United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1295

Background

Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from India in July 2013; final determination and ADD order issued in 2014.
U.S. Steel challenged respondent-specific rates for Jindal SAW and GVN in consolidated action (Consol. No. 14-00263); Court remanded (U.S. Steel I) and later sustained Commerce’s remand results (U.S. Steel II).
Commerce published Amended Final Results (Apr. 12, 2017) to conform to the court’s decisions and later published an Amended ADD Order (June 20, 2017) listing Jindal SAW at 11.24% and an all-others rate of 5.79%.
U.S. Steel requested Commerce correct the all-others rate to 11.24% (arguing GVN’s rate was de minimis and should be excluded); Commerce declined, saying the Amended ADD Order effectuated the remand.
U.S. Steel filed this suit (July 20, 2017) challenging Commerce’s failure to recalculate the all-others rate; the government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, claim preclusion and failure to exhaust.
The Court found it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) but dismissed the complaint as barred by claim preclusion, noting the all-others issue could have been raised in the earlier consolidated litigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear challenge to Amended ADD Order/all-others rate	The Amended ADD Order (June 20, 2017) was the triggering, reviewable event; suit filed within statutory 30-day window	The challenge should have been brought after the Final Results (2014); suit is untimely	Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) — Amended ADD Order is a reviewable final affirmative determination
Whether claim is barred by claim preclusion	The all-others computation became ripe only upon Amended ADD Order; could not have been litigated earlier	U.S. Steel could and should have challenged the all-others rate in the earlier consolidated case; doctrine bars relitigation	Claim precluded: all-others issue could have been litigated in Consol. No. 14-00263, so complaint dismissed
Whether plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies	Plaintiff contends action is purely legal and only ripe after Amended ADD Order; administrative remedies not required here	Defendant argues plaintiff waived/failed to exhaust by not raising the all-others issue earlier	Court did not reach exhaustion because claim preclusion alone disposes of the case
Appropriate remedy if plaintiff believes court’s remand requires recalculation	Plaintiff may bring separate suit or seek enforcement	Defendant says enforcement would be improper because issue should have been raised earlier	Court suggests plaintiff may seek enforcement of U.S. Steel II if it believes Commerce failed to comply with that judgment

Key Cases Cited

Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (party invoking federal jurisdiction must demonstrate its existence)
Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (distinguishing facial and factual jurisdictional challenges)
Bowers Inv. Co. v. United States, 695 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claim preclusion may bar relitigation and supports dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (elements of claim preclusion)
GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (CIT 2015) (standard for motions to enforce judgments)