Slip Op. 07-120
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
MITTAL STEEL POINT LISAS LTD.,
Plaintiff,
BEFORE: Pogue, Judge
V.
Court No. 05-006B1
UNlTED STATES
Defendant,
GERDAU AMERlSTEEL CORP. AND
KEYSTONE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES,
INC.
Defendant-
Intervenors.
MEMORANDUM OPlNlON
In Carbon and Certain AlloV Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad &
Tobago, 70 Fed. Red. 69,sl2 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 16, 2005)(notice
of final results of antidumping dut~ administrative reviewD and its
corresponding “Issues and Decisions Memorandum” dated November 16,
2005, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) calculated a
constructed export price (“CEP”) for Mittal Steel Point Lisas
Ltd.'s (“Mittal's”) U.S. sales by, inter alia, deducting credit
expenses for the time period between shipment from the port in
Trinidad & Tobago and the date payment was receiVed. _Although this
was consistent with Commerce’s general practice of using the date
of shipment as the date of sale for purposes of calculating credit
expenses, it was inconsistent with Commerce’s actions in other
Ct. No. 05-681 Page 2
sections of the administrative review, where Commerce had treated
Mittal's later date of invoice, rather than the date of shipment,
as the date of sale. Accordingly, the court granted the
government’s motion, for partial voluntary' remand in order to
address this issue, instructing Commerce to “determine the date on
which credit expenses should begin to run, keeping in mind its
previous determination in this review that the material terms of
sale are not set until Mittal issues an invoice,” and permitting
Commerce to “reassess its decision regarding inventory carrying
costs in light of its reconsideration of credit expenses.” Mittal
Slip Op. 07-60
Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 31 CIT _m,
at 22, 24 (Apr. 24, 200'7).
On remand, Commerce found that because it had used the date of
invoice as the date of sale in this review, it was appropriate to
calculate credit expenses from the date of invoice, rather than the
date of shipment. Commerce further recalculated Mittal's carrying
costs to reflect the date of sale occurring on the date of invoice.
Mittal submitted comments indicating its agreement with Commerce's
determination of credit expenses and subsequent recalculation of
CEP, and with Commerce’s determination of carrying costs.
""=This ceurt; having received*and=revieWed-ComMerce’s'Remand*
Results and Mittal’s comments in response thereto,* finds that
1Defendant-Intervenors filed no comments on the remand
results.
Ct. No. 05~681 Page 3
Commerce duly complied with the court’s remand order. Therefore,
it is hereby
ORDERED that the remand results filed by CommerCe on June 2l,
2007 are affirmed in their entirety. Judgment will be entered
accordingly.
/s/ Donald C. Pogue
Donald C. Pogue, Judge
Dated: August 8, 2007
New York, New York
slip Op. 07-120
UNlTED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
MlTTAL STEEL POINT LlSAS LTD.,
Plaintiff,
BEFORE: Pogue, Judge
v.
Court No. 05-0068l
UNITED STATES
Defendant,
GERDAU AMERlSTEEL CORP. AND
KEYSTONE CONSOLlDATED lNDUSTRlES,
lNC.
Defendant-
Intervenors.
JUDGMENT
This action having been duly submitted for decision, and this
court, after due deliberation, having rendered a decision herein;
now, in conformity with that decision, it is hereby
ORDERED that the remand results filed by the Department of
Commerce on June 21, 2007 are affirmed in their entirety.
/s/ Donald C. PoQue
Donald C. Pogue, Judge
Dated: August B, 2007
Y_q_'>_;‘_k___;_ _ _N_¢§‘~_-,W