United States Steel Corp. v. United States
2018 CIT 139
Ct. Intl. Trade2018Background
- Commerce investigated antidumping duties on OCTG from India, set mandatory respondent rates for Jindal SAW and GVN, and an all-others rate based on those two rates.
- The court remanded parts of Commerce’s determination (U.S. Steel I); Commerce issued Remand Results altering mandatory respondent margins, and the court sustained those Remand Results (U.S. Steel II).
- Commerce issued a Timken notice and amended orders reflecting the revised mandatory respondent rates but left the all-others rate unchanged in the Amended Final Results and Amended ADD Order.
- U.S. Steel sought enforcement of the U.S. Steel II judgment, arguing Commerce was required to recalculate the all-others rate under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(A) after the mandatory respondent margins changed.
- Commerce defended its action, arguing it had effectuated the judgment and that U.S. Steel waived or should have exhausted administrative remedies regarding the all-others rate.
- The Court concluded Commerce has an established practice of revising the all-others rate when mandatory respondent rates change on judicial review, and Commerce failed to explain or justify deviating from that practice; the Court ordered Commerce to issue a revised Timken notice reconsidering or explaining its determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce must recalculate the all-others rate when mandatory respondent margins change on judicial review | Section 1673d(c)(5)(A) requires recalculation to reflect revised mandatory respondent margins | U.S. Steel waived the claim by not raising it earlier; Commerce properly effectuated the judgment without changing all-others | Court: Commerce has a practice of recalculating the all-others rate after such changes; Commerce must follow that practice or reasonably explain deviation — enforcement granted in part (remand to issue revised Timken notice) |
| Whether Commerce’s failure to recalc relied on or violated precedents prohibiting use of invalidated margins | All-others rate relied on margins altered by judicial review and thus must change | Defendant: mandatory respondent margins here were determined in this review and not invalidated | Court: D & L/Sigma line of cases inapplicable; those address reliance on invalidated prior-review margins, not margins changed within the same review |
| Whether Commerce deviated from an established practice and needed to explain or announce change | Practice is to revise all-others; Commerce must follow or explain change | Defendant: Commerce does not have such a uniform practice or only revises when it announces it will | Court: Multiple precedents and Commerce admissions show an established practice; Commerce failed to justify deviation |
| Waiver/exhaustion: whether U.S. Steel forfeited the all-others claim by not raising it earlier | U.S. Steel could enforce the U.S. Steel II judgment now; it was reasonable not to raise all-others during remand because Commerce did not address it then | Defendant: U.S. Steel waived/exhausted remedies by not raising issue in original complaint or remand | Court: U.S. Steel waived statutory-claim theory but enforcement focuses on whether Commerce effectuated judgment and followed its practice; exhaustion not a bar because Commerce first addressed all-others only after remand results |
Key Cases Cited
- Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.) (agency must notify public when a court decision is not in harmony with an agency determination)
- Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (clarifying Timken notice requirements)
- D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce may not rely on a rate from a prior review that has been invalidated when calculating a margin)
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.) (applying D & L Supply principles to preservation and use of prior-review margins)
- United States v. Hanover Ins. Co., 82 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir.) (court has authority to determine effect of its judgments and issue injunctions to enforce them)
- Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 556 U.S. 502 (U.S.) (agency must acknowledge and reasonably explain policy changes)