Slip Op. 11-22 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

------------------------------------------------------x : PSC VSMPO AVISMA CORPORATION : and VSMPA TIRUS, U.S., INC., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Judge UNITED STATES, : Consol. Court No. 08-00321 : Defendant, : : and : : U.S. MAGNESIUM LLC, : : Defendant-Intervenor. : : ------------------------------------------------------x OPINION [The court sustains the U.S. Department of Commerce’s redetermination.] Arent Fox LLP (

John M. Gurley , Mark P. Lunn and Diana Dimitriuc Quaia ), for Plaintiffs PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation and VSMPO-Tirus, U.S. Inc. Tony West , Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson , Director; Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice ( David S. Silverbrand, Trial Attorney), for Defendant United States; Daniel J. Calhoun , Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Of Counsel, for Defendant. King & Spalding, LLP ( Stephen A. Jones and Jeffery B. Denning ), for Defendant-Intervenor U.S. Magnesium LLC. Dated: March 1, 2011Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 2

Ba rzilay , J udg e: This case , arisingfrom an a ntidumping administrative re view cove ring pure a nd alloy ed magnesium metal from the Russian F eder ation, returns to the c ourt following the re mand orde red in PSC VSMPO - A VISMA Corp. v. U nited States , 34 CI T __, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (2010) ( “

AVISMA II

”). In that opinion, the court found the U .S. Depar tment of 1 Commerce’ s (“the D epar

tment” or “ Commerce” ) method for calc ulating the value of

chlorine g as in Results of Redeterm ination Pursuant to Remand, A-421-819 ( Dep’ t of Commerce Mar. 30, 2010) (“ First Remand Results ”), did not ac cord w ith law beca use Commerce failed to take into
acc ount Plainti ff PSC VSMP O - AV I SMA Corporation’s (“ AVI SMA”) ordina ry course of business. AVISMA II

, 34 CI T at __, 724 F . Supp. 2d at 1316; see 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(1) . In the subsequent r emand de termination curr ently under r eview, the Depa

rtment revise d its methodology

to focus “on A VI SMA’s entire pr oduction proce ss, including the sta g es of production enc ompassing a nd followingilmenite cataly zation.” Results of Redeterm ination Pursuant to Remand , A-421-819 a t 1 (Dep’ t of Commerce Nov. 22, 2010) (“ Second R emand Results ”). 2
The c ourt presume s familiarity with the proce dural history of this case

. See ge nerally 1 AVISMA II

, 34 CI T __, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1308; PSC VSMPO - A VISMA Corp. v. U nited States , Slip Op. 09-120, 2009 W L3423021 (CI T Oct. 20, 2009) ( “ AVISMA I

”). Commerce r espec tfully

protests that the cour

t in AVISMA II did not “appe ar to g ive full 2 consideration to record e vidence supporting the Depa rtment’s findingthat takinginto account AVI SMA’s entire ope rations re sulted in a value f or chlorine g as that is too high r elative to the marke t value for

chlorine.” Second R emand Re sults at 4. Fur

ther, the a g ency

continues to insist that its original c hlorine g as valuation “comports more c losely with the economic r eality in which AVI SMA operate s.” Id. ; accord First Rem and Results at 13-14. How ever , as the De partment surely knows, its actions must adhere to the statutory framework that Congre ss has established to g overn the antidumping law s. See Che vron, U.S.A., I nc. v. Natural Res. De

f. Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984); see also § 1677b(e) (1) ( instructing Commerc e to take into ac count “the cost of mater ials and fa

brication or other proc essingof any kind employ ed in produc ing the merc handise . . . in the ordinary course of business ” when usingconstructe d value in plac e ofConsol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 3

AVI SMA and Plaintiff VSMPO - Tirus, U.S., I nc., (c ollectively , “Plaintiffs”) a nd Def endant- Interve nor U.S. Mag nesium, L L C (“USM”) c ontest various aspe cts of the Second Remand Re

sults . Plaintiffs contend that Commerce used an inc orre ct databa se in its calculations, which ther eby

rende red the m errone ous. See ge nerally Pls. Br. USM claims that the cour t should reconside r its holding in AVISMA II and re instate the First Remand Results

. See Def .- Interve nor B r. 4-14. More over, if the court re instates the First Remand Results , USM asks the court to eva luate what USM deems err ors in the Depa rtment’s orig inal calc ulations. See Def .- Interve nor B r. 13-14. F or the re asons g iven below, the c ourt sustains the Second R emand Results

. I. Stand ard of Review The c ourt must sustain any Commerce de termination supported by “substantial evidenc e on the re cord” and other

wise “in a ccor dance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b) (1)( B) (i). Substantial evidence on the re cord c onstitut es “le ss than a pre pondera nce, but more than a scintilla.” Novosteel SA v . United States , 25 CI T 2, 6, 128 F. Supp. 2d 720, 725 (2001) (citation & quotation marks omitted), aff’d , 284 F.3d 1261 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002). The r equisite proof a mounts to “such re levant evide nce a s a re asonable mind might acc ept as a dequate to support a conclusion” in lig ht of the entire rec ord, “inc luding wha tever fairly detra cts from the substantiality

of the e vidence .” Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States , 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 ( Fe d. Cir. 1984) (f ootnote & quotation marks omitted). This standard ne cessitates that the Depa rtment thoroug hly

examine the rec ord and “ articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action includinga rational c onnection betwe en the f acts found a

nd the choice made.” Motor VehicleMfrs. Ass’n of
normal value in the dumping mar g in calculation) (emphasis adde d).Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 4

the U.S., Inc . v. State Farm M ut. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (c itation & quotation marks omitted); accord Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. United States , 16 CI T 133, 136-37, 787 F . Supp. 224, 227 (1992). That the court may drawtwo inconsistent conclusions from the e vidence does not prec lude Commerce from supportingits determination with substantial evidence

. Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. v. U

nited States , 187 F.3d 1362, 1365 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999).

II. Discussion A. The Database Used in the Depart m ent’s Calc ulation s Plaintiffs’ argument that Commerce use d an incor rec t database fails bec ause the Depa rtment supported its decision to use the c ontested data base w ith substantial evidence. O n April 7, 2008, AVI SMA submit ted three separ ate c ost database s to the Depa rtment, only

the first of which, COP-1, is re levant to the cur rent discussion. That database “re flec ts a company-wide co-pr oduct methodolog y” to ca lculate titanium and magnesium net rea liz able va lues. Second 3 Remand Re

sults at 8. Ten da

y s after makingthese submissions, however, AVI SMA informed the Depa rtment that COP-1 contained two e rror s. Id. at 9. The f irst error arose in the calc ulation of pre- and post-split-off c osts for titanium products; the second r elated to the a ppropriate sales values a ssigne d to the mag nesium metal products produc ed, but not sold, during the period of revie w. Id. AVI SMA theref ore pr ovided the De partment with two additional re levant data bases, COP-1.1 and COP-1.2, the first of whic h corr ecte d only the sec ond err or, and the second of which cor rec ted both err ors. Id. Commerce use d the latter da tabase , COP-1.2, for its calc ulations in the Second R emand Re sults

. Id. at 8. Plaintiffs now seek to distanc e themselve s The other

databa ses re flec t acc ounting methodolog ies that take into consider ation only 3 portions of AVI SMA’s production fa cilities rather than its entire ordina

ry course of business. See Se cond Re mand Results at 8-9.Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 5

from AVI SMA’s previous statement that it initially provided the D epar

tment with incorrec t information with respe ct to the ca lculation of pre - and post-split-off costs for titanium products, and have the Depa

rtment use COP-1.1, eve n though the y do not expl ain how that data base is
more a ccur ate. Id. at 11-12. I n light of A VI SMA’s ear lier admission that COP-1 contained incorre ct information in two ar eas, a nd that COP-1.1 corre cted only one of those e rror s, Commerce r easona

bly relied upon COP-1.2, the database that acc ounted for both e rror s. B. USM’s Request for Rec onsid erat ion of the Legal Conclusion s in AV ISMA II The c ourt will not entertain USM’s re quest for r econside ration. Althoug h USM could have br oug ht this request to the court’ s attention in a motion for rec onsideration within 30 day s of the filingof AVISMA II , see USCI T R. 59(b), that time has pa ssed, and the c ourt ca nnot now addre ss the issue. See Former Emps. of Quality Fabricating, Inc . v. United States , 28 CI T 1061, 1070, 353 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1292 (2004) ( “Pursuant to the law of the ca se doctrine , when a court decide s upon a rule of

law, that dec ision continues to gove rn the same issues in subsequent phases of the ca se . . . . I f [USM] had wished to c halleng e that finding , a motion for
rec onsideration would have been the appropr iate motion.”) (c iting Arizona v. Califor nia , 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983) (inter nal citation omitted)). F urthermor e, bec ause the court will not disturb its prior holding, USM’s re maining a rguments contestingthe Depa rtment’s chlorine calc ulation methodology

in the First Remand Results , Def .-Interve nor B r. 4-14, a

re moot, as USM
conce des. Def

.-Interve nor B r. 15. 4
The c ourt notes that in its brief, USM alleg es that the c ourt instructed Commerc e to 4 follow “the me thodology

proposed in the Foster Affidavit ” to construc t the value of AVI SMA’s chlorine g as. De f.-Interve nor B r. 15 (c iting Second R emand Re sults at 3). Nowhere did the court place such a c onstraint on Commerce’ s actions, see ge nerally AVISM A II , 34 CI T __, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1308, and to do so would run afoul of w ell-established c omity betwee n the Depa

rtmentConsol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 6 III. Conclusi on For the fore g oing r easons, it is ORDERED that Commerce’ s Second R emand Re sults are SUST AINED
.

Dated: Ma

rch 1, 2011 /s/ J udith M. Barzil ay New Y ork, Ne w York J udith M. Barzil ay , J udg e

and the Court. See Nippon Stee l Corp. v. United States , 458 F.3d 1345, 1359 ( Fe d. Cir. 2006).