Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 02-00756,02-00756
• Parties: MITTAL STEEL POINT LISAS LIMITED,Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES,Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

MITTAL STEEL POINT LISAS LIMITED, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 02-00756

United States Court of International Trade.

Dated: August 30, 2010

Thomas J. Aquilino, Judge

The court having entered a judgment of dismissal of this action pursuant to slip opinion 05-37, 29 CIT 329, 366 F.Supp.2d 1300 (2005); and the plaintiff having prosecuted an appeal therefrom; and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") having decided sub nom. Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, 450 F.3d 1336 (2006), to vacate that judgment of dismissal and remand this matter; and this court in slip opinion 06-151, 30 CIT 1519 (2006), having read the mandate of the CAFC to require remand to the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") to

"make a specific causation determination and in that connection... directly address whether [other LTFV imports and/or fairly traded imports] would have replaced [Trinidad and Tobago's] imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers",

quoting 450 F.3d at 1341, quoting Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed.Cir. 2006); and this court having entered an order of remand in haec verba; and the ITC in compliance with that order having determined that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago that are sold in the United States at less than fair value; and this court having affirmed that determination sub nom. Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 31 CIT 1041, 495 F.Supp.2d 1374 (2007), and entered an amended final judgment of affirmance; and the intervenor-defendants having appealed therefrom and induced the CAFC to opine, among other things, Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 877 (Fed.Cir. 2008), that it does

not regard the decision in Bratsk as requiring the Commission to presume that producers of non-subject goods would have replaced the subject goods if the subject goods had been removed from the market. Although we stated there, and reaffirm here, that the Commission has the responsibility to consider the causal relation between the subject imports and the injury to the domestic industry, that responsibility does not translate into a presumption of replacement without benefit to the domestic industry[;]

and the CAFC having determined to vacate this court's amended final judgment, notwithstanding the ITC's "scrupulous attentionto...