Slip Op. 23-160 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

 

Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge 

Consol. Court No. 17-00158 

 

MEMORANDUM and ORDER 

Marc E. Montalbine, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff 

AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke.

Ron Kendler, White & Case LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiffs 

Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter 

Flachstahl GmbH, and Saltzgitter Mannesmann International GmbH.

AG DER DILLINGER HÜTTENWERKE, 

 Plaintiff, 

and 

ILSENBURGER GROBBLECH GMBH, 

SALZGITTER MANNESMANN GROBBLECH 

GMBH, SALZGITTER FLACHSTAHL GMBH, 

SALZGITTER MANNESMANN INTERNATIONAL 

GMBH, and FRIEDR. LOHMANN GMBH, 

 Consolidated Plaintiffs, 

and 

THYSSENKRUPP STEEL EUROPE AG, 

 Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant, 

and 

NUCOR CORPORATION and 

SSAB ENTERPRISES LLC, 

 Defendant-Intervenors. 
Consol. Court No. 17-00158 Page 2 

Robert L. LaFrankie, Crowell & Moring LLP, of Washington D.C., for PlaintiffIntervenor thyssenkrupp Steel Europe AG. 

Kara M. Westercamp, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant United States. 

Of counsel was Ayat Mujais, Attorney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Chief 

Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance of Washington, D.C. 

Jeffrey Gerrish, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, D.C., for DefendantIntervenor SSAB Enterprises LLC. 

Stephanie M. Bell, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor 

Nucor Corporation. 

Gordon, Judge: Recently, the court issued an opinion denying a challenge to the 

final determination made by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate 

(“CTL plate”) from the Federal Republic of Germany. See AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke 

v. United States, 47 CIT ___, 648 F. Supp. 3d 1321 (2023) (“AG Dillinger 2023”); see also

Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the Federal Republic of 

Germany, 82 Fed. Reg. 16,360 (Dep’t of Commerce Apr. 4, 2017) (“Final Determination”), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, A-428-844 (Mar. 29, 2017), 

http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/germany/2017-06628-1.pdf (last visited this 

date) (“Decision Memorandum”). The court’s opinion focused on Commerce’s 

determination under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) to apply partial adverse facts available (“AFA”) 

to certain sales for which Consolidated Plaintiffs, Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter 

Mannesmann Grobblech GmbH, Salzgitter Flachstahl GmbH, and Salzgitter 

Mannesmann International GmbH (collectively, “Salzgitter”), could not identify and report 

the manufacturer. See also AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke v. United States, 43 CIT ___, 
Consol. Court No. 17-00158 Page 3 

399 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (2019) (sustaining Commerce’s decision to apply “facts available” 

under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a), as well as an adverse inference under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b), 

but remanding the selection of AFA as applied in this matter); AG der Dillinger 

Hüttenwerke v. United States, 45 CIT ___, 534 F. Supp. 3d 1403 (2021) (remanding 

Commerce’s application of AFA again after Commerce erred in following court’s 

instructions to explain its decision-making in light of Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, 

43 CIT ___, 350 F. Supp. 3d 1349 (2018)). The court rejected Salzgitter’s argument that 

Commerce’s determination was unreasonable or unlawful, and also rejected Salzgitter’s 

challenge to Commerce’s selection and application of partial AFA to Salzgitter. See 

Salzgitter Consol. Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 43 (“Salzgitter 

Br.”); see also Def.’s Mem. Opp. Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mots. for J. on the Admin. R., ECF No. 55 

(“Def.’s Resp.”); Reply in Supp. of Consol. Pls.’ Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R., 

ECF No. 64 (“Salzgitter Reply”); Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court 

Remand, ECF No. 129 (“Second Remand Results”); Consol. Pls.’ Comments in Opp’n to 

Second Remand Redetermination, ECF No. 135; Def.’s Resp. to Comments on Second 

Remand Redetermination, ECF No. 141. 

Pending before the court is a motion by Salzgitter pursuant to USCIT Rule 54(b) 

for the entry of partial judgment sustaining Commerce’s determination as to the 

challenges raised by Salzgitter.1 See Consol. Pls.’ Mot. for Partial Final J., ECF No. 194. 

1 Specifically, the court is sustaining Commerce’s determination as presented in its 

Second Remand Results, in which Commerce explained why it differed in its application 

of partial AFA to Salzgitter as compared to Dillinger and adjusted its calculation of 

Salzgitter’s final weighted-average dumping margin to 22.90 percent. 
Consol. Court No. 17-00158 Page 4 

For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant Salzgitter’s motion and enter a 

Rule 54(b) partial judgment. 

Rule 54(b) provides in part that: 

[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief—

whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party 

claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may 

direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer 

than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly 

determines that there is no just reason for delay. 

USCIT R. 54(b). Rule 54(b) requires finality—“an ultimate disposition of an individual 

claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 

351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956). Additionally, in evaluating whether there is no just reason for 

delay, the court examines whether the concern for avoiding piecemeal litigation is 

outweighed by considerations favoring immediate entry of judgment. See Timken v. 

Regan, 5 CIT 4, 6 (1983). 

Here, Salzgitter solely challenged Commerce’s determination under 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677e(b) to apply partial AFA to certain sales for which Salzgitter could not identify and 

report the manufacturer. See generally Salzgitter Br. What remains for adjudication is a 

challenge by AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke (“Dillinger”) and other interested parties to the 

Fourth Remand Results in this matter which addresses issues not relevant to Salzgitter. 

See, e.g., Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 184; Pl. 

AG der Dillinger Hüttenwerke’s Comments in Partial Opp’n to Final Results of 

Redetermination, ECF No. 192; Def.-Intervenor Nucor Corp.’s Comments on Final 

Results of Redetermination, ECF No. 193. As Salzgitter has no interest in the issues 
Consol. Court No. 17-00158 Page 5 

remaining to be litigated before the court in this action, AG Dillinger 2023 provides 

“an ultimate disposition” as to Salzgitter’s challenge to the Final Determination. 

See Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 U.S. at 436; see also AG Dillinger 2023. 

The entry of a Rule 54(b) partial judgment would serve the interests of the parties 

and the administration of justice by bringing this issue, and Salzgitter’s role in this 

litigation, to a conclusion. Partial judgment would also give Salzgitter the opportunity to 

immediately appeal if it so chooses. In consulting with the parties, the Government 

confirmed that there is no threat of piecemeal judicial review as the resolution of the 

remaining issue presented by Dillinger does not implicate the final disposition of the 

challenges raised by Salzgitter. See Conference Call, ECF No. 196 (Oct. 31, 2023). 

Therefore, the court has no just reason for delay, and will enter partial judgment pursuant 

to USCIT Rule 54(b). Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Salzgitter’s motion for partial judgment pursuant to USCIT 

Rule 54(b) is granted. 

 /s/ Leo M. Gordon 

 Judge Leo M. Gordon 

Dated: November 15, 2023 

 New York, New York