China Steel Corp. v. United States, No. 17-00152 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 6, 2019.
Download PDF
Slip Op. 20–5 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE __________________________________________ : CHINA STEEL CORP., : : Plaintiff, : : Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge v. : : Court No. 17-00152 UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, NUCOR CORP., : and SSAB ENTERPRISES LLC, : : Defendant-Intervenors. : __________________________________________: JUDGMENT Before the court is the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) remand redetermination (“Remand Results”), ECF No. 110, issued pursuant to the court’s order in China Steel Corp. v. United States, 43 CIT __, Slip Op. 19-106 (Aug. 13, 2019) (“China Steel”). No party contests the Remand Results. See Letter from China Steel Corp., Response to Court’s Request for Comments on Remand Results, ECF No. 112 (“China Steel Corporation does not intend to comment on the final remand determination.”). In China Steel, the court directed Commerce to recalculate its difference-in-merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment to normal value without using data that had been affected by Commerce’s use of adverse inferences: Commerce shall compute the DIFMER adjustment to normal value using information from China Steel’s final COP2 cost database, without the application of an adverse inference, and may use facts available in filling in missing or Court No. 17-00152 Page 2 replacing unverifiable necessary information. China Steel, 43 CIT at __, Slip. Op. 19-106 at 42. Under protest, Commerce calculated a rate of 6.23 percent for Plaintiff, in compliance with the court’s order: Pursuant to the Court’s order, we calculated a weighted-average margin for China Steel without the use of AFA in the DIFMER test. Based on this approach, we calculated a dumping margin of 6.73 percent for China Steel. Remand Results 10. Upon consideration of the Remand Results, the parties’ submissions, and the papers and proceedings had herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Remand Results are sustained. Richard K. Eaton Richard K. Eaton, Judge Dated: January 9, 2020 New York, New York
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
