Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States

Slip Op. 10 - 97
SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr., Senior Judge
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MITTAL STEEL POINT LISAS LIMITED, :
Plaintiff, :
v. :
Court No. 02-00756
UNITED STATES, :
Defendant. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
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”,
Court No. 02-00756 Page 2
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 attention
Court No. 02-00756 Page 3
to the terms of this court’s remand instructions”, 542 F.3d at
879, and remand the matter yet again “for further consideration
of the material injury issue in light of [it]s opinion” and also
“for further proceedings with respect to the threat of material
injury”, id.; and this court pursuant to the mandate of the CAFC
having in slip opinion 10-32, 34 CIT ___ (March 29, 2010),
remanded to the ITC to attempt to comply with the CAFC’s
reasoning, as set forth in its foregoing, more recent opinion,
and to report to this court any results of this mandated remand;
and the defendant in compliance with the court’s latest order of
remand having on June 25, 2010 filed the Views of the Commission
now to the effect that
an industry in the United States is materially injured
by reason of imports of wire rod from Trinidad and
Tobago that are sold in the United States at less than
fair value [;]
and all parties having been afforded an opportunity to comment
on said Views; and no party having interposed an objection
thereto; Now therefore, after due deliberation, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the view of certain
members of the ITC filed herein on June 25, 2010 that an
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of
imports of wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago that are sold in
Court No. 02-00756 Page 4
the United States at less than fair value be, it hereby is,
affirmed; and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this action again
be, and it hereby is, finally dismissed.
Dated: New York, New York
August 30, 2010
/s/ Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr.
Senior Judge