Slip Op. 07-164
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
MITTAL STEEL GALATI S.A.,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS ISPAT SIDEX
S.A.,
Plaintiff,
v. BEFORE: Pogue, Judge
Court No. 05-00311
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and,
IPSCO STEEL., INC.
Defendant-Intervenor.
JUDGMENT
[Defendant’s remand determination affirmed]
Decided: November 7, 2007
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn (John M. Gurley, Nancy A.
Noonan) for Plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E.
Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant
Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice (David F. D’Allessandris, Trial
Attorney) for Defendant.
Schagrin Associates (Roger B. Schagrin) for Defendant-
Intervenor.
Pogue, Judge: In this action, on July 18, 2007, the court
affirmed-in-part and remanded-in-part the final results of the
Ct. No. 05-00311 Page 2
2002-3 administrative review, conducted by the United States
Commerce Department (“the Department” or “Commerce”), of the
antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate
from Romania. See Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United
States,___CIT___, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (CIT 2007).1 The
matter now returns to the court following remand.
On remand, as directed by the court’s remand order,
Commerce reconsidered two decisions in the final results of
the administrative review, specifically Commerce’s decision to
place a value on Mittal’s recycled scrap and Commerce’s
selection of Filipino data as a surrogate value for limestone.
Based on this reconsideration, Commerce, in its remand
determination, revised its calculations to provide an offset
for Mittal’s recycled scrap and selected a different surrogate
value for limestone. As a result of these changes, Commerce
then recalculated Mittal’s weighted-average margin for the
period of review, reducing it from 13.5% to 7.29%. No party
objects to Commerce’s determination on these remanded issues,
1
In its July 18 opinion, the court also rejected Plaintiff’s
facial challenge to Commerce’s “15 Day Policy” under which the
agency states its intent to issue liquidation instructions to
U.S. Customs within 15 days of the publication of the final
results of an administrative review.
Int’l Trade Comm’n, Dep’t of Commerce, Announcement Concerning
Issuance of Liquidation Instructions Reflecting Results of
Administrative Reviews (August 9, 2002), available at
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/liquidation-announcement.html.
Ct. No. 05-00311 Page 3
and it is clear to the court that the agency has complied with
the court’s remand order.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff, as in its original challenge to
Commerce’s 15-day policy, again asks that the court’s judgment
explicitly address certain liquidated entries that Plaintiff
has protested. At the same time, Plaintiff does not seek
affirmative injunctive or mandamus relief with regard to these
entries, arguing that such relief is unnecessary because
Plaintiff’s protests have prevented the liquidations at issue
from becoming final. See Pl.’s Comments on Remand Results at
5 (“With respect to the entries covered by Protests One, Two
and Three ‘final’ liquidation has not yet occurred as a result
of the importer’s efforts to file timely protests and to
commence a civil action for the denial of one such protest.”).
Plaintiff also makes no claim that its protest remedy is
inadequate.
In the absence of any claim that Plaintiff’s protest
remedy is inadequate, or for extraordinary relief, the court
need not reach this issue. There is nothing on the record
here which indicates a need for action other than entry of
judgment. Cf. Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United
States, ___CIT __, 427 F.Supp.2d 1249, 1255 (2006)(construing
Ct. No. 05-00311 Page 4
plaintiff’s request to enforce judgment as a request for
mandamus where the relief requested required direction of
Customs’ action).
Therefore, in accordance with the court’s prior decision
in this matter, and after considering all the papers and
proceedings herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that Commerce’s determination on remand in this
action is hereby affirmed, and that, in accordance with 19
U.S.C. § 1516a(e), liquidation of any entries heretofore
enjoined in this action be in accordance with the final
results of this litigation, including any and all appeals.
__/s/ Donald C. Pogue___
Donald C. Pogue, Judge
Dated: November 7, 2007
New York, New York