This case involved a challenge by Indian steel companies to the U.S. Department of Commerce's calculation of countervailing duty subsidy rates under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme for the 1988 administrative review period. Following a remand order tied to the related Creswell Trading case, Commerce recalculated the company-specific rates but found no changes, resulting in rates of 10.03% for Uma Iron & Steel Co., 14.08% for Govind Steel, and 4.10% for all others. The Court of International Trade reviewed the redetermination results, noted that all parties had stipulated to and accepted the rates, and determined that Commerce had complied with the remand instructions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the results and dismissed the action.
This case involved a challenge by Carnation Enterprises and other Indian companies to subsidy rates determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce in a 1989 administrative review of imports subject to countervailing duties. Following a remand from a related case, Commerce recalculated the rates under India's International Price Reimbursement Scheme, resulting in new company-specific rates ranging from 16.10% to 20.36% and an all-others rate of 2.50%. The court affirmed these recalculated rates after the parties stipulated to and accepted them. The decision was based on Commerce's compliance with the remand order and the parties' agreement, leading to the dismissal of the action.
This case concerns a remand from the Federal Circuit to the Court of International Trade regarding prior decisions on countervailing duties in Aimcor v. United States. The order directs the Department of Commerce to reconsider whether the Venezuelan government's purchase of Class E shares in CVG-Venezolana de Ferrosilicio was consistent with commercial considerations, specifically evaluating evidence on dividend and liquidation rights, sales price restrictions, and potential capital appreciation. If a subsidy is found to exist, Commerce must then calculate the appropriate countervailing duty using a suitable method. The remand results are due within thirty days, with opportunities for parties to comment.
This case involves consolidated challenges by U.S. steel producers (Bethlehem Steel et al.) and a Dutch steel exporter (Hoogovens) to the Department of Commerce's final results in the second administrative review of an antidumping duty order on cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. The parties disputed Commerce's findings on whether Hoogovens was reimbursing its U.S. importer for antidumping duties, entitlement to a constructed export price offset for level-of-trade differences, retroactive application of a currency conversion methodology, deduction of antidumping duties from U.S. price, and Commerce's post-summons correction of ministerial errors in amended results. The court sustained Commerce's determinations in full, holding that they were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, including permissible statutory interpretations under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677a and 1677b, the lack of evidence for claimed adjustments, and no need for remand on undisputed corrections. The court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and applied the standard of review from 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B).
This case involved importers challenging the Department of Commerce's subsidy rate calculations for Indian castings manufacturers during the 1985 administrative review period. Following a prior remand, Commerce recalculated the company-specific and country-wide countervailing duty rates to incorporate ocean shipping costs, producing new rates ranging from 7.96% to 51.39%. The court reviewed the results, noted that Commerce had complied with the remand and that no party had filed comments, and therefore affirmed the redetermination. With all issues resolved, the action was dismissed.
The case involved a challenge by Outokumpu Copper Strip, B.V. to the United States Department of Commerce's calculation of an antidumping duty margin on certain copper products. Following a prior remand order, Commerce corrected two ministerial errors in its calculations, resulting in a revised dumping margin of 2.03 percent for the period from August 1, 1990, to July 31, 1991. The court reviewed the redetermination results, found that Commerce had complied with the remand, noted the absence of any party comments, and therefore affirmed the results while dismissing the action as all issues had been resolved.