United States Steel Corp. v. United States , 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1755 ( 2009 )

Slip Op. 09-137
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
______________________________
:
UNITED STATES STEEL :
CORPORATION, :
:
PlaintiffS, :
:
and :
: Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge
WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY :
: Consol. Court No. 09-00086
Pl.-Int. :
:
v. :
:
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant. :
______________________________:
OPINION
[Department of Commerce’s remand results sustained.]
Dated: December 11, 2009
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Robert E. Lighthizer,
Jeffrey D. Gerrish, and Nathaniel B. Bolin), for plaintiff United
States Steel Corporation.
Wiley Rein LLP (Alan H. Price and Robert DeFrancesco), for
plaintiff Maverick Tube Corporation.
King & Spalding, LLP (Gilbert B. Kaplan, Daniel Schneiderman, and
Christopher T. Cloutier), for plaintiff-intervenor Wheatland Tube
Company.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, United
States Department of Justice Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division (John J. Todor), for defendant United States.
Eaton, Judge: The complaint in this action challenged the
final affirmative countervailing duty determination issued by the
Consol. Ct. No. 09-00086 Page 2
Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) in
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China, 73 Fed. Reg. 70,961 (Dep’t of Commerce Nov.
24, 2008); Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from
the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed. Reg. 4,136 (Dep’t of
Commerce Jan. 23, 2009) (amended final determination) (“Final
Determination”). The Final Determination applied adverse facts
available with respect to the issue of government ownership of
the producers which supplied hot-rolled steel to respondents
Huludao Seven Star Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd., Huludao Steel Pipe
Industrial Co., Ltd., and Huludao Bohai Oil Pipe Industrial Co.,
Ltd. (the “Huludao Companies”). The Department found that the
suppliers were government-owned, with the single exception being
a supplier for the Huludao Companies. Accordingly, the Department
determined that the supplier was not government owned and thus
did not include the hot-rolled steel supplied to the Huludao
Companies in the subsidy calculation.
Plaintiffs’ complaint included one claim:
In determining the benefit to the Huludao
Companies from the provision of hot-rolled
steel for less than adequate remuneration and
the resultant subsidy rate, the Department
improperly concluded that a supplier of hot-
rolled steel to the Huludao Companies was not
government-owned.
Compl. ¶ 13. Consequently, plaintiffs claimed, the Final
Determination was not supported by substantial evidence and
otherwise not in accordance with law. Compl. ¶ 13.
Consol. Ct. No. 09-00086 Page 3
Subsequently, the defendant sought and the court granted
voluntary remand. United States Steel Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Ct. No. 09-00086 (September 9, 2009) (order granting
motion for remand). On October 20, 2009, the Department issued
its Final Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (Dep’t of Commerce
Oct. 20, 2009), United States Steel Corp. v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 09-00086 (“Remand Redetermination”).
On remand, the Department determined that
The Department made an erroneous finding of
fact in the Final Determination and that
record evidence does not support the
conclusion that one of Huludao’s [hot-rolled
steel] suppliers was a private company and
not a state-owned enterprise. A correction
is therefore warranted. On remand, the
Department now includes the previously
excluded [hot-rolled steel] supplier to
Huludao in our subsidy calculations.
Remand Determination at 4.
The Department noted that it invited parties to the
proceeding to comment on the draft Redetermination Pursuant to
Remand and that it received no comments. Remand Determination at
3. Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor submitted comments on the
Remand Determination on December 2, 2009. Pls.’ Comments on the
Final Redetermination Pursuant to Remand Issued by the Department
of Commerce (“Pls.’ Comm.”). Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor
state that they are “satisfied with the Department’s Remand
Redetermination and believe it fully addresses the single issue
raised by Plaintiffs in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
Consol. Ct. No. 09-00086 Page 4
respectfully request that the Court affirm the Remand
Redetermination in all respects.” Pls.’ Comm. 2.
Having examined the Remand Determination and plaintiffs’ and
plaintiff-intervenor’s comments, the court finds that Commerce’s
Remand Determination should be sustained (1) because it is
reasonable and in accordance with law and (2) because the parties
are “satisfied” with the results. Judgment will be entered
accordingly.
/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton
Dated: December 11, 2009
New York, New York