Slip Op. 00 - 21

 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

CRESCENT FOUNDRY CO. PVT. LTD. et al., 

 :

 Plaintiffs, 

 :

 v. Court No. 95-09-01239

 :

 

UNITED STATES, : 

 

 Defendant. : 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

 Memorandum & Order

[Upon plaintiffs' motion, case remanded again

 to the International Trade Administration.]

 Dated: February 18, 2000

Cameron & Hornbostel LLP (Dennis James, Jr.) for the plaintiffs.

AQUILINO, Judge: The background of this case, which

arises out of Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 Fed.Reg.

44,849 (Aug. 29, 1995), is set forth sub nom. Crescent Foundry

Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 20 CIT 1469, 951 F.Supp. 252

(1996), remand results aff'd, 21 CIT , 969 F.Supp. 1341

(1997), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 168 F.3d 1322 (Fed.Cir.

1998), familiarity with which is presumed. In conformity with

the mandate of the court of appeals, which was spelled out in 

its lead decision in Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. United

States, 156 F.3d 1163 (Fed.Cir. 1998), raising identical issues

from another period of administrative review, Senior Judge Di-
Court No. 95-09-01239 Page 2

1 His order per Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. United 

States, 22 CIT , Slip Op. 99-5 (Jan. 8, 1999), granted leave

to return to court to contest the results thereof. The ITA's

Corrected Final Results of Redetermination on Remand have been

duly docketed herein, and the plaintiffs have filed comments on

them, along with a motion for oral argument. The latter is hereby denied, given the quality of their written submission and the

lack of any response by other parties. 

2 See Corrected Final Results, Appendix 1.

Carlo remanded1 the case again to the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ("ITA") on the grounds

that its

methodology double counted the subsidies the [plaintiffs] received from the CCS over-rebates, by countervailing both the over-rebates and the section 80HHC

deduction attributable to those over-rebates

and that its

decision to countervail the portion of the section 80-

HHC deduction attributable to the IPRS rebates on nonsubject castings [was] beyond its statutory authority.

156 F.3d at 1180.

During the period under administrative review, the income-tax deduction, an International Price Reimbursement Scheme

("IPRS"), and a Cash Compensatory Support ("CCS") program were in

effect in India. According to the record at bar, section 80HHC 

of the tax law2 of that land permitted deduction from taxable income of profits derived from exports of merchandise. Simply stated,

IPRS reimbursed Indian producers for difference in price between

domestic pig iron and that available for less on the world market. 

CCS rebated indirect taxes and import duties and charges borne by

inputs physically incorporated into export product. A producer 
Court No. 95-09-01239 Page 3

received the latter upon export, calculated as a percentage of the 

invoice price of the goods. To the extent the ITA came to conclude that such rebates exceeded the total amount of such charges

upon those inputs, it treated the excess (the "over-rebate") as 

a countervailable subsidy. Because income from exports included 

IPRS grants and CCS rebates, those benefits had an impact on the

deductions pursuant to §80HHC.

In Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 

23 CIT , Slip Op. 00-20 (Feb. 18, 2000), this court was constrained to conclude that the ITA's Corrected Final Results of

Redetermination on Remand filed therein were not yet in conformity with the foregoing mandate of the Federal Circuit, whereupon

that case was remanded to the agency for further reconsideration.

Since the Corrected Final Results filed herein are

based upon the same reasoning, the same relief is necessary.

Hence, for the reasons stated in Slip Op. 00-20 in Kajaria, this

case is hereby remanded to the ITA for recalculation of the net

subsidies to the plaintiffs under §80HHC, using a methodology

that complies with the mandate of the court of appeals, eliminating both IPRS grants and the double-counting of the CCS overrebates in a manner not inconsistent with that court's opinion. 

The defendant may have 90 days to complete said recalculation and to report the results thereof to this court, where-
Court No. 95-09-01239 Page 4

upon the parties may file written comment(s) thereon within 30

days, with any reply thereto submitted within 15 days thereafter.

So ordered.

Dated: New York, New York

 February 18, 2000 

 

 ________________________________

Judge