Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Commission

8 F. Supp. 2d 861, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 422, 22 C.I.T. 422, 20 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1542, 1998 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 136
CourtUnited States Court of International Trade
DecidedApril 28, 1998
DocketSlip Op. 98-56. Court 95-06-00782
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 8 F. Supp. 2d 861 (Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of International Trade primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Commission, 8 F. Supp. 2d 861, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 422, 22 C.I.T. 422, 20 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1542, 1998 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 136 (cit 1998).

Opinion

ORDER

POGUE, Judge.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has deter *862 mined that “the statute [19 U.S.C. § 1677(7) ] requires adequate evidence to show that the harm [to a domestic industry] occurred ‘by reason of the LTFV [less than fair value] imports, not by reason of a minimal or tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods” and that “[g]iven the unique circumstances of this case, the record, without more, does not show that LTFV imports of pure magnesium from Ukraine were the reason for the harmful effects to the domestic magnesium industry.” Gerald Metals v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722-23 (Fed.Cir.1997).

The CAFC specifically concluded that “the Russian imports — both fairly-traded and LTFV — were perfect substitutes for each other, if not the exact same product.” Id. at 720.

The CAFC also required reconsideration of the effect of the increase in the supply of pure magnesium on the global market as the cause for the closure of Dow’s magnesium plant and the nature — penal or remedial — of the duties imposed in this case. Id. at 722-23.

Therefore, this case having been duly remanded to this Court, it is hereby

ORDERED that this Court’s Judgment Order of August 21,1996, granting Plaintiffs motion for judgment upon the agency record and dismissing this action is vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that the International Trade Commission’s final determination in Magnesium from China, Russia, and Ukraine, 60 Fed.Reg. 26,456 (Int’l Trade Comm’n 1995) (final) is remanded to the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The ITC is to reconsider its material injury finding in a way that is consistent with the legal standard articulated by the CAFC and that takes into account the existence and substitutability of fairly-traded Russian imports of pure magnesium and the increase in the market share of said imports during the period of investigation; and it is further

ORDERED that remand results are due on Tuesday, June 30, 1998; comments and responses are due on Tuesday, July 28, 1998; any rebuttal comments are due on Tuesday, August 11,1998.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass'n v. United States
105 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (Court of International Trade, 2000)
Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States
27 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (Court of International Trade, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F. Supp. 2d 861, 22 Ct. Int'l Trade 422, 22 C.I.T. 422, 20 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1542, 1998 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerald-metals-inc-v-united-states-intl-trade-commission-cit-1998.