Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/121-f-supp-2d-604363294
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 12:09:25
Document Index: 70739490

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1675', '§ 353', '§ 351', '§ 1675', '§ 351', '§ 1675']

121 F.Supp.2d 684 (CIT. 2000), 00-08-00423, Ugine-Savoie Imphy v. United States - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 604363294
Docket Nº: Court No. 00-08-00423.
Citation: 121 F.Supp.2d 684
Party Name: UGINE-SAVOIE IMPHY, Ugine Stainless and Alloys, Inc., and Techalloy, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Carpenter Technology, Empire Specialty Steel, United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC), Defendant Intervenors. Slip Op. 00-145.
121 F.Supp.2d 684 (CIT. 2000)
UGINE-SAVOIE IMPHY, Ugine Stainless and Alloys, Inc., and Techalloy, Inc., Plaintiffs,
Carpenter Technology, Empire Specialty Steel, United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC), Defendant Intervenors.
Slip Op. 00-145.
Court No. 00-08-00423.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (Stuart M. Rosen, Gregory Husisian), New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Collier, Shannon, Scott (Laurence J. Lasoff, Kathleen Cannon), Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenors.
Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction following a finding by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) after a five year sunset review that revocation of antidumping orders on stainless steel wire rod from France would likely lead to a recurrence of material injury to the United States domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the United States from issuing instructions to liquidate or from liquidating any and all unliquidated entries of stainless steel wire rod from France produced by the Plaintiffs and entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after January 1, 2000 until the lawsuit commenced by the Plaintiffs challenging the ITC's sunset review determination receives final judicial review. The United States consents to the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Defendant-Intervenors object.
On July 1, 1999, the ITC initiated a five year review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) (hereinafter, sunset review). See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, France, India, and Spain, 64 Fed.Reg. 35697 (July 1, 1999). This review was conducted to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on stainless steel wire rod from Brazil, France, India, and Spain would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. On October 15,
1999, the ITC determined that it would conduct a full review pursuant to the sunset law's provisions. On July 21, 2000, the ITC published notice of its final determination, finding in part that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel wire rod from France would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to the United States domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, France, India, and Spain, 65 Fed.Reg. 45409, 45409 (July 21, 2000).
On September 20, 2000, Plaintiffs timely filed a complaint with this Court challenging the ITC's final sunset review determination. On October 20, 2000, Plaintiffs filed this motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin liquidation of all unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced by the Plaintiffs and entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption after January 1, 2000. 1
Prior to the Uruguay Round, the antidumping laws did not effectively restrict the duration of an antidumping order. Antidumping duties were imposed for as long as dumping or injury continued, subject only to the possibility of yearly administrative reviews establishing the applicable antidumping duty rate. The law, however, did provide that Commerce could revoke an antidumping order if there were no request for an administrative review of that order for four consecutive years. See 19 C.F.R. § 353.25 (1994). This provision, however, was infrequently used. 2
With the passage of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub.L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (Dec. 8, 1994), Commerce's regulations and the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 were amended to provide several methods by which an antidumping order could be terminated or revoked. An antidumping order may be revoked where Commerce determines that "[a]ll exporters and producers covered at the time of revocation by the order... have sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years" and "[I]t is not likely that those persons will in the future sell the subject merchandise at less than normal value." 19 C.F.R. § 351.222(b)(1)(i)-(ii) (1998). An antidumping order may also be revoked where either the circumstances surrounding the order have changed sufficiently to warrant revocation or where the producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the relevant domestic like product express a lack of interest in the continuation of the order. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b); 19 C.F.R. § 351.222(g) (1998).
Most relevant to this case, however, an antidumping order may be revoked or terminated by Commerce or the ITC through the sunset review process. See 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c). This process requires Commerce
and the ITC to invite interested parties to provide information pertaining to the impact that revocation of the antidumping order would have on the...
3 Ala. 389 (Ala. 1842), Norman v. Norman