Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States

Court of International Trade

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States

403 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 1352, 29 C.I.T. 1352, 28 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1256, 2005 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 160

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 350 F. Supp. 2d 1148 →

United States Court of International Trade·Decided November 28, 2005·No. Consol. 03-00202·Published

Opinion

JUDGMENT

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge.

In Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT -, Slip Op. 05-90 (2005), the Court remanded this matter to the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) with instructions to: (1) recalculate ZAO Kremny and SUAL-Kremny-Ural Ltd.’s (collectively, “Kremny’s”) antidumping duty margin using as partial adverse facts available the antidumping duty margin for Bratsk Aluminum Smelter and Rual Trade Limited (collectively, “Bratsk”) that was calculated in Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“First Remand Results”) filed on December 23, 2004; or (2) explain the use of the Bratsk margin from the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 Fed.Reg. 12,037 (Mar. 13, 2003). See Globe Metallurgical, 29 CIT at-, Slip Op. 05-90 at 14. On October 25, 2005, Commerce filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Second Remand Results”). For its Second Remand Results, Commerce recalculated Kremny’s antidumping duty margin using the antidumping duty margin for Bratsk that was calculated in the First Remand Results. See Second Remand Results at 3. Accordingly, Kremny’s anti-dumping duty margin for the period July 1, 2001, through December ,31, 2001, is 61.61 percent. See id. at 4.

This Court, having received and reviewed Commerce’s Second Remand Results, comments of Plaintiffs, and response of Defendant, holds that Commerce duly complied with the Court’s remand order, and it is hereby

ORDERED that Commerce’s Second Remand Results are reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise in accordance with law; and it is further

ORDERED that the Second Remand Results filed by Commerce on October 25, 2005, are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

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

JUDGMENT

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge.

In Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT -, Slip Op. 05-90 (2005), the Court remanded this matter to the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) with instructions to: (1) recalculate ZAO Kremny and SUAL-Kremny-Ural Ltd.’s (collectively, “Kremny’s”) antidumping duty margin using as partial adverse facts available the antidumping duty margin for Bratsk Aluminum Smelter and Rual Trade Limited (collectively, “Bratsk”) that was calculated in Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“First Remand Results”) filed on December 23, 2004; or (2) explain the use of the Bratsk margin from the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 Fed.Reg. 12,037 (Mar. 13, 2003). See Globe Metallurgical, 29 CIT at-, Slip Op. 05-90 at 14. On October 25, 2005, Commerce filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Second Remand Results”). For its Second Remand Results, Commerce recalculated Kremny’s antidumping duty margin using the antidumping duty margin for Bratsk that was calculated in the First Remand Results. See Second Remand Results at 3. Accordingly, Kremny’s anti-dumping duty margin for the period July 1, 2001, through December ,31, 2001, is 61.61 percent. See id. at 4.

This Court, having received and reviewed Commerce’s Second Remand Results, comments of Plaintiffs, and response of Defendant, holds that Commerce duly complied with the Court’s remand order, and it is hereby

ORDERED that Commerce’s Second Remand Results are reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise in accordance with law; and it is further

ORDERED that the Second Remand Results filed by Commerce on October 25, 2005, are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 403 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 1352, 29 C.I.T. 1352, 28 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1256, 2005 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 160 (cit 2005).

Pincite

403 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related