejriwal I, plaintiff argued Commerce improperly understated its IPRS payment in its calculation of constructed value, thereby inflating the dumping margin. Kejriwal I, 14 CIT at ___, 729 F.Supp. at 1369. Commerce countered that the adjustment to constructed value for rebates was limited to rebates earned during the period under investigation. Id. Commerce's explanation appeared to create a conflict between the tonnage data it used to calculate IPRS rebates and its tonnage data for total raw materials purchased. It appeared that IPRS rebates were paid for an amount of pig-iron greater than Kejriwal claimed to have purchased. Consequently, the Court ordered Commerce to either explain why its calculation was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence or to recalculate the IPRS payments and explain why its new methodology is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence. Id. at ___, 729 F.Supp. at 1369-70.

The difference between the amount of pig-iron purchased and the amount earning rebates is explained by the fact that data for pig-iron purchased was based on total casting production while the rebate data was based on exported castings. Production and export statistics differ because castings may be exported from inventory or not exported. The tonnage figure Commerce used came from a verified IPRS payment summary document. See Conf.R. Kejriwal 44A, 46A (Exhibit 11). According to Commerce, the summary document is "the most appropriate basis for calculating the IPRS rebate rate, since it relates actual IPRS rebates to the pig-iron purchases for which they were claimed." Amended Remand Results, at 15. This reasoning and the evidence in the record is sufficient to account for the difference between the figures used to calculate the IPRS payments and production costs.

Nevertheless, Commerce determined it had incorrectly calculated the IPRS rebate. The rebate is only earned on pig-iron purchased from domestic suppliers and then exported. Commerce, however, calculated the rebate for all the pig-iron purchased to produce castings for export. This methodology failed to account for pig-iron wasted in the production process and, therefore, not exported. To correct this error, Commerce adjusted the IPRS rebate to equal the rebate earned on exported pig-iron. According to Commerce, this figure is properly treated as an offset to material costs.

Defendant-intervenors object that the adjustment results in an unverified derived figure for export tonnage that is unsupported by any evidence in the record. The production input tonnage data was taken from a verified IPRS Summary Sheet. See Kejriwal Verification Exhibit 11 (Conf.R. 46A)...