Slip Op. 20-

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

GOODLUCK INDIA LIMITED, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant, 

and 

ARCELORMITTAL TUBULAR 

PRODUCTS, MICHIGAN SEAMLESS 

TUBE, LLC, PLYMOUTH TUBE CO. USA, 

PTC ALLIANCE CORP., WEBCO 

INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ZEKELMAN 

INDUSTRIES, INC, 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

 Before: Gary S. Katzmann, Judge 

 Court No. 18-00162 

OPINION 

[The court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results]. 

Dated: $SULO

Ned H. Marshak, Andrew T. Schutz, Jordan C. Kah and Michael S. Holton, Grunfeld, Desiderio, 

Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of New York, NY and Washington, DC, for plaintiff. 

Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of 

counsel was Ayat Mujais, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, 

Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC. 

David C. Smith, R. Alan Luberda, Melissa M. Brewer and Kathleen M. Cusack, Kelley Drye & 

Warren, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors. 
Court No. 18-00162 Page 2 

Katzmann, Judge: The court returns to an antidumping (“AD”) investigation by the United 

States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) in which it rejected corrected information 

submitted by a respondent during verification of Commerce’s investigation results. Before the 

court is Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Dep’t 

Commerce Dec. 23, 2019), ECF No. 55 (“Remand Results”), which the court ordered in Goodluck 

India Limited v. United States, 43 CIT __, 393 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (2019). Under protest, Commerce 

recalculated Goodluck India Limited’s (“Goodluck”) dumping margin to zero percent, thus 

excluding Goodluck from AD duties. Remand Results at 9. Plaintiff Goodluck and Defendant the 

United States (“the Government”) request that the court sustain the Remand Results. Pl.’s Resp. 

to Def.-Inters.’ Comments in Opp’n to Final Remand Redetermination at 5, March 6, 2020, ECF 

No. 59 (“Pl.’s Br.”); Def.’s Reply to Comments on Remand Redetermination at 1, March 6, 2020, 

ECF No. 60 (“Def.’s Br.”). Defendant-Intervenors ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan 

Seamless Tube, LLC, PTC, Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman lndustries, Inc. 

request “that the [c]ourt reconsider[] its order directing Commerce to consider the corrected 

submission filed by Goodluck.” Def.-Inters.’ Comments in Opp’n to Final Remand 

Redetermination at 1, Feb. 5, 2020, ECF No. 57 (“Def.-Inters.’ Br.”). The court sustains the 

Remand Results. 

BACKGROUND 

The court set out the relevant legal and factual background of the proceedings in further 

detail in its previous opinion, Goodluck India, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1356–62. Information relevant 

to the instant opinion is set forth below. 

On May 16, 2017, Commerce initiated an AD investigation into cold-drawn mechanical 

tubing from India and selected Goodluck as a mandatory respondent in that investigation. See 
Court No. 18-00162 Page 3 

Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of 

Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Switzerland: 

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,491 (Dep’t Commerce May 16, 

2017); U.S. Dep’t of Commerce Questionnaire to Goodluck (June 19, 2017), P.R. 81. Commerce 

published the preliminary results of its investigation on November 22, 2017, concluding that 

Goodluck’s dumping margin was de minimis based on Goodluck’s reported data. See Certain 

Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Preliminary Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 Fed. Reg. 55,567, 55,569 (Nov. 22, 2017). On both 

the first day of Commerce’s sales verification and on the first day of its cost verification of its 

preliminary results, Goodluck reported corrections to its previously reported data that affected 

Commerce’s preliminary dumping margin. See Remand Results at 4. However, Commerce 

rejected these corrections as untimely new factual information submitted outside the investigation 

period and then rejected Goodluck’s originally reported data as unreliable. See Cold-Drawn 

Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Final Affirmative Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value, 83 Fed. Reg. 16,296 (Apr. 16, 2018) (“Final Determination”), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 10–14 (Apr. 9, 2018), P.R. 311. Commerce 

thus calculated Goodluck’s AD margin based on adverse facts available (“AFA”) and applied the 

highest dumping margin of 33.8 percent. Final Determination at 16,297. 

Goodluck then challenged the Final Determination before the court. Goodluck claimed 

“that Commerce’s determination was unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law 

because (1) Commerce abused its discretion by rejecting Goodluck’s correction submission at 

verification; (2) Commerce’s reliance on [AFA] was not warranted where there were no gaps in 
Court No. 18-00162 Page 4 

the record and where Goodluck did not significantly impede the investigation; and (3) Commerce 

deviated from its typical practice when calculating Goodluck’s export subsidy cash deposit without 

adequate explanation.” Goodluck India, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1362–63. The court agreed with 

Goodluck as to its first claim and found that “Goodluck’s revised data submission should [have 

been] categorized as a correctible importer mistake as opposed to untimely new factual 

information.” Id. at 1370. Therefore, in the previous opinion, the court did not reach “whether 

Commerce’s reliance on facts otherwise available and adverse inferences is supported by 

substantial evidence and in accordance with law.” Id. The court remanded the case to Commerce 

“to consider Goodluck’s corrected submission as well as to explain why it . . . departed from its 

general practice for calculating export subsidy cash deposit offset rates . . . .” Id. at 1363. 

On remand, Commerce, under protest, “accept[ed] Goodluck’s revised databases, and 

recalculate[ed] Goodluck’s dumping rate pursuant to the [previous opinion and order].” Remand 

Results at 1. Thus, Commerce did not apply AFA in calculating Goodluck’s dumping margin on 

remand, but instead calculated Goodluck’s dumping margin as zero based on those revised 

databases. Id. at 9. The Government then filed the final Remand Results with the court on 

December 23, 2019. Remand Results. Defendant-Intervenors filed their comments on the Remand 

Results on February 5, 2020. Def.-Inters.’ Br. Goodluck and the Government filed replies to those 

comments on March 6, 2020. Pl.’s Br.; Def.’s Br. The court now reviews the Remand Results 

“for compliance with the court’s remand order.” See Beijing Tianhi Indus. Co. v. United States, 

39 CIT __, __, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1346 (2015) (citations omitted). 

DISCUSSION 

The Government and Goodluck request that the court affirm the Remand Results. Pl.’s Br. 

at 5; Def.’s Br. at 1. Defendant-Intervenors, however, challenge the court’s original decision to 
Court No. 18-00162 Page 5 

remand to Commerce its rejection of Goodluck’s corrected data. See Def.-Inters.’ Br. at 1. 

Because Commerce complied with the court’s remand order, the court affirms the Remand Results. 

In its previous opinion, the court ordered Commerce on remand to accept Goodluck’s 

corrections to its reported data and to calculate its AD margin using that data. See Goodluck India, 

393 F. Supp. 3d at 1363. The court agrees with the Government that the Remand Results show 

that “Commerce requested that Goodluck place the corrected database on the remand record, 

which Goodluck did, and recalculated the margin for Goodluck based on the submission, as 

directed” by the court. See Def.’s Br. at 4. Commerce recalculated an AD margin for Goodluck 

of zero percent. Remand Results at 9. Because Goodluck “will no longer be subject to the AD 

order on cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India,” Commerce did not need to recalculate a cash 

deposit rate for Goodluck as ordered by the court’s remand. Id. Therefore, the court need not 

reach the AFA application and cash deposit issues. 

Defendant-Intervenors ask the court to reverse its previous opinion, which remanded 

Commerce’s Final Determination, claiming that “the [c]ourt inappropriately substituted its 

judgment for that of the agency.” Def.-Inters.’ Br. at 5. Defendant-Intervenors argue that, in the 

Final Determination, Commerce correctly relied on 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)–(e) in making the 

factual determination to reject Goodluck’s original databases and in applying adverse facts 

available to Goodluck in calculating its dumping margin. Id. at 5–7. Thus, they argue, “Commerce 

was entitled to, and properly did, follow the statute in rejecting Goodluck’s new information for 

the Final Determination, and it should not have been directed by the [c]ourt to give consideration 

to Goodluck’s untimely submitted information.” Id. at 12. On that basis, Defendant-Intervenors 

request that the court reconsider its previous opinion. Id. 
Court No. 18-00162 Page 6 

The court is not persuaded by Defendant-Intervenors’ request. In Goodluck India, the court 

decided that, under existing caselaw and Commerce’s own practice, Commerce abused its 

discretion by rejecting Goodluck’s minor corrections, and thus the Final Determination was not 

supported by substantial evidence or in accordance with law. 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1363–64 (citing 

NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Fischer S.A. Comercio v. 

United States, 34 CIT 334, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (CIT 2010); Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat 

Products from the United Kingdom, 81 Fed. Reg. 53,436 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 12, 2016)). For 

that reason, the court was not required to defer to Commerce’s decision to reject Goodluck’s 

corrected data. The court concluded that Goodluck’s corrections were minor and that Commerce 

should have accepted those corrections in accordance with its past practice. Id. By accepting those 

corrections, Commerce has now complied with the remand order, acting in accordance with law. 

Further, as Goodluck notes, Defendant-Intervenors do not cite to any subsequently published 

precedent that would undermine the court’s analysis in Goodluck India or identify any “factual 

mistakes or clerical errors,” Pl.’s Br. at 2, in that previous opinion. See Def.-Inters’ Br. 

CONCLUSION 

Commerce complied with the court’s remand instructions, and Defendant-Intervenors’ 

arguments do not persuade the court to revisit its previous opinion. For the above stated reasons, 

the court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Gary S. Katzmann

Gary S. Katzmann, Judge 

Dated:$SULO

New York, New York