Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States

Slip Op. 18–8
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
_____________________________________
:
MAQUILACERO S.A. DE C.V., 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
: 	Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge
UNITED STATES, 	:
: 	Court No. 15-00287
Defendant, 	:
:
and 	:
:
WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY, 	:
:
Defendant-Intervenor. :
_____________________________________:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
[United States Department of Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand are sustained.]
Dated:
John M. Gurley and Diana Dimitriuc-Quaia, Arent Fox LLP of Washington, DC, for
plaintiff.
Elizabeth A. Speck, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were Chad
A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke,
Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Lydia C. Pardini, Attorney, Office of the Chief
Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,
DC.
Jordan C. Kahn and Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates of Washington, DC, for
defendant-intervenor.
February 9, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00287-RKE Document 55 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 2

Court No. 15-00287 	Page 2
Eaton, Judge: Before the court are the United States Department of Commerce’s
(“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Dep’t Commerce
Nov. 27, 2017), ECF No. 51-1 (“Remand Results”). The Remand Results carry out the court’s
direction in Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 41 CIT __, 256 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (2017)
that “Commerce . . . find that stenciling is not required for Maquilacero’s products to be excluded
from the scope of the Order and that, based on Prolamsa’s Final Scope Ruling, the analysis found
on pages 6-9 of the Final Scope Ruling, and this opinion, Maquilacero’s pipe [be] excluded from
the Order.” Maquilacero, 41 CIT at __, 256 F. Supp. 3d at 1314. Commerce complied and found
that Maquilacero’s pipe was excluded from the Order. See Remand Results at 12. Both plaintiff
and defendant agree that Commerce’s Remand Results complied with the court’s direction in
Maquilacero, and defendant-intervenor did not file comments regarding the Remand Results. See
Pl.’s Comments on Remand Results, ECF No. 53; Def.’s Resp. Comments Regarding Remand
Results, ECF No. 54. Therefore, in accordance with the forgoing, and upon consideration of the
papers and proceedings had herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that Commerce’s Remand Results are sustained.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton, Judge
Dated:
New York, New York
February 9, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00287-RKE Document 55 Filed 02/09/18 Page 2 of 2