MITTAL STEEL GALATI S.A.,

FORMERLY KNOWN AS ISPAT SIDEX

S.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and,

IPSCO STEEL., INC.

Defendant-Intervenor.

Slip Op. 07-164

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: Pogue, Judge

Court No. 05-00311

JUDGMENT

[Defendant’s remand determination affirmed]

Decided: November 7, 2007

Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn (John M. Gurley, Nancy A.

Noonan) for Plaintiff.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E.

Davidson, Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant

Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.

Department of Justice (David F. D’Allessandris, Trial

Attorney) for Defendant.

Schagrin Associates (Roger B. Schagrin) for DefendantIntervenor.

Pogue, Judge: In this action, on July 18, 2007, the court

affirmed-in-part and remanded-in-part the final results of the
Ct. No. 05-00311 Page 2

1

In its July 18 opinion, the court also rejected Plaintiff’s

facial challenge to Commerce’s “15 Day Policy” under which the

agency states its intent to issue liquidation instructions to

U.S. Customs within 15 days of the publication of the final

results of an administrative review. 

Int’l Trade Comm’n, Dep’t of Commerce, Announcement Concerning

Issuance of Liquidation Instructions Reflecting Results of

Administrative Reviews (August 9, 2002), available at

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/liquidation-announcement.html. 

2002-3 administrative review, conducted by the United States

Commerce Department (“the Department” or “Commerce”), of the

antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate

from Romania. See Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United

States,___CIT___, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (CIT 2007).1 The

matter now returns to the court following remand. 

On remand, as directed by the court’s remand order,

Commerce reconsidered two decisions in the final results of

the administrative review, specifically Commerce’s decision to

place a value on Mittal’s recycled scrap and Commerce’s

selection of Filipino data as a surrogate value for limestone.

Based on this reconsideration, Commerce, in its remand

determination, revised its calculations to provide an offset

for Mittal’s recycled scrap and selected a different surrogate

value for limestone. As a result of these changes, Commerce

then recalculated Mittal’s weighted-average margin for the

period of review, reducing it from 13.5% to 7.29%. No party

objects to Commerce’s determination on these remanded issues,
Ct. No. 05-00311 Page 3

and it is clear to the court that the agency has complied with

the court’s remand order.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff, as in its original challenge to

Commerce’s 15-day policy, again asks that the court’s judgment

explicitly address certain liquidated entries that Plaintiff

has protested. At the same time, Plaintiff does not seek

affirmative injunctive or mandamus relief with regard to these

entries, arguing that such relief is unnecessary because

Plaintiff’s protests have prevented the liquidations at issue

from becoming final. See Pl.’s Comments on Remand Results at

5 (“With respect to the entries covered by Protests One, Two

and Three ‘final’ liquidation has not yet occurred as a result

of the importer’s efforts to file timely protests and to

commence a civil action for the denial of one such protest.”).

Plaintiff also makes no claim that its protest remedy is

inadequate. 

In the absence of any claim that Plaintiff’s protest

remedy is inadequate, or for extraordinary relief, the court

need not reach this issue. There is nothing on the record

here which indicates a need for action other than entry of

judgment. Cf. Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC v. United

States, ___CIT __, 427 F.Supp.2d 1249, 1255 (2006)(construing
Ct. No. 05-00311 Page 4

plaintiff’s request to enforce judgment as a request for

mandamus where the relief requested required direction of

Customs’ action).

Therefore, in accordance with the court’s prior decision

in this matter, and after considering all the papers and

proceedings herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that Commerce’s determination on remand in this

action is hereby affirmed, and that, in accordance with 19

U.S.C. § 1516a(e), liquidation of any entries heretofore

enjoined in this action be in accordance with the final

results of this litigation, including any and all appeals.

__/s/ Donald C. Pogue___

Donald C. Pogue, Judge

Dated: November 7, 2007

New York, New York