Slip Op. 07-140 UNITED STA TES COU RT OF INTER NATIONA L TRADE

____________________________________ : CORUS STAAL B V, : : Plaintiff, : : v . : : Before: Judith M. Barz ilay, Judge UNITED STA TES, : Court No. 07-00270 : De fe nd ant, : : an d : : UNITED STA TES : STEEL CO RPORA TION, et al ., : : De fe nd ant-I nte rve no rs. : : ____________________________________:
OP IN ION [Plaintiff’s applica tion for preli minary injunction is denied.] Steptoe & J

ohnson, LLP , (

Joel D. Kaufman ), Al iceA. Ki pp el , Ja mi e B . B ea be r , and Richard O. Cunningham for Plaintiff Corus Staal BV. Pe ter D. Ke isler , A ssi stant A tto rne y G en era l; Jeanne E. Davidson , D ire cto r; ( Clau dia Bu rke ), Co mm erc ial Li tig ati on

Br an ch , C ivi l D ivi sio n, Un ite d S tat es D ep artm ent of Ju sti ce f or De fe nd an t U nit ed

St ate s. Skadden Arps Slate M

eagher & Flom, LLP , John J. Mangan , ( Jef fre y D . G err ish ), and Robert E. Li gh thi zer for Defendant-Interve nor United St ates Steel Corporation. Wiley Rei n, LLP , ( Ti mo thy C. Br igh tbi ll) and Alan H. Pr ice for Defendant-Interve nor Nucor Corporation. Ste wa rt a nd

Ste wa rt , ( Wil lia m A . F

en ne ll) and Te ren ce P . S

tew ar t for Defendant-Interve nor Mittal St eel US A, Inc
. Dated: September 19, 2007Court No. 07-00270 Page 2

Nucor Corporation ( “Nucor”), United St ates Steel Corporation ( “U.S. Steel”), and 1 Mittal St eel US A, Inc . (“ Mittal St eel ”) j oin as D ef en dant- Int erv en ors . BA RZ IL AY , J ud ge : Pl aintif f C oru s S taa l B V ( “C oru s”) , m ov ed thi s co urt

fo r a preliminary injunc tion to enj oin the Defendant United States (the “Government”) from 1 liquidat ing certa in entri es of hot-roll ed carbon ste el flat product s from the Netherlands (“HRCS”) that are s ubject to a ntidumping duties. Se e A nti du mp ing Du ty O rd

er: Ce rta in H

otRolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products f

rom the Netherlands , 6 6 F ed . R eg . 5 9, 56 5 (D ep ’t C om m erc e No v. 29 , 2 00 1) ( “

ADOr de r ”). Co rus ha s p art ici pated in s ev era l pr oc eed ing s b ef ore the Co urt contesti ng the Government’s use of “zeroing” to calcul ate dumping m argins. See Corus Staal BV v. Un ite d S

tates , 2 9 C IT __ , 3 87 F. Su pp . 2 d 1 29 1 (2 00 5) ( “ Co ru s S taa l I ”), aff ’d, 186 F. App’x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cer t. d en ied, 1 27 S. Ct . 3 00 1 (2 00 7); seeals o C orus Sta al B V v

. Un ite d S tates , 3 1 C IT __

, 4 93 F. Su

pp . 2 d 1 27 6 (2 00 7) ( “ Corus Staal 5AR ”); Co ru s S taa l B V v

. Un ite d S tates , S lip Op . 0 6-1 12 , 2 00 6 W L 2 05 64 01 (Ju ly 2 5, 20 06 ) (n ot r ep ort ed in F . S up p. ); Co ru s S taa l B V v . U

.S . D ep ’t o f C om me rce , 2 7 C IT 38 8, 25 9 F . S up p. 2d 12 53 (20 03 ). T his op ini on fo llo ws thi s co urt ’s d eci sio n f rom the be nc h o n Aug us t 1, 20 07 , d enyin g P lai nti ff ’s applicat ion for a preli minary injunction. Despit e clear s tatutory guidelines to the contr ary, Corus
co nte nd s th at the De partm ent of Co mm erc e (“ Co mm erc e”) m ayno t im po se anti dum

pin g d uti es on its imports unless there is a valid det ermination of dum ping pursuant t o 19 U.S.C. § 1673. The Government m oved to dismiss this ac tion under USCIT Rules 12(b) (1) and 12(b) (5). Whe the r C oru s satis fi es t he cri ter ion

fo r a p rel im inary i nju

nc tio n w as t

ho rou gh lyCourt No. 07-00270 Page 3

Th e ca se w as b rou gh t pu rsu ant to the fi ft

h a dm ini str ati ve rev iewan d c ha lle ng ed 2 Commerce’s liquidat ion instructions under28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). “Commerce used a methodology called ‘zer oing’ . . . whereby only pos itive dumping 3 margins (i.e., margins for sales of merchandise sold atdumped prices) were aggrega ted, and negative margins (i .e., margins for sales of merchandise sold at nondumped prices) were given a va lue of zer o. ” Co ru s S

taa l B V v . U

.S . D ep ’t o f C om me rce , 3 95 F. 3d

13 43 , 1 34 5-4 6 (F ed . C ir. 2005). dis cu sse d in

a p rev iou s o pin ion

iss ue d b y ano the r ju dg e o f t his Co urt
. See Corus Staal 5AR , 31

2 CIT at __, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 1281. As that ca se was dismissed on juris dictional grounds, the fo ur- part p rel im inary i nju nc tio n ana lys is i nc lud ed

in t he op ini on

is dic ta . Se e id . at 1288. The fac ts of t hi s c as e, ho we ve r, ar e l eg al ly di st in gu is habl e fr om Corus Staal 5AR , and the courtfinds that jur isdicti on here is pr oper under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Alt hough the factual di stincti ons mentioned above provide grounds for j urisdict ion, they do not affect the merits of Corus’s claim. In other words, Corus cannot meet the crit eria for a pre liminary injuncti on in this ca se for the same reasons outlined i n Corus Staal 5AR
. I. Background On Novem

ber 29, 2001, Comm erce iss ued an antidumping order on HRCS after applying
a m eth od olo gycal led

“ze roi ng ” to d ete rm ine wh eth er the su bje ct e ntr ies we re s old

at l ess than 3 fair value. Se e ADOr

de r , 6 6 F ed . R eg . 5 9, 56 5 (D ep ’t C om m erc e N ov . 2 9, 20 01 ); Notice of Amended Final Determinati on of Sales at Les s Than Fair Value; Certai n Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands , 66 Fed. Reg. 55,637 (Dep’t Comm erce Nov. 2, 2001). Co rus , a Dutch pro du cer of HR CS ; ch all en ge d th e u se o f “ zer oin g” durin g th e f irs t administrative r eview. Se e Ini tia tio n o f A nti du mp ing

an d C ou nte rva ili ng

Du ty A dm ini

strati veCourt No. 07-00270 Page 4

Reviews , 6 7 F ed . R eg . 7 8, 77 2 (D ep ’t C om m erc e D ec. 26 , 2 00 2); seeals o C ert ain Ho t-R olled Ca rb on Ste el F

lat Prod uc ts f ro m t heNe the rla nd

s; Prel im ina ry R esu lts of A nti du mp ing Du ty Ad mi nis tra tiv e R evi ew , 6 8 F ed . R eg . 6 8, 34 1 (D ep ’t C om m erc e D ec. 8, 20 03 ). I n th e f ina l results , Commerce reaffirm ed the use of “zeroi ng” and imposed an adjusted weight ed-average dumping m argin on the s ubject ent ries. Se e Certain Hot-Roll ed Carbon Products from the Ne the rla nd

s; F ina l R esu lts of A nti du mp ing Du ty A dm ini

strati ve R evi ew , 69 Fed. Reg. 33,630 (D ep ’t C om

m erc e Ju ne 16 , 2 00 4) ( “Fi na l R esu lts ”). Co rus so ug ht r ev iewof

the Fi na l R esu lts in this Courtpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). Se e C orus Sta al I

, 29 CIT at __, 387 F. Supp. 2d at 1292-93. Before issui ng its judgment, the court ente red an injunc tion thatprohibite d Customs f rom liquidating the s ubject ent ries duri ng the pe nd en cyof

the lit igatio n. Ul tim ate ly, the co urt up he ld t he Fi na l R esu lts
. Se e id . at __, 387 F. Su pp . 2 d at 12 97 -13 01 , 1 30 5. On ap pe al, the Fe de ral Ci rcu it a ff irm ed in a pe r curiam opinion, whereupon Corus submitted a pe tition for r ehearing en ba nc, which was denied. Se e Corus Staal BV

, 186 Fed. App’x 997. The Supreme Court denied certi orari. See Corus Staal , 12 7 S . C t. 3 00 1. Co ns eq

ue ntl y, the inj un cti on

expir ed , a

nd Co mm erc e in str

uc ted Cu sto m s to liq uid ate Co rus ’s e ntr ies pursu ant to the Fi na l R esu lts on July 6, 2007. Se e 19 U. S. C. 15 16 a(c ) & (e ). I n re sp on se, Co rus m ov ed thi s co urt

fo r a t em po rar y re str ain ingord er ( “T RO ”) t o “m aintai n th e status quo pending a heari ng on preliminary injunc tive rel ief.” Pl. Br. 3. The court grant ed the TRO until July 30, 2007, whic h was subsequently e xtended through August1, 2007, the date of the pr eliminary injunct ion hearing.Court No. 07-00270 Page 5

The EC challenged the us e of “zeroing” in 15 a ntidumping investigat ions and 16 4 administrative r eviews. The invest igation of Corus was among those challe nged before the W TO Pane l. Se e Request for Consult ations by EC , W T/DS294/1, at 2. However, none of the adm ini str ati ve rev iew s o f H RC S w ere inc lud ed in t he pro cee din g. Ac co rdi ng to D ef en dants , sin ce S ect ion

12 9 p roc eed ing s ap ply

on ly t o s pe cif

ic a dm ini str ati ve act ion s, su chas a parti cu lar administrative r eview, the Secti on 129 determination at i ssue in thi s case has no effect on the subject ent ries. The cour t rejec ts this a rgument because the Secti on 129 proceeding r evoked the ADOr de r without except ion. Se e Im ple me nta tio n o

f th e F ind ing s o f th e WT O Pan el i n US--Zeroing (EC) : Notice of Det erminations Under Sec tion 129 of the Uruguay Round Ag ree me nts Ac t an d R evo ca tio ns an d Par tia l R evo ca tio ns of C ert ain An tid um ping D uty

Or de rs , 72 Fe d. Re g. 25 ,2 61 , 2 5, 26 2 (D ep ’t o f C om m erc e May 4 , 2 00 7) ( “ Section 129 Deter mination ”).
5 [U]nlike in a new investigat ion, in an administrat ive revie w [Com merce] does not co m pare the av era ge US pri ce ( expo rt p ric e) t o th e av era ge ho m e m ark et p ric e (no rm al v alu e) f

or t he wh ole inv est igatio n p eri od . In ste ad , [ Co mm erc e’s ] practic e is to compare the US net pri ce for each indivi dual US transact ion to the most contem

poraneous monthly average nor mal value. The total val ue of the dum pin g m arg in i s th encal cu lat ed byag gre gatin g o nly

the trans act ion -sp eci fi c po sit ive dum

pe d v alu es and

the n m ult ipl yin g th e q

uanti ty s old

in t he US m ark et for each model by the unit dumped value to arri ve at the t otal doll ars dumped. Co m paris on s o f i nd ivi du al U S tran sac tio ns to w eig hte d-ave rag e m onthl y n orm al value thatyield negat ive margins are ignor ed (effectively t reated as zero). . . . [Com merce’s] m ethodology of aggregat ing the value s of only the positi ve dumping m argins base d on the indivi dual trans actions means that t here is no of fs et a ga ins t th e p os iti ve va lue s at any s tag e. Whil e C oru s w as d isp uti ng its cla im s in our do m est ic c ourts , th e E uro pe anCo mm un iti es (“EC”) init iated a pr oceeding before the W orld Trade Organi zation (“ W TO”), challengi ng the Un ite d S tat es’ pra cti ce o f “ zer oin g” to c alc ulate d um pin g m arg ins
. Se e Request for

4 Co ns ult ati on s b y th e E uro pe anCo mm un iti es, United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology f

or Calculating Dumping Mar gins (“Zeroing”) , W T/ DS 29 4/1 (June 19, 2003) ( “Request for Consult ations by EC ”). The WTO panel conclude d that Comm erce’s us e of “ze roi ng ” v iol ate d U .S . o bli gatio ns un de r th e W TO Antid um pin g A gre em ent (“

AD Agreement ”) wi th r esp ect

to anti dum

pin g inve sti gatio ns . Se e Pane l R ep ort , Un ite d S tates – La ws , 5Court No. 07-00270 Page 6

Request for Consult ations by EC , W T/DS294/1, at 5. Se cti on 35 33 (g) (1) rea ds : 6 (g) Requirements for agency act ion (1) Ch an ge s in

ag en cyreg ulatio ns or p rac tic e In any case i n which a dispute s ettlement panel orthe Appellat e Body finds in its r eport thata regulat ion or pract ice of a department or agency of the United Stat es is incons istent wit h any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, that regula tion or pra ctice may not be amended, rescinded, or oth erw ise m od if

ied in t he im ple m entat ion

of su chrep ort

un les s an d unti l-- (A ) th e ap pro pri ate co ngre ssi on al c om m itt ees have be enco ns ult ed under subsect ion (f) of this sect ion; (B) the Trade Repr esentati ve has sought advi ce regardi ng the Regulations and M

ethodology for

Calculating Dumping Margi ns (“Zeroing”) , ¶¶ 8.2, 8.4, W T/ DS 29 4/R

(O ct. 31 , 2 00 5) ( “Pa ne l R ep or t ”). The United Stat es appealed c ertain a spects of the Pa ne l R ep or t , but the dete rmination concerning “ zeroing” r emained intact. Se e Ap pe llate Bo dyRe po rt, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calcul ating Dumping Margins , ¶ 2 63 , W T/ DS 29 4/A B/R ( Ap r. 1 8, 20 06 ) (“ Ap pe lla te B od

y R ep or t ”). Moreover , the Appellate Body held t hat the use of “zer oing” was also i mperm issible during administrat ive reviews. Se e id . ¶¶

13 2-3 5, 22 63 (a) (i)
. Ac co rdi ng ly, the Un ite d S tat es s tar ted the pro ces s o f i m

ple m entin g th e d eci sio n o utl ine d in t he Pa ne l R ep or t . Se e Im

pl em en ta ti on of

th e F in di ng s o f the WT O Pa ne l i n US

Ze ro in g (E C): No tic e o f In iti ati on of Pro cee dings Un de r S ect ion 12 9 o

f th e U RAA; Op po rtu nit y to Re qu est Ad mi nis tra tiv e Pro tec tiv e O rd ers ; an d Pro

po sed Ti me tab le a nd

Proc ed ur es , 72 Fed. Reg. 9306 (Dep’t Comm erce Mar . 1, 2007). The administrati ve procedures for implem enting such a de cis ion are co nta ine d in

Se cti on s 1 23 an d 1 29 of

the Ur ug uay R ound

Ag ree m ents A ct (“URAA”), codified in 19 U.S.C. §§ 3533(g) and 3538, respecti vely. See also 19 U.S.C. 6 7 8Court No. 07-00270 Page 7

m od if icatio n f rom rel ev ant pr ivate s ect or a dv iso ry c om m itt ees est ab lis he d und er s ect ion 21 55 of thi s ti tle ; (C ) th e h ead

of the rel ev ant de partm ent or ag en cyha s p rov ide d an op po rtunit

y f or p ub lic co m

m ent by pu bli sh ingin t

he Fe de ral Register t he proposed modification and the e xplanation for t he modif ication; (D ) th e T rad e R ep res entat ive ha s su bm itt ed to t he ap pro pri ate co ng res sio na l co mm itt ees a re po rt d esc rib ingthe pro po sed modif ication, t he reasons for the modif ication, a nd a summ ary of the advice obt ained under subpa ragraph (B) wit h respect t o the modif ication; (E) the Trade Representat ive and the hea d of the relevant de partm ent or

ag en cyhave co ns ult ed

wi th t he ap pro pri ate co ng res sio na l co mm itt ees on the pro po sed

co nte nts of

the fi na l rule or ot her modification; and (F) the final rule or othermodif ication ha s been publishe d in the Fe de ral Re gis ter
. § 3 53 3(g )(1 ). In r ele vant p art , § 35 38 pro vid es: 7 (a) . . . . (6) Re vo cat ion

of ord er If, by virtue of the Comm ission's determination . . . , an a ntidumping or co unter va ili ng duty o rde r w ithres pe ct t o s om e o r al l of the im po rts that ar e su bje ct t o th e ac tio n o f t

he Co mm iss ion

. . . is no lon ge r su

pp ort ed byan affirm ative Comm ission det ermination under ti tle VII of the Tar iff Act of 1930 . . . or this subs ection, the Trade Represent ative may, after consulti ng with the congressiona l comm ittees . . . , direct t he administering authority to r evoke the an tid um pin g o r co unter

va ili ng duty o rde r in

wh ole or i n p art
. (b) . . . . (4) Implementation of determination Th e T rad e R ep res entat ive m ay , a ft er c on su lti ng wi th t he adm ini ste rin g a

uth ori ty an d th e co ng res sio na l co mm itt ees . . . , dir ect the adm ini ste rin g a

uth ori ty t o implem ent, in whole or i n part, the de termination . . . . (c) . . . . (1) Effects of determinations De ter m inatio ns co nc ern ingtit le V II o f t he Tarif f A ct o f 1 93 0 .
. . that ar e implem ented under t his secti on shall appl y with respectto unliquida ted entri es of the subjectmerchandise . . . that ar e entered, orwithdrawn from warehouse, for co ns um pti on on or a ft er- -Court No. 07-00270 Page 8

(A) in the ca se of a determination by the Comm ission . . ., the date on wh ich the Tr ad e R ep res entat ive dir ect s th e ad m ini ste rin g a

uth ori ty .
. . to revoke an orderpursuant to t hat deter mination. . . . § 3538. 8 Co ng res s h as e sta

bli sh ed tw o p roc ed

ure s b y whic h a

ne gativ e W TO de cis ion

m ay be implem ented into domestic l aw. The first method, a Section 123 procee ding, is the m ech an ism

to am en d, res cin d, or m od if y an a ge nc y re gu lat ion

or p rac tic e in order to i mplem ent a decis ion by the WTO that such is inconsi stent with U.S. treaty obl igations. Sec tion 123 requi res the Unit ed States Tra de Representat ive (“USTR”) to consult wit h appropriat e congressi onal comm ittees , private s ector comm ittees , and provide for publi c comm ent before deter mining whether and how to change an agency r egulation orpractic e. . . . The second method, a Section 12 9 p roc eed ing , is dis cre te. Se cti on 12 9 s ets fo rtha p roc ed

ure to i m ple m ent a ne gativ e W TO de cis ion

wi th r esp ect

to a sp eci fic administrative de termination that was the s ubject of a WTO dispute. Importantly, a Section 129 det ermination is prospect ive in natur e: it bec omes eff ective onl y for unliquidate d entries of merchandise that ar e entered orwithdrawn from warehouse for consum ption on or after the dat e the USTR directs Comm erce to i mplem ent that de termination. Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 C IT at _ _ n .2 , 4 93 F. Su

pp . 2 d at 12 80 n. 2 (c itatio ns om itt ed ). The effective date of the Sect ion 123 Determination was changed from January 16, 9 2007 to February 22, 2007. See Antidumping Proceedi ngs: Calculati on of the Wei ghted-Average Dumping Margins in Anti dumping Investi gations; Change in Ef

fectiv e Date of Final Modific ation , 7 2 F ed . R eg . 3 78 3 (D ep ’t C om m erc e Jan. 26 , 2 00 7); Section 123 Deter mination , 71 Fed. Reg. at 77,725. § 3511 (implem enting URAA). In the Secti on 123 proceeding, Comm erce eli minated the practic e of “zeroing” in “ ‘all cur rent and future a ntidumping investigat ions’” as of February 22, 2007. Corus Staal 5AR , 31 CIT at __, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 1280 (quoti ng Antidumping 9 Proceedings: Calc ulation of t he Weighte d-Average Dumping Margin Duri ng an Antidumping Investi gation; Final

Modific ation , 71 Fed. Reg. 77,722 (Dep’t Comm erce Dec. 27, 2006) (“ Section 123 Determination ”)) . In ad dit ion , C om

m erc e co mm en ced

Se cti on 12 9 p roc eed ing s to “re cal cu lat e th e d

um pin g m arg ins in e ach

. . . anti dum

pin g inve sti gatio n[ ] .
. . wi tho ut z ero ing .”Court No. 07-00270 Page 9

Th e three do m est ic p art ici pants inc lud ed Nu co r, U .S . S tee l, and

Mittal St eel
. 10 To clarif

y, the entri es at is su e in

the fi ft h a dm ini str ati ve rev iewwe re m ad e b etw een 11 Novem ber 1, 2005 and October 31, 2006, a nd are dist inct from those at issue i n this case
. Id . After performing this recalc ulation, Comm erce adjus ted Corus’s dumping margin to zero and
rev ok ed the ADOr

de r . See Section 129 Det ermination , 72 Fed. Reg. at 25,262. The effective date o f t he Section 129 Determination was April 23, 2007. Id
. Durin g th is p eri od , C om

m erc e al so ini tiated

the fi ft h a dm ini str ati ve rev iewof the AD Or de r at t he req ue st o f t hre e d om est ic s tee l co m

panie s. See Initi ation of Anti dumping and

10 Countervaili ng Duty Administrati ve Reviews , 71 Fed. Reg. 77,720 (Dep’t Comm erce Dec. 27, 2006). However, the domestic producer s decided to r escind thei r requestfor an administrative review, see Certain Hot-Roll ed Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands: Noti ce of Resci ssi on of A nti du mp ing

Du ty A dm ini

strati ve R evi ew , 7 2 F ed . R eg . 1 5, 10 5, 15 ,1 06 (D ep ’t Commerce Mar. 30, 2007), which prompted Commerce to issue liqui dation inst ructions on Co rus ’s e ntr ies
. Se e 19 C. F. R. § 3 51 .2 12 (c) . A t th e ti m e C om m erc e is su ed

the se p art icu lar 11 ins tru cti on s, the Section 129 Determination wa s n ot i n e ff ect
. See Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 C IT at

__ , 4 93 F. Su

pp . 2 d at 12 81 ; see also Sect ion 129 Determinati on , 72 Fed. Reg. at 25,261. Corus ob jec ted to t he rec isi on

of the fi ft h a dm ini str ati ve rev iewan d argu ed that C om m erc e w as precluded from issuing liqui dation inst ructions t hat imposed antidumping duties since the Section 123 Determination prohibite d the use of “zeroi ng” in dumping investigati ons. Co mm erc e re

jec ted thi s ar gum ent. C oru s th enso ug ht j ud ici al r ev iewin t his Co urt pursu ant to § 1581(i), cl aiming that Comm erce’s l iquidati on instruct ions to Customs were unlawful. Se e Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 C IT at _ _, 49 3 F . S up p. 2d

at 1 28 4; cf. Sh iny ei C

or p. v. Un ite d S

tates , 355Court No. 07-00270 Page 10

Defendant-Inter venor U.S. Steel conte nds that Corus i s barred from raising the present 12 claim under the doctr ine of res jud ica ta because itraised t he same claim, after revocation of the ADOr de r , d uri ng its pe tit ion

fo r ce rti orari. De f. -Int. B r. 1 0 n .2 ; seePetition for Writ of Certiorar i at *6-9, Co ru s S taa l B V v . U

nited Sta tes , No. 06-1057, 2007 W L 275951 (Jan. 25, 2007); Reply Brief of Petiti oner at *4-7, Co ru s S taa l B V v . U

nited Sta tes , No . 0 6- 10 57 , 2 00 7 WL 1655119 (June 8, 2007). However, the doctrine of res judicat a does not apply i n this situation because the “ denial of a writ of cer tiorar i imports no expressi on of opinion upon the merits of the cas e. ” Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Powe , 2 83 U. S. 40 1, 40 3-0 4 (1 93 1); see Am me x, Inc . v . U

nited Sta tes , 334 F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (r equiring final judgment on m erits t o preclude lat er a dju dic ati on

of sam e cl aim ). F. 3d 12 97 , 1 30 4 (F ed . C ir. 20 04 ); Co ns ol. Be ar ing s C o. v. Un ite d S

tates , 348 F.3d 997, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2003). That c ase was dismissed for lack of juri sdiction. See Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 C IT at _ _, 49 3 F . S up p. 2d

at 1 28 8. In t

he cas e at bar, C oru s h as e sse nti all y ra ise d th e sam e cl aim
un de r § 1 58 1(i ) f

or e ntr ies m ad e d

uri ng the fi rst

adm ini str ati ve rev iew , w iththe cru cia l exception t hat here t he Section 129 Determination we nt i nto ef fe ct b ef ore Co mm erc e is su ed

its liq uid ati on ins tru cti on s. Co m

pl. ¶¶ 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 . O n Aug us t 1, 20 07 , th is c ourt d en ied Co rus ’s applicat ion for a preli minary injunction. II. Discussion A. Subject Mat ter Juris diction Juris dic tio n is pro pe r in

thi s ca se b eca

us e re vo cat ion

of the ADOr

de r as i m ple m ented thr ou ghthe Section 129 Determination ha d o cc urre d a t t he ti me Co mmerc e i ns truc te d Cu st oms to liquida te the subj ect entr ies on July 6, 2007. This distinct ion provides a basis for juri sdiction
un de r § 1 58 1(i ). 12 “C on gre ss p rov ide d th is C ourt w ithbro ad res idu al j uri sd ict ion

un de r 28 U. S. C. § 1 58 1(i ) to hear ‘a ny civil ac tion comm enced againstthe United Stat es . . . that ar ises out of any law of the United Stat es providing for . . . t ariffs [or] duties . . . on the importation of merchandise forCourt No. 07-00270 Page 11

rea so ns oth er than th e ra isi ng of rev enue ,’ a s w ell as c ase s ch all en gin g C om m erc e’s ‘administrati on and enforcement with respect t o the matters referr ed to’ in t he remainder of § 1 58 1. ” Pa rkd

aleInt ’l. , L td. v. Un ite d S tates , Slip Op. 07-122, 2007 WL 2261379 (CIT Aug. 8, 20 07 ) (n ot r ep ort ed

in F . S up p. ) (q

uo tin g § 15 81 (i) (2) , (4 )) ( bra ck ets & el lip ses in o rig ina l); see Am . S ign atu re, Inc . v . U

nited Sta tes , 31 CIT __, __, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1281, 1287 (2007). “Section 1581(i ) juris diction may not be invoked when jur isdicti on under anothersubsection of § 1581 is or could ha ve been avail able, unless the remedy provided under t hat other s ubsection
wo uld be m an if est ly i na de qu ate .” Mil ler & C o. v. Un ite d S

tates , 8 24 F. 2d

96 1, 96 3 (F ed . C ir. 19 87 ). I t w as “ en act ed

to avo id c on fl ict

in j uri sd ict ion

wi th t he dis tri ct c ourts an d to en sure jud ici al r ev iewfo r vario us un sp eci fi ed ch all en ge s to en fo rce m ent of im po rt l aw s. ” Associacao Do s In du str iai

s d e C or do ar ia E Re des v. Un ite d S

tates , 17 CIT 754, 757, 828 F. Supp. 978, 982- 83 (1993). The “‘mere reci tation of a basi s for jurisdi ction, by eit her a part y or a court, c annot be controll ing . . . we look to the t rue nature of the action in t he distri ct court i n determining jur isd ict ion

. . . . ’” No rsk

Hy dro C an ., Inc . v . U

nited Sta tes , 4 72 F. 3d

13 47 , 1 35 5 (F ed . C ir. 2006) (quoting Wil lia ms v. Se c’y of N av y , 7 87 F. 2d

55 2, 55 7 (F ed . C ir. 19 86 ) (e lli ps es i n original ). As Corus already exha usted all avenues to jur isdicti on under § 1581(c) by c hallenging the resul ts of the first administr ative re view, seeCo ru s S taa l I , 2 9 C IT at _

_, 38 7 F . S up p. 2d

at 1295, the only possi ble basis for Corus t o obtain jur isdicti on is pursuantto § 1581(i). Cf
. Am. Sig na ture, Inc

. , 3 1 C IT at _

_, 47 7 F . S up p. 2d

at 1 28 7-8 9. Co rus cit es § 15 81 (i) (2) an d (4 ) as providing jur isdicti on in this ca se “on the grounds that the a uthority ne cessary for imposition of
an tid um pin g d uti es u nd er 1 9 U .S .C . [ ]§ 16 73 , . . . nam ely , th e ex ist en ce o f a va lid fi na lCourt No. 07-00270 Page 12

In r ele vant p art , § § 1 67 3 and 16 73 d(c ) pr ov ide : 13 If

--

. . . . (2) the Co mm iss ion

de ter m ine s th at-
- (A ) an ind us tryin t he Un ite d S tat es- - (i) is materially inj ured . . .

. . . . by reason of imports of that merchandise or by re ason of sales (orthe likeli hood of sales) of that merchandise for i mportation, the n th ere sh all be im

po sed up on su chm erc hand ise anantid um pin g d uty , in ad dit ion to anyoth er d

uty im po sed , in anam ount e qu al t o th e am ount b y whic h the normal value exceeds the export pr ice . . . for the merchandise. . . . § 1673. (2) Issua nce of order; effect of negative determination

. . . . If . . . such determination[] is negati ve, the invest igation sha ll be ter minated upon the publica tion of notice of thatnegative det ermination and the administer ing autho rity s ha ll-

- (A) terminate the s uspension of liquida tion . . . , and (B) relea se any bond or othersecurit y, and refund any cash deposi t. . . . § 1 67 3d (c) (2)
. Notably, the facts i n Corus Staal 5AR are dis tin gu ish ab le. In t hat ca se, Co mm erc e 14 iss ue d it s li qu idatio n in str uc tio ns on

Ap ril 16 , 2 00 7, on e w eek be fo re the Section 129 determination of dumping, did not exist atthe time of issuance of the chall enged liquida tion instruct ions and does not now exi st.” Pl. Br. 5. As previ ously mentioned, the Section 129 Determination became binding on April 23, 2007. Corus filed t his acti on on July 19, 2007. Si nc e th e Section 129 Determination rev ok ed the ADOr

de r , th ere no lon ge r ex ist s a v ali d determination of dumping with respect to HRCS. Therefore, after Apri l 23, 2007, Corus
co nte nd s th at C om

m erc e lo st a

uth ori ty u nd er 1 9 U .S .C . § § 1 67 3 and 16 73 d(c ) to i m

po se 13 antidumping duties on the s ubject HRCS. Pl. Reply Br. 4-6. 14Court No. 07-00270 Page 13

Determination went into effect. See Corus Staal 5AR , 31 CIT at __, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 1286. Th e ef fe cti ve date o f t

he Section 129 Deter mination car rie s le ga l si gn if

icanc e b eca

us e it rep res ents the po int

at whic h C om

m erc e w as b ound

bythe rev oc ati on

of the ADOr

de r . P rio r to Ap ril 23 , 2 00 7, the re w as n o le ga l ba sis fo r C oru s to av er that C om m erc e ac ted

outsi de of

its authorit y in issuing t he liquidat ion instructions. Se e S KF US A, Inc . v . U

nited Sta tes , 31 CIT __, __, 491 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1365 (2007) (“[T]here is no rea son to overturn Commerce’s zeroing practic e based upon a rul ing by the WTO ‘unless and until suc h ruling has be en adopted pursua nt to the speci fied statutor y scheme.’”) (quoting Pa ul M uller I nd us tri e Gmb

H & Co . v . U

nited Sta tes , 3 0 C IT __ , _

_, 43 5 F . S up p. 2d

12 41 , 1 24 5 (2 00 6))
. Fo r pu rpo ses of thi s ca se, the un de rly ingde ter m inatio n is the fi na l re su lts of the fi rst 15 administrative r eview. Se e Fi na l R esu lts , 69 Fed. Reg. at 33,630. Both sides disput e whether jur isdicti on is proper unde r § 1581(i)( 4). Pl. Br. 4; Def. Br.10; Def.-Int. Br. 9; Pl. Reply Br. 12- 14. Corus claims that Comm erce’s l iquidati on instruct ions are unl awful and therefore subje ct to revi ew under the administrat ion and
en fo rce m ent su

bs ect ion of § 1 58 1(i ). P l. B r. 4 ; P l. R ep ly B r. 1 2-1 4. De fe nd ants argu e, ho we ve r, that jur isdicti on under § 1581(i) (4) is i nappropriat e because “a c hallenge t o liquidat ion ins tru cti on s m

us t co nte nd

that th e li qu idatio n in str

uc tio ns the m sel ve s d o n ot a ccu rat ely ref lec t the res ult s o f t

he un de rly ingpro cee din g. ” D ef . B r. 1 1; D ef

.-I nt. Br . 1 1-1 3; see Corus Staal 5AR , 31 CIT at __, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 1285 (cit ing Shinyei Corp. , 355 F.3d at 1302-03). As Corus admits that Comm erce’s i nstructi ons accurat ely reflectthe final res ults of the firstadministrative review, Defendants cla im that jurisdic tion cannot l ie under § 1581(i )(4). Pl. Br. 12; Def. Br. 11; Def.-Int. Br. 11. Although the cit ed cases in whic h jurisdi ction was properunder § 1581(i) (4) involve situati ons where Comm erce iss ued inconsist ent instructions with t he underlying pr oceeding, 15 see Shinyei Corp. , 3 55 F. 3d at 1 30 9-1 0; Consol. Bearings Co. , 348 F.3d at 1001-02, ther e is no rule prec luding revi ew of liquidation i nstructi ons that ar e consiste nt with the under lyingCourt No. 07-00270 Page 14

pro cee din g, but no ne the les s il leg al b eca us e o f an inter

ve nin g c hang e in

the leg al l an ds cap e. In thi s ca se, Co rus ha s in iti ate d a fu nd am ental ch all en ge to C om m erc e’s leg al a

uth ori ty t o im

po se antidumping duties following a cha nge in U.S. trade la w that extingui shed the very ba sis for im po sin g th os e d

uti es. Ac co rdi ng ly, the re i s a d ist inc t ba sis fo r juris dic tio n h ere ap art fr om that recognized i n the line of case s that re ly on an inconsi stency in t he underlying de termination and the “resul ting” li quidation orinstruct ions to confer jur isdicti on under § 1581(i) (4). Jurisdic tion lie s under § 1581(i) (4) because the questi on before the courtconcerns whether Comm erce has aut hority to en force the final dete rmination in the firstadministrative
rev iew . C oru s’s cla im

co ns tit ute s an “uns pe cif

ied ch all en ge [] to [ the ] e nf

orc em ent of

im po rt law s. ” As so cia ca o D os Ind us tri ais deCo rd

oa ria E R ed

es , 17 CIT at 757, 828 F. Supp. at 983. Co rus co uld

no t di sp ute Co mm erc e’s autho rity to iss ue liq uid ati on ins tru cti on s in

the § 1 58 1(c ) pro cee din g b eca

us e th e ADOr

de r was still in effect. Se e Co ru s S taa l I , 29 CIT at __, 387 F. Su pp . 2 d at 12 98 ; SK

F U SA , In c. , 31 CIT at __, 491 F. Supp. 2d at 1365. A new cause of action
aro se u nd er § 15 81 (i) fo llo wi ng rev oc ati on of the ADOr

de r based upon arguabl y conflicting authorit y, namely §§ 1673 and 3538(c). Furthermore, questi oning the foundation of Co mm erc e’s autho rity to im po se anti dum

pin g d uti es r ep res ents a

ch all en ge to “ tar if

fs , d uti es, fees, or other t axes on the importati on of m erchandise for reasons otherthan the ra ising of
rev enue .” § 1 58 1(i )(2 ). T he ref ore , ju ris dic tio n is pro pe r un de r § 1 58 1(i )(2 ) as we ll. B. Mot ion to D ism iss for

Fa ilu re to S

tate a Claim Up on Whi ch Re lie f Ma y B e G ra nte d The Government claims that “Corus has failed t o state a c laim upon which relief may be granted beca use its complaint se eks to requi re Comm erce to vi olate the statute .” Def. Br. 12. To
survi ve a m oti on

to d ism iss fo r f

ail ure to s tat e a c lai m , “ [f ]a ctu al a lle gatio ns m

us t be en ou ghtoCourt No. 07-00270 Page 15

raise a r ight to re lief above the spe culative level on the assumption that all the alle gations in t he
co m pla int are tru e ev enif

do ub tf ul i n f act .” Be ll A tla nti c C

or p. v. Tw om bly , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1959 (2007). The Government contends that19 U.S.C. § 1516a “requires tha t liquida tion instruct ions reflectthe final courtdecision and doe s not provide Comm erce or [Customs] any dis cre tio n n ot t o li qu idate the entri es. . . .” De f. Br . 1 3; see§ 1516a. Thus, “Corus [is] ask[ing] thi s [ c] ourt t o h old

that C om m erc e sh ou ld h av e is su ed liq uid ati on ins tru cti on s th at w ere no t in accordance wit h the final courtdecision.” Def. Br. 14. Because Corus “ acknowledges thatthe liq uid ati on ins tru cti on s ar e in

acc ord an ce w iththe fi na l co urt de cis ion an d w iththe Se cre tar

y’s de ter m inatio n, ” th e G ov ernm ent ar gu es t hat th is c ontentio n “ hig hli gh ts C oru s’s cla im s as m ere ly a challenge to the anti dumping duty rate assesse d in the final r esults.” Def. Br. 14. The Defendants have mischaracter ized the nature of Corus’s complaint. Corus asks t he court to exa mine Com

merce’s authorit y to impose antidumping duties following revoca tion of the un de rly ingantid

um pin g o rde r. T he ref

ore , th is i nq

uir y c on cer ns wh eth er the gu ide lin es
outli ne d in

§ 3 53 8(c ) su

pe rce de the bro ad

req uir em ents n ece ssary t o im po se anti dum

pin g d uti es
un de r § 1 67 3. Th e o nly

way th e co urt

co uld “ju sti fy ab an do nin g th e st atutor

y re qu ire m ents regarding l iquidati on” would be pursuant t o an interve ning change in l aw that mandated such a result. Def. Br. 14. Otherwise , Defendants are corr ect thatCommerce is required t o issue instruct ions that r eflect the cour t’s rul ing as stat ed in § 1516a(e) . Since Corus is notattempting to contrave ne § 1516a, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denie d.Court No. 07-00270 Page 16

“T he CA FC ap pe ars to h av e ac cep ted a sl idi ng sca le a

pp roa chreg ard ingthe stand ard 16 fo r li ke lih oo d o f s uc ces s o n th e m eri ts: the gre ate r th e p ote nti al h arm to t he m ov ant if

the co urt denies inj unctive re lief, the les ser the bur den on the movant to make the required showing of lik eli ho od

of su cce ss o n th e m eri ts. ” Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 C IT at _ _ n .1 0, 49 3 F . S up p. 2d

at 1284 n.10 (citi ng Ug ine& A lz B elg. v . U nited Sta tes , 4 52 F. 3d

12 89 , 1 29 3 (F ed . C ir. 20 06 )). C. Preliminary Inj unction To obtain a prel iminary injunction, t he petiti oner must satisfy four crite rion: “(1) imm ediate and i rreparable injury to the movant [if an injunction is not granted]; ( 2) the movant’s likelihood of succes s on the merits; (3) the public i nterest ; and (4) t he balance of hards hip on

all parti es. ” U. S. As s’n of I mp ts. of T ext iles & A

pp ar el v . U

nited Sta tes , 413 F.3d 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (c iting Ze nit h R ad io C or p. v. Un ite d S

tates , 710 F.2d 806, 809 (Fed. Ci r. 1 98 3))
. “T he fa ilure t o p rov e li ke lih oo d o f s uc ces s o n th e m eri ts p res ents a fo rm ida ble ob sta cle to t

he granti ng of

aninj un cti on , p art icu lar ly whe re the inj ury fa cto r is we ak .” FM

C Co rp . v . U

nited Sta tes , 3 F. 3d

42 4, 43 1 (F ed . C ir. 19 93 ). I nd eed , “ [a ]b sent a s ho wi ng that a
m ov an t is lik ely

to s uc cee d o n th e m eri ts, we q ue sti on wh eth er the m ov ant can e ve r be entit led [16] to a pre lim inary i nju

nc tio n unle ss s om e ex tra ord inary i nju ry o r stron g p ub lic int ere st i s al so sh own. ” Id . at 42 7. In t

he int ere st o f j ud ici al e co no my, the co urt wi ll n ot a dd

res s el em ents ( 1), (3), and (4) , as they have bee n thoroughly andclearl y discussed i n Corus Staal 5AR , 3 1 C IT at __, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 1281-84, 1286-88. (i .) Li kel iho od

of S uc ces s o n th e Me rit

s Th e co urt ag ain fi nd s th at “ Co rus do es no t m eet ev enthe red

uc ed burde n o f s ho wi ng that i[ t] ha s a f

air ch an ce o f s uc ces s o n th e m eri ts. ” Id . at __, 493 F. Supp. 2d at 1284. Implem entation of the Section 129 Deter mination car rie s n o le ga l si gn if

icanc e w ithreg ard

toCourt No. 07-00270 Page 17

Co rus ’s a pp lic ati on

fo r a p rel im inary i nju

nc tio n b eca

us e § 35 38 (c) is s pe cif

ic and cle arl y go ve rns wh eth er the dis puted entri es are s ub

jec t to the ADOr

de r . “O rdi naril y, wh ere a sp eci fi c p rov isi on co nf lic ts w itha g en era l on e, the sp eci fi c go ve rns .” Ed

mo nd v. Un ite d S

tates , 5 20 U. S. 65 1, 65 7 (1 99 7). “[ T] he m ean ingof on e st atute
m aybe af fe cte d b y o the r A cts , p art icu lar ly whe re C on gre ss h as s po ke n s ub seq ue ntl y and

m ore specificall y to the topi c at hand.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000). “[A] specific policy embodied in a la ter federal statute should control our
co ns tru cti on

of the [e arl ier ] s tat

ute , e ve n th ou ghit h a[ s] no t be enexpre ssl y am en de d. ” Id . at 143 (quotati ons & cita tions omitted) (br ackets in or iginal) . As a general rule, Comm erce cannot impose antidumping duties without a val id determination of dumping. Se e §§ 16 73 & 16 73 d(c ); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.212. How ever, the st atute tha t governs implementation of a WT O panel repor t explici tly stat es that r evocation of an anti dumping order applies pros pectivel y on a date speci fied by the USTR. Se e § 3 53 8(c ); Section 129 Determination , 72 Fed. Reg. at 25,261. In t his cas e, the re e xis ted

a v ali d d ete rm inatio n o f d um pin g th at w as s ub seq

ue ntl y revoked. Se e ADOr

de r , 6 6 F ed . R eg . at 59 ,5 65 ; Section 129 Deter mination , 7 2 F ed . R eg . at 25 ,2 61 . T ak entog eth er, the Section 129 Deter mination an d § 35 38 (c) cle arl y m an date that HRCS “that are enter ed, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after” April 23, 20 07 are no t su

bje ct t o anti dum

pin g d uti es. § 3 53 8(c ); see Secti on 129 Determination , 72 Fed. Reg. at 25,261. Since Corus ent ered the subj ect HRCS between May 3, 2001 and October 31, 20 02 , th eyrem ain

bo un d b y th e ADOr

de r . Se e Statement of Admin. Act ion at 1026, rep rin ted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A .N 4040, 4313. It is undisput able thatthe guideli nes for implem enting a WTO decision out lined in §§ 3538( c) superce de the broad r equirements of § 1673 for imposingCourt No. 07-00270 Page 18

antidumping duties. Se e §§ 35 38 (c) , 1 67 3, 16 73 d(c ). T he ref ore , C oru s cann ot o bta in r eli ef
un de r th e cu

rre nt s tat uto ry s ch em e. Conclusion For the foregoing re asons, Plaint iff’s applicati on for a preliminary injunc tion is deni ed.

Dated: September 19, 2007 /s/Judit h M. Barzilay New York, NY Judith M. Barzi lay, Judge