Nexteel Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 19-62

• Decision Date: 21 May 2019
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 19-62,Consol. Court No. 17-00091
• Citation: 389 F.Supp.3d 1343
• Parties: NEXTEEL CO., LTD., Plaintiff, Hyundai Steel Company, Husteel Co., Ltd., AJU Besteel Co., Ltd., Maverick Tube Corporation, and SeAH Steel Corporation, Consolidated Plaintiffs, and ILJIN Steel Corporation, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and TMK IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., Welded Tube USA Inc., and United States Steel Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

389 F.Supp.3d 1343

NEXTEEL CO., LTD., Plaintiff,Hyundai Steel Company, Husteel Co., Ltd., AJU Besteel Co., Ltd., Maverick Tube Corporation, and SeAH Steel Corporation, Consolidated Plaintiffs,andILJIN Steel Corporation, Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant,andTMK IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., Welded Tube USA Inc., and United States Steel Corporation, Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 19-62

Consol. Court No. 17-00091

United States Court of International Trade.

May 21, 2019

J. David Park, Henry D. Almond, Daniel R. Wilson, and Leslie C. Bailey, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. and Consolidated Plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company. Michael T. Shor and Kang W. Lee also appeared.

Jeffrey M. Winton and Amrietha Nellan, Law Office of Jeffrey M. Winton PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation.

Gregory J. Spak, Frank J. Schweitzer, and Kristina Zissis, White & Case, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff and Defendant-Intervenor Maverick Tube Corporation. Formerly on the brief were Robert E. DeFrancesco, III, Alan H. Price, and Cynthia C. Galvez, Wiley Rein, LLP, of Washington, D.C.

Roger B. Schagrin, Christopher T. Cloutier, and Elizabeth J. Drake, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor TMK IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., and Welded Tube USA Inc. Paul W. Jameson also appeared.

Thomas M. Beline and Sarah E. Shulman, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corporation.

Hardeep K. Josan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., argued for Defendant United States. With her on the brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Mykhaylo A. Gryzlov, Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, of Washington, D.C.

Joel D. Kaufman and Richard O. Cunningham, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor ILJIN Steel Corporation.

Donald B. Cameron, Eugene Degnan, Brady W. Mills, Julie C. Mendoza, Mary S. Hodgins, and Rudi W. Planert, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, of Washington, D.C., appeared for Consolidated Plaintiff Husteel Co., Ltd.

Jarrod M. Goldfeder and Robert G. Gosselink, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., appeared for Consolidated Plaintiff AJU Besteel Co., Ltd.

OPINION AND ORDER

Choe-Groves, Judge:

Before the court are two motions for reconsideration filed by Consolidated Plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation ("SeAH") and Defendant-Intervenors Maverick Tube Corporation, TMK IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., Welded Tube USA, and United States Steel Corporation (collectively, "Defendant-Intervenors"). See Mot. Pl. SeAH Steel Corporation Reconsideration Ct.'s Jan. 2, 2019 Order, Jan. 28, 2019, ECF No. 149 ("SeAH's Mot."); Rule 59 Mot. Reconsideration Ct.'s Remand Order, Feb. 1, 2019, ECF No. 150 ("Def.-Intervenors' Mot."). Both motions request that the court reconsider certain aspects of its decision in NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, 43 CIT ––––, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (2019) (" NEXTEEL I"). SeAH's motion addresses specifically the court's decision to sustain (1) the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce" or "Department") decision to set SeAH's ocean freight expenses of Canadian shipments equal to the weighted average for Canadian bulk shipments, and (2) its application of its differential pricing analysis in the first administrative review of oil country tubular goods from the Republic of Korea. See SeAH's Mot. 5–6, 9. Defendant-Intervenors request that the court reconsider and alter or amend its instruction that Commerce "reverse the finding of a particular market situation and recalculate the dumping margin for the mandatory respondents and non-examined companies." See Def.-Intervenors' Mot. 1–2 (quoting NEXTEEL I, 43 CIT at ––––, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1351 ). For the following reasons, the court denies both motions for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case. See NEXTEEL I. In NEXTEEL I, the court considered seven Rule 56.2 motions for judgment on the agency record and fourteen issues presented by the Parties. See id. at ––––, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1343–44. Relevant here, the court held that: (1) Commerce's determination to set SeAH's ocean freight expenses of Canadian shipments equal to the weighted average for Canadian bulk shipments was supported by substantial evidence, (2) Commerce's application of its differential pricing analysis was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law, and (3) Commerce's decision to apply a particular market situation adjustment to NEXTEEL's reported costs of production was unsupported by substantial evidence. See id. at ––––, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1364. The court sustained the first two issues and remanded the third issue for Commerce to "reverse the finding of a particular market situation and recalculate the dumping margin for the mandatory respondents and non-examined companies." Id. at ––––, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1351. No judgment has been issued in this case yet.

SeAH and Defendant-Intervenors each filed a motion for reconsideration. SeAH's motion contests the court's holdings regarding ocean freight costs and differential pricing analysis, see SeAH's Mot. 2, 6, which are two aspects of Commerce's final results that the court sustained. Defendant-Intervenors challenge the court's conclusion regarding the particular market situation issue, see Def.-Intervenor's Mot. 1–2, which the court remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant-Intervenors filed a response in opposition to SeAH's motion for reconsideration. See Resp. Def.-Intervenors Pl. SeAH's Rule 59 Mot. Reconsideration Ct.'s Remand Order, Feb. 19, 2019, ECF No. 163 ("Def.-Intervenors' Resp."). Plaintiff NEXTEEL Co., Ltd., Consolidated Plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company, and Plaintiff-Intervenor ILJIN Steel Corporation submitted responses in opposition to Defendant-Intervenors' motion for reconsideration. See Resp. Pls. NEXTEEL & Hyundai Steel Opp'n Def.-Intervenors' Mot. Reconsideration, Mar. 21, 2019, ECF No. 166; Resp. Pl.-Intervenor Def.-Intervenors, Maverick Tube Corporation, TMK IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., Welded Tube USA, & United States Steel Corporation's Rule 59 Mot. Reconsideration Ct.'s Remand Order, Mar. 21, 2019, ECF No. 164. Defendant United States ("Defendant" or "Government") filed a response opposing SeAH's motion and supporting Defendant-Intervenors' motion.¹ See Def.'s Resp. Def-Intervenors' & SeAH Steel Corporation's Mots. Reconsideration Ct.'s Remand Order, Mar. 21, 2019, ECF No. 165 ("Def.'s Resp.").

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012)² and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the court the authority to review actions contesting the final results of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order.

SeAH cites Rule 59(e) of the Rules of this Court as supporting authority for the court to entertain its motion. See SeAH's Mot. 1–2. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors submit that Rule 59(e) is the improper authority. See Def.'s Resp. 4 n.1; Def.-Intervenors' Resp. 2 n.1. Defendant-Intervenors direct the court instead to Rule 59(a), which Defendant-Intervenors cite for their own motion for reconsideration. See Def.-Intervenors' Resp. 2 n.1; Def.-Intervenors' Mot. 2. Rule 59(e) states that a "motion to alter or amend a judgment must be served no later than 30 days after the entry of the judgment." USCIT R. 59(e). In contrast, Rule 59(a) allows the court, "on motion," to "grant a new trial or rehearing on all or some of the issues -- and to any party" after a nonjury trial. USCIT R. 59(a)(1)(B). Rule 59 applies when a judgment has been entered in a case, which has not occurred yet in this action because the court remanded Commerce's determination. See NEXTEEL I, 43 CIT at ––––, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1364. The court finds that Rule 59 is not the proper avenue for bringing a motion for reconsideration under the current circumstances.

The court considers both SeAH's and Defendant-Intervenors' motions for reconsideration under Rule 54(b), which addresses actions that adjudicate multiple claims for relief. The rule reads, in relevant part:

[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

USCIT R. 54(b) (emphasis added). Because active issues still exist in this action and because no judgment has been issued yet, the court may entertain the motions for reconsideration under Rule 54(b).

The court has discretion when deciding a motion for reconsideration "as justice requires." Irwin Indus. Tool Co. v. United States, 41 CIT ––––, ––––, 269 F. Supp. 3d 1294, 1300 (2017), aff'd, 920 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Grounds for reconsideration include "an intervening change in the controlling law, the availability of new evidence, the need to correct a clear factual or legal error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice." Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 30 CIT 1587, 1588 (2006) ; see also Irwin Indus. Tool, 41 CIT at ––––, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 1301. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the losing party "to re-litigate the case or present arguments it previously raised." Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. United States, 32 CIT 1172, 1173, 580 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1374 (2008).

ANALYSIS

I. SeAH's Motion for Reconsideration

SeAH's motion for reconsideration contests the court's decision in NEXTEEL I with respect to (1) Commerce's decision to set SeAH's ocean freight expenses of Canadian shipments equal to the weighted...