Case: United Electrical Workers of America, et al., plaintiffs v. United States, defendant
Abbreviation: United Electrical Workers of America v. United States
Decision Date: 1994-12-28
Docket Number: Court No. 93-11-00719
Citation: 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 1177
Volume: 18
Reporter: United States Court of International Trade Reports
Court: United States Court of International Trade
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: United Electrical Workers of America, et al., plaintiffs v. United States, defendant
Judges: 
Pages: 1177–1177

Head Matter:
United Electrical Workers of America, et al., plaintiffs v. United States, defendant
Court No. 93-11-00719
(Dated December 28, 1994)
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott (Paul D. Cullen, Jeffrey S. Beckington and David C. Smith. Jr.) for plaintiffs United Electrical Workers of America, Independent; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO; and Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Rhonda K. Schnare), Priya Alagiri, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for defendant.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (Warren E. Connelly and Margaret L. H. Png) for defendant-intervenors Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Opinion:
Opinion
Restani, Judge:
This matter is before the court on a motion for further remand. The determination at issue is Color Television Receivers from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 Fed. Reg. 50,333 (Sept. 27, 1993).
By remand order of July 5, 1994, the United States Department of Commerce was directed to calculate an adjustment for value added tax ("VAT") according to a revised methodology. Plaintiffs now object to that aspect of the calculation whereby U.S. price was increased by an amount for duty drawback prior to application of the VAT rate. Avesta Sheffield, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 94-53 (Mar. 31, 1994), the only case on point, approved this methodology. Plaintiffs demonstrated no error in that opinion. Accordingly, the remand determination at issue is sustained.
Contrary to plaintiffs contention, this case is published and will appear in the official United States Court of International Trade Reports, Vol. 18. Also, Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, Slip Op. 94-136 (Aug. 26, 1994) did not present the issue at hand.