Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States

2007 CIT 147
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 391 F. Supp. 2d 1258
United States Court of International Trade·Decided October 10, 2007·No. Consol. 01-00103·Published

Opinion

Slip Op. 07-147

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

: NIPPON STEEL CORP., KAWASAKI : STEEL CORP., JFE STEEL CORP., : THYSSENKRUP ACCIAI SPECIALI TERNI : S.p.A, and ACCIAI SPECIALI TERNI : (USA), INC., : : Plaintiffs, : : Before: Richard K. Eaton, v. : Judge : : Consol. Court No. 01-00103 : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : ALLEGHENY LUDLUM CORP., AK STEEL : CORP., BUTLER ARMCO INDEPENDENT : UNION, ZANESVILLE ARMCO : INDEPENDENT UNION, and UNITED : STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, : AFL-CIO/CLC, : : Deft.-Intervenors. : :

JUDGMENT

Upon consideration of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit’s decision (“CAFC”) in Nippon Steel Corp. v.

United States International Trade Commission, 494 F.3d 1371

(2007), and the CAFC mandate of September 17, 2007, reversing and

vacating this court’s decision in Nippon Steel Corp. v. United

States, 30 CIT __, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (2006); holding that this Consol. Court No. 01-00103 Page 2 court erred in concluding that the International Trade

Commission’s (“ITC”) second remand determination in Grain-

Oriented Silicon Electrical Steel From Italy and Japan, Invs.

Nos. 701-TA-355 and 731-TA-659-660 (Review) (Second Remand),

USITC Pub. 3680 (Mar. 2004) (“Second Remand Determination”) was

not supported by substantial evidence; and reversing and vacating

the ITC’s third remand determination in Grain-Oriented Silicon

Electrical Steel From Italy and Japan, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-355 and

731-TA-659-660 (Review) (Third Remand) USITC Pub. 3798 (September

13, 2005) (“Third Remand Determination”), it is hereby

ORDERED, in accordance with the CAFC mandate, that the ITC’s

Second Remand Determination is hereby SUSTAINED and its

affirmative material injury determination reinstated; and it is

further

ORDERED, that this action be, and hereby is, dismissed.

/s/Richard K. Eaton Richard K. Eaton

Dated: October 10, 2007 New York, New York

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

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 2007 CIT 147 (cit 2007).

2007 CIT 147 (Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States
433 F. Supp. 2d 1336 (Court of International Trade, 2006)