Slip Op. 10-93 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

------------------------------------------------------x : PSC VSMPO AVISMA CORPORATION : and VSMPA TIRUS, U.S., INC., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Judge UNITED STATES, : Consol. Court No. 08-00321 : Public Version Defendant, : : and : : U.S. MAGNESIUM LLC, : : Defendant-Intervenor. : : ------------------------------------------------------x OPINION [The court remands 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, US Inc. Tony West , Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson , Director; Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice ( David S. Silverbrand , Trial Attorney) for Defendant United States; Daniel J. Calhoun , Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Of Counsel, for Defendant. King & Spalding, LLP ( Stephen A. Jones and Jeffery B. Denning ) for Defendant-Intervenor US Magnesium LLC.

Dated: August 17, 2010Consol. Court No. 08-00321 Page 2

Barzilay, Judge: This case concerns a challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“the Department” or “Commerce”) determination in an antidumping administrative review covering pure and alloyed magnesium metal from the Russian Federation. Plaintiffs PSC VSMPO Avisma Corporation (“Avisma”) and VSMPA Tirus, U.S., Inc., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant-Intervenor U.S. Magnesium, LLC (“USM”), challenge Commerce’s method for calculating the value of chlorine gas when determining the normal value for the subject merchandise in Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand , A-421-819 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 30, 2010) (“Redetermination Results ”). Because the court finds that the 1 Department’s method for calculating the value for chlorine gas is not supported in the record and does not comport with the statute, the court remands the proceedings to Commerce for further consideration. I. Background & Procedural History

. A. The Industrial Processes at Issue A thorough understanding of this case demands familiarity with the industrial processes at issue. Avisma is the world’s largest producer of titanium. Pls. Br. App. Tab 3 Ex. 5 at 2; Pls.

2 Br. App. Tab 5 at 11. Its production facility operates in two principal stages. In the carnallite refinement stage, enriched carnallite undergoes dehydration and electrolysis to produce raw 3 The subject merchandise in this case is pure and alloyed magnesium. Because chlorine 1 gas and raw magnesium emerge as co-products in the carnallite refinement stage, Commerce must determine the value of chlorine gas in order to determine the value of raw magnesium and thus the subject merchandise. For a visual representation of the industrial process, see infra p. 4. 2 Carnallite is “a mineral . . . consisting of a hydrous potassium-magnesium chloride.” 3 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 340 (2002).Consol. Court No. 08-00321 Page 3

magnesium and chlorine gas. Pls. Br. App. Tab 8 Ex. 1.A at 1. Avisma processes [[much]] of the resulting raw magnesium to create the subject merchandise and uses the [[ rest ]] later in the titanium production chain, as described below. Pls. Reply Br. App. Tab 18 at 3. Avisma uses the chlorine gas in three ways:[[Much]] goes toward the ilmenite catalyzation process, while [[some]] recycles into the carnallite refinement process, and [[some]] goes on to produce calcium chloride, a de-icer. Pls. Reply Br. App. Tab 18 at 3. Therefore, only a portion of the chlorine gas goes into the production of the subject merchandise as described more completely below. In the next stage of production, which does not result in subject merchandise, chlorine gas reacts as a catalyst with ilmenite ore to separate titanium from titanium oxide, resulting in 4 titanium tetrachloride. Pls. Br. App. Tab 8 Ex. 1.A at 1. Avisma then uses raw magnesium and technical-quality magnesium to separate the chlorine from the titanium tetrachloride, producing 5 titanium sponge and magnesium chloride. Pls. Br. App. Tab 8 Ex. 1.A at 1. Avisma refines the titanium sponge to create salable products, including titanium ingots, billets, and slabs. Pls. Br. App. Tab 3 Ex. 5 (“ 2006 Avisma Annual Report ”) at 2. It subjects the magnesium chloride to electrolysis, splitting it into chlorine gas which feeds back into the ilmenite catalyzation process and technical-quality magnesium. Pls. Br. App. Tab 8 Ex. 1.A at 1. Avisma recycles the technical-quality magnesium into the titanium tetrachloride separation process. Pls. Br. App. Tab 8 Ex. 1.A at 1.

The mineral ilmenite is “a compound of iron, titanium, and oxygen.” Webster’s Third 4 New International Dictionary1127 (2002). Unlike raw magnesium, technical-quality magnesium, due to impurities, cannot become 5 subject merchandise. Redetermination Results at 6-7. However, in this production step, these two components are interchangable.Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 4

[[

]]Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 5

B. Pr ocedural History I n 2007, Avisma and USM re quested a revie w of a

n antidumping or der c overingimports of pure and alloy ed magnesium from the Russian Fe deration for the per iod from April 1, 2006 to Marc h 31, 2007. See Noticeof Antidumping Duty Order: M agnesium Me tal from the Russian Fede ration , 70 Fe d. Reg . 19,930, 19,930 (De p’t Commerce Apr. 15, 2005). O n May 30, 2007, Commerce c ommenced the revie w, Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrati ve R evie ws and Request for Revoc ation in Part , 72 Fe d. Reg . 29,968, 29,968 (De p’t Commerce Ma

y 30, 2007), and ne arly

a y ear later published its preliminary results. Magnesium Metal from the Russian Fede ration: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Rev iew , 73 Fe d. Reg . 24,541 (De p’t Commerce May 5, 2008). At this point Avism a and U SM submitt ed brie fs proposing , inter alia , chang es to the De partment’s me thodology for de termining the value of

chlorine g as. Commerce reje cted a portion of Avisma’s brie f bec ause it conta ined new f actua l information: an af fidavit from a ccountingexpert Professor Ge org e F oster (“ Foster Affida vit”). SeePls. Br. App. Ta bs 8-11. On September

10, 2008, Commerce issued the final re sults of the subject administrative revie w. Magnesium M

etal from the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrati ve R evie w , 73 Fe d. Reg . 52,642 (De p’t Commerce Sept. 10, 2008) (“ Final Results ”). To deter mine the normal va lue of the subjec t mercha ndise, the Depa

rtment employ ed a me thod 6

I n the antidumping c ontext , the normal va lue of the subjec t mercha ndise is the price of 6 that merc handise a s sold for consumption in the exporting country at a time re asonably corr esponding to that of the sale of the merc handise in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a) (1)( A)-( B) (i). Corre spondingly , the antidumping duty marg in is the amount by

which the normal va lue of the subjec t mercha ndise exceeds its export price or c onstructed e x port price

. Id. § 1673.Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 6

of construc ting a

value f or chlorine g as which se vere d Avisma’s produc tion process at the point wher e ra w magnesium and chlorine g as eme rg e fr om the car nallite ref inement proc ess. Pls. Br. App. Tab 14 ( “Final Results Issues and Dec ision Memorandum ”) at 10. Comm erc e then constructe d the value of

Avisma’s chlorine g as by taking a bulk quantity

marke t value of liquid chlorine a nd adjusting it for

transporta

tion costs between f

acilities and for

the estimated c ost of

conver ting the liquid chlorine to chlorine g as. Final Results Issues and Dec ision Memorandum at 18-19. The Depa

rtment then allocated this cost among the co- products of the car nallite ref inement proc ess. Id. at 10. Commerce justified this m ethodolog y by claiming that beca

use the Depa rtment perc eived a

clea r split-off point at the c arna llite refineme nt proce ss, it was

rea sonable to ig nore the parts of A visma’s operation subsequent to that proce ss and to treat raw mag nesium as one of

Avisma’s primar

y products. Id . at 14; see also Re determination Results at 6. The De partment a dditionally claimed, without explanation, that determiningthe value of chlorine g as by

taking into account Avisma’ s entire ope ration would re sult in a value for chlorine g as too hig h relative to the value that Avisma obta ins from it. Final Results Issues and Dec ision Mem orandum at 14; see also Re determination Results at 5. B eca use the norma l value of the subject merc handise ne cessa rily bear s an inverse ly

proportional re lationship to t he value of chlorine g as, its co-produc t in the car nallite ref inement proc ess, an “ unrea sonably ” high value f or chlorine g as would re sult in an unreasona bly low normal value for the subje ct merc handise. See Rede termination Results at 13. A lower normal value for the subje ct merc handise, in turn, would lead to a lowe r antidumping duty rate

. Plaintiffs and USM filed suit in thi s Court to contest the Final Results . Avisma claimed, inter alia , that Commerce e mploy ed an e rrone ous method to allocate joint costs betwe en ra wConsol. Court No. 08-00321 Page 7

magnesium and chlorine gas, and that Commerce inappropriately rejected the portions of its case brief containing the Foster Affidavit. PSC VSMPO Avisma Corp. v. United States , Slip Op. 09- 120, 2009 Ct. Int’l Trade LEXIS 127, at *5 (Oct. 20, 2009). USM also contested the Department’s method for allocating joint costs between raw magnesium and chlorine gas. Id . In its decision, the court instructed Commerce to admit the Foster Affidavit to the record, citing concerns over the determination’s accuracy given that the case presents an issue of first impression, and remanded the proceedings so that the Department could consider the affidavit’s arguments. Id . at *22. On March 30, 2010, Commerce issued its remand results, which left the methodology for constructing the value for chlorine gas unchanged. Redetermination Results at 4. Avisma again contests the Department’s chlorine gas valuation methodology, arguing that the methodology inappropriately truncates the production process at Avisma’s facilities and thereby ignores the intertwined nature of Avisma’s operations. Pls. Br. 2-7. USM supports the Redetermination Results “in large part,” but disagrees with the Department’s method of constructing the value for chlorine gas. Def.-Int. Resp. 2. II. Standard of Review Because of the “complex” and “technical” nature of the Department’s determinations, Commerce’s expertise in determining these matters entitles it to great deference. Fujitsu Gen., Ltd. v. United States , 88 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The court must sustain Commerce’s determination so long as the determination is supported by “substantial evidence on the record” and is “otherwise in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 8

“Substantial evidenc e mea ns such re levant evide nce a s a re asonable mind might acc ept as adequate to support a conc lusion.” Novosteel SA v . United States , 25 CI T 2, 6, 128 F. Supp. 2d 720, 725 (2001) ( quotation marks & citation omitted). This evidence must consist of “more than a scintilla” but nee d not constitute a preponde ranc e. Id . at 6, 128 F. Supp. 2d at 725 ( citation omitted). To deter

mine whether

the Depa rtment supports its determination with substantial evidenc e, the c ourt must take into acc ount the entire r ecor d, including a ny thing that de trac ts from the weig ht of the evide nce that Comm erc e employ s to make its determination. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB , 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951). Commerce must supply a “satisfactory explanation” for its deter

mination, including a “ rational c onnection betwe en the f acts found a

nd the choice made.” Motor VehicleMfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) ( internal quotation marks & citation omitted). The cour t may not supply

a “r easone d basis” for the Depa rtment’s dec ision that Com merc e itself did not g ive. Id . Even if it is possible to draw two inc onsistent conclusions from the evide nce on r ecor d, it does not mean that Commerce did not support its findings w ith substantial evidence. Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. v. United States , 187 F.3d 1362, 1365 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999). To deter mine whether

Commerce’ s findings a

re in a ccor dance with law, the cour t applies the two-pa

rt test articulated by

the Supreme Court inChevron U.S.A., I nc. v. Natural Resource

s DefenseCouncil . 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). The court fir st must determine whethe r Congr ess has spoken dir ectly to the issue in question; if so, the court must ensure that the Depa rtment’s methods comport with “the unambig uously expressed intent of Cong ress.” Id . at 843 (footnote omitted). I f Cong ress is silent on the issue, the cour t must determine whethe r the methods that the Depa

rtment employed to re ach its conc lusion are “ based on a permissibleConsol. Court No. 08-00321 Page 9

construction of the statute.” Id. (footnote omitted). The court must defer to Commerce’s interpretation of the statute so long as it is reasonable and “may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by” Commerce. Id

. at 844. III. Discussion How to value co-products in an antidumping case where the manufacturer in question produces one product the subject merchandise simultaneously with a second product that serves as a catalyst in the production of a third product is an issue of first impression for the Court. When Commerce uses a constructed value as the normal value of the subject merchandise, Congress instructs the Department to take into account “the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind employed in producing the merchandise . . . in the ordinary course of business .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(1) (emphasis added). The “ordinary course of business” means “[t]he transaction of business according to the common usages and customs of . . . the particular individual whose acts are under consideration.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1098 (6th ed. 1990); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 404, 1209 (9th ed. 2009). From a 7 thorough examination of the record, the court finds that the Department’s chosen chlorine gas valuation methodology in the Redetermination Results fails to take into account Avisma’s ordinary course of business and, therefore, does not accord with law.

The statute itself does not define “ordinary course of business.” It does define “ordinary 7 course of trade.” The court notes that the phrases have different meanings and that “trade” connotes commercial transactions such as sales between individual entities. See, e.g. , NTN Corp. v. United States , 28 CIT 108, 139, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1346-47 (2004).Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 10

Avisma is primarily

a produc er of

titanium sponge, a

nd its business st ructure ref lects this focus. Pls. Br . App. Tab 2 at 3 (“VSMPO-AVI SMA is a titanium m anufa cture r and AVI SMA’s Be rezniki facility

supports that production.”) ; 2006 Avisma Annual Report 8. To that end, Avisma strives to produce raw mag nesium and chlorine g as only in the quantities nece ssary to enable its overar chingtitanium operation. Pls. Br. App. Ta b 2 at 6. The subjec t mercha ndise, pure a nd alloy ed mag nesium, is an ancillar y product of the overa ll production proce ss. Pls . Br

. App. Tab 5 at 8; see also Pls. Br. App. Ta b 2 at 6. The subser

vient nature of mag nesium production to titanium production becomes appar ent from a

n examination of Avisma’s financ es. Titanium products ac count for 78 pe rce nt of Avisma’s sa les reve nue, while only four pe rce nt comes fr om the subject merc handise. 2006 Avisma Annual Report 8, 10, 17. This fig ure puts subjec t mercha ndise on par w ith ferr otitanium, aluminum and its alloy s, and “othe r g oods and ser vices” in terms of Avisma’s sa les reve nue, demonstratingits comparatively minor role. 2006 Avisma Annual Report 10. In addition, the 2006 Avisma Annual Report reve als that Avisma allocated 29% of its investments that y ear toward improve ments in tit anium spong e produc tion, with only three perc ent g oing towa rd “othe r primary production ar eas.” 2006 Avisma Annual Report 22; see also 2006 Av isma Annual Report 23 (notingthat “major mode rnization project in mag nesium proce ssing” g ear ed towar d incre asing titanium sponge pr oduction). F rom a fina ncial standpoint, Avisma’s ordina ry course of business place s titanium i n a pre eminent position. Cl aiming that it is rea sonable to treat mag nesium as a pr imary

product of A visma, Commerce disre g ards the va st majority of Avisma’s financ ial activity

. Compare Final Results Issues and Dec ision Memorandum at 14 (trunc atingConsol. Court No. 08-00321 Page 11

production process at carnallite refinement stage), with § 1677b(e)(1) (directing Commerce to take into account entity’s ordinary course of business when using constructed value as normal value). Avisma’s treatment of its raw magnesium production capabilities following its 2005 merger with titanium producer VSMPO underscores the subsidiary nature of the subject merchandise production in Avisma’s ordinary course of business. Pls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 3. Even prior to the merger, Avisma planned to gradually reduce its raw magnesium output to the level minimally sufficient to produce the chlorine gas necessary for its titanium output projections. Pls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 3 (“It was understood that this merger would shift AVISMA’s production focus more squarely into the production of . . . titanium sponge.” (emphasis added)), 6-7. To achieve this goal, Avisma planned and carried out a gradual reduction in raw magnesium output [[ ]]. Pls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 5-6. Over the course of the 8 following three years, raw magnesium output and therefore the output of its co-product Avisma found it economically expedient to reduce raw magnesium production gradually 8 rather than immediately because it would provide “an opportunity to minimize its electrolysis operations while avoiding any layoffs by increasing its titanium production.” Pls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 3. An immediate cessation of magnesium production would have subjected Avisma to disposal costs and workforce downsizing: Once a decision has [sic] been made to [[restrain]] [raw] magnesium production above a certain level (that need [sic] to produce chlorine), there were logical economic reasons for switching somewhat gradually in reducing production of magnesium. Generally, each electrolytic cell is budgeted to serve for [[many]] months between capital repairs. These are expensive repairs . . . and an abrupt stoppage would have resulted in [[ undesirable consequences ]]. This would have been in addition to the loss of whatever material was loaded in the cells at the time of the stoppage. Pls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 7-8. A 2006 mine collapse at Avisma’s carnallite supplier caused Avisma to cut magnesium production more rapidly than originally intended. Pls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 6.Consol. Court No. 08-00321 Page 12

chlorine gas dropped [[significantly]]. From the second quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2007 alone, raw magnesium output fell from [[ many ]] metric tons to [[ fewer ]] metric tons. Pls. Br. App. Tab 6 Ex. 2SD-2. By the end of 2006, raw magnesium production fell to the level minimally sufficient to produce Avisma’s desired amount of chlorine gas. Pls. Br. App. Tab 2 at 4-5 (“[P]roduction of magnesium was limited to the amount unavoidable under the existing technology and because of supply issues.”). Commerce’s chlorine gas valuation methodology effectively disregards the ample record evidence that shows that Avisma’s raw magnesium production is completely subservient to titanium production. Pls. Br. App. Tab 2 at 5. Avisma’s attempts to increase technical-quality magnesium production are further indicative of its desire to avoid production of subject merchandise to the extent possible. SeePls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 4. During the period of review, Avisma made steps toward increasing its output of technical-quality magnesium specifically to use in the titanium tetrachloride separation process so that Avisma could limit further its output of raw magnesium, and thus subject merchandise, to the amount necessary for Avisma to obtain chlorine gas in the quantities that it needs to make titanium. Pls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 4. The record evidence shows that subject merchandise production clearly does not lie at the heart of Avisma’s business plans or operations; rather, it is an incidental product of Avisma’s titanium production. Treating subject merchandise otherwise does not reflect the costs incurred in Avisma’s ordinary course of business as the statute requires. § 1677b(e)(1). Despite the financial and operational cohesiveness of Avisma’s titanium operations, the Department nevertheless belittles the integrated nature of Avisma’s facility to justify its severingConsol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 13

of Avisma’s pr oduction proce ss in its chlorine g as valuation methodology . For example, the Depa rtment claims that the quantities of mate rials that trave l betwee n seg ments of the produc tion proce ss are too small to warra nt considering

the fa cility

an integrate d whole. Rede termination Results at 8. The D epar

tment claims that it is t here fore rea sonable to truncate its consideration of the produc tion process at the car nallite ref inement stag e and c alculate the value f or chlorine g as consideringonly

the outputs of that stag e. In rea lity , howeve r, the re cord shows that the production proc ess depe nds entirely on the movement of materials betwe en stag es. Avisma primarily uses the chlor ine g as produc ed fr om car nallite in the ilmenite cataly zation process. Pls.R eply Br . App. Tab 18 at 3. The ra w mag nesium produce d jointly with chlorine g as not only become s subject merc handise, but also play s a fundamental role in the titanium tetrac hloride separ ation proce ss. Pls . Br . App. Tab 5 at 4. I n addition, Avisma takes the c hlorine g as that it

rec overs a long w ith technical- quality mag nesium following the titanium tetrachloride se paration proce ss and re cycles it into the ilmenite cataly zation process. Pls. Br. App. T ab 2 at 5- 6. Although the rawmag nesium and chlorine g as produc ed at the c arna llite refineme nt stag e ser ve

cruc ial purposes throug hout the chain of production, Commerce insists on employing a methodology

that turns a blind ey e to this undeniable fa ct. The 2006 mine c ollapse suffe red by Avisma’s ca

rnallite supplier fur

ther hig hlights the interdepe ndent nature of Avisma’s ope rations. Pls. Br. App. Ta b 5 at 5; see also 2006 Avisma Annual Report 33. After the ac cident, Avisma c ould not procure car nallite and, ther efor e, wa s unable to produc e the r aw magnesium and chlorine g as nee ded to run its operations. P ls. Br. App. Tab 5 at 5. This threat of a production collapse forc ed Avisma to purc hase outside c hlorine to continue its production of titanium. Pl s. Br . App. Tab 5 a t 5. Comm erc e cha

rac terizesConsol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 14

Avisma’s produc tion facility as a se ries of discr ete, indepe ndently -oper ating proce sses, but the events followingthe mine ac cident demonstrate that the proc esses c annot oper ate indepe ndently

. The lac k of ca

rnallite threatened to halt not only the ca rnallite re finement proc ess, but all of Avisma’s produc tion. 9 The c ourt finds nothing in the r ecor d to leg itimi ze Comm erc e’s c hara cter ization of Avisma’s produc tion process. Cf

. Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. , 187 F.3d at 1365 (“Eve n if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conc lusions from evidence contained in the r ecor d, this does not mean that Commerce ’s finding s are not supported by substantial evidence .”). Commerc e claims that its method for valuingchlorine g as more c losely comports with “ec onomic rea lity ” than other me thods. Rede termination Results at 12. B ut Comm erc e may not substit ute its own definition of “e conomic re ality ” for the standar d which Cong ress ha s mandated. In other wor ds, Commerce must ca lculate the va lue of the subjec t mercha ndise, including “the c ost of materia ls and fa brication or other proc essing of any kind employ ed in produc ing the merc handise,” by taking into account Avisma’ s ordinary course of business. § 1677b(e )(1) . The De partment cannot take into account Avisma’ s ordinary course of business while basingits methodology to calc ulate the c ost of chlorine g as in its overall dete rmination of the norma l value of the subject

Additionally , the Depa

rtment’s justification for trunc ation is internally inconsistent. 9 The De partment seve rs the ca rnallite re finement proc ess from the r est of the titanium production while claimingthat the g oal of its chlorine g as valua tion methodology

is to arrive at a price that acc urate ly

ref lects the be nefit Avisma obtains fr om chlorine g as. Final Results Issues and Dec ision Memorandum at 14-15. B ut Avisma obtains value fr om chlorine g as pre cisely as a means to produc e titanium. The only other produc t that Avisma produce s with chlorine g as is calc ium chloride de- icer , which it sells at a loss as a w ay of disposing of

excess chlorine g as. Pls. Br. App. Ta

b 5 at 6 n.3 (“ This is a proce ss of transfor ming e x cess c hlorine into [[ de-ic er]] (i.e., a marke table, albe it inex pensive, produc t . . . .)”). Wer e it not for titanium production, Avisma would have no need f or chlorine g as at a ll.Consol. Court No. 08-00321 P age 15

merc handise on a

misapprehe nsion of the company ’s produc tion process. B eca use Commerce has fa iled to take into acc ount Avisma’s ordinar y course of business in calc ulating the value f or chlorine g as, its methodology does not ac cord w ith law. See id. ; Chevron U.S.A., I nc., 467 U.S. at 842-43. IV. Conclusion For the fore g oing r easons, it is ORDERED that Commerce’ s Rede termination Results are REMAND ED to the Depa rtment for f

urther pr ocee dings; it is further ORDERED that Commerce r eca lculate the va lue for c hlorine g as in its determination of the normal va lue of the subjec t mercha ndise, taking into account Avisma’ s ordinary course of business by

focusingon Avisma’s entire production proc ess, including the stag es of pr oduction encompa ssing a

nd following ilmenite cataly zation; and it i s further ORDERED that Commerce sha ll have until November 9, 2010 to file its remand re sults with the Court. Plainti ffs a nd Def endant- Interve nor shall file c omments, if any , with the Court no later tha

n Dec ember

7, 2010.

Dated: August 17, 2010 /s/ J udith M. Barzil ay New Y ork, Ne w York J udith M. Barzil ay , J udg e