Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-00202 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 24, 2004.
Download PDF
Slip Op. 05-150 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS ________________________________________ : : : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : and : : BRATSK ALUMINIUM SMELTER : and RUAL TRADE LIMITED, : : Defendant-Intervenors. : ________________________________________: GLOBE METALLURGICAL, INC. and SIMCALA, INC., Consol. Court No. 03-00202 JUDGMENT In Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 29 CIT ___, Slip Op. 05-90 (2005), the Court remanded this matter to the United States Department of Commerce ( Commerce ) with instructions to: (1) recalculate ZAO Kremny and SUAL-Kremny-Ural Ltd. s (collectively, Kremny s ) antidumping duty margin using as partial adverse facts available the antidumping duty margin for Bratsk Aluminum Smelter and Rual Trade Limited (collectively, Bratsk ) that was calculated in Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand ( First Remand Results ) filed on December 23, 2004; or (2) explain the use of the Bratsk margin from the Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal From the Russian Federation, 68 Fed. Reg. 12,037 (Mar. 13, 2003). See Globe Metallurgical, 29 CIT at ___, Slip Op. 05-90 at 14. On October 25, 2005, Commerce filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand ( Second Remand Results ). For its Second Remand Results, Commerce recalculated Kremny s antidumping duty margin using the antidumping duty margin for Bratsk that was calculated in the First Remand Results. See Second Remand Results at 3. Accordingly, Kremny s antidumping duty margin for the period July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001, is 61.61 percent. See id. at 4. Consol. Court No. 03-00202 Page 2 This Court, having received and reviewed Commerce s Second Remand Results, comments of Plaintiffs, and response of Defendant, holds that Commerce duly complied with the Court s remand order, and it is hereby ORDERED that Commerce s Second Remand Results are reasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and otherwise in accordance with law; and it is further ORDERED that the Second Remand Results filed by Commerce on October 25, 2005, are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed. /s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE Dated: November 28, 2005 New York, New York
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
