Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffcorporationrespondenttariffdumping

plaintiffcorporationtariffdumping

Related Cases

Union Steel Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. United States, 190 F.Supp.3d 1326, 38 ITRD 2044

Facts

The case arose from the fifteenth administrative review of an antidumping duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Korea, contested by four plaintiffs: Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Hyundai HYSCO, Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., and United States Steel Corporation. The administrative determination included weighted-average dumping margins assigned to Union and HYSCO, with Dongbu receiving a margin based on a simple average of the examined respondents. Following the court's orders in previous opinions, Commerce issued redeterminations that revised the margins for Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu, which were subsequently contested by the plaintiffs.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether Commerce adequately explained its methodologies for calculating interest expense ratios, constructed value, and the contemporaneous month for comparisons, as well as whether substantial evidence supported its decisions.

Rule

The court applied the standard of review under the Tariff Act, which requires that any determination by Commerce must be supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The court also considered the appropriateness of Commerce's methodologies in light of changing costs and the need for accurate dumping margin calculations.

The court applied the standard of review under the Tariff Act, which requires that any determination by Commerce must be supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

Analysis

The court found that Commerce adequately explained its methodologies, including the use of unindexed quarterly cost data for constructed value and DIFMER adjustments, and the decision to use invoice dates as the dates of sale. The court noted that Commerce's findings regarding significant cost changes and their correlation with prices were supported by substantial evidence, and that the adjustments made were reasonable to avoid distortions in the dumping analysis.

Conclusion

The Court of International Trade affirmed the Second Remand Redetermination, concluding that Commerce's methodologies and decisions were justified and supported by substantial evidence.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the United States, as the court affirmed Commerce's determinations and methodologies, finding them to be adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. U.S., 30 C.I.T. 1995, 475 F.Supp.2d 1370, 29 ITRD 1129

Luigi Bormioli Corp. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 22 C.I.T. 43, 1998 WL 42208, 20 ITRD 1096

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 7 ITRD 2057, 54 USLW 4319, 1986-1 Trade Cases P 67,004, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 368

Havana Club Holding, S.A. v. Galleon S.A., 203 F.3d 116, 2000-1 Trade Cases P 72,780, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609

Gibson-Thomsen Co., Inc. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 2 Cust.Ct. 172, 1939 WL 4379, C.D. 117