SDC International Aust. PTY. Ltd. v. United States

Slip Op. 17-
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
____________________________________
:
SDC INTERNATIONAL AUST. PTY. 	:
LTD., 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge
v. 	:
: 	Court No. 16-00062
UNITED STATES, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
____________________________________:
JUDGMENT
This case concerns the sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
steel nails from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). See Certain Steel Nails From the PRC,
81 Fed. Reg. 14,092 (Dep’t Commerce Mar. 16, 2016) (“Final Results”). Plaintiff SDC
International Aust. PTY. Ltd.’s (“plaintiff” or “SDC”) commenced suit in this Court to challenge
the Final Results in one respect: the inclusion of permutations of SDC’s company name in the PRC-
wide entity, subjecting those name permutations to the PRC-wide rate (118.04 percent), instead of
SDC’s separate rate (11.95 percent). See Compl.; see also Pl.’s 56.2 Br., ECF No. 28.
After plaintiff filed its motion for judgment on the agency record the parties jointly asked
the court to remand this matter for further consideration by the United States Department of
Commerce (“Commerce”). On January 20, 2017, the court directed Commerce to reconsider
whether it improperly included permutations of SDC’s company name as a part of the PRC-wide
entity. See Order of Jan. 20, 2017, ECF No. 31.
Before the court are the final results of Commerce’s redetermination following remand. See
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Voluntary Remand Order, ECF No. 35 (“Remand
Case 1:16-cv-00062-RKE Document 39 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 2

Court No. 16-00062 	Page 2
Results”). In the Remand Results, Commerce determined that it would
continue to grant a separate rate to the name SDC provided on its business license –
‘SDC International Aust. PTY. LTD.’ – and no other names. However, [Commerce]
will amend [its] [Final Results] and issue accompanying liquidation instructions
indicating that any entries under ‘SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd.’ and ‘SDC
International Australia (Pty) Ltd.’ for this review period may be assessed at the
separate rate for ‘SDC International Aust. PTY. LTD.’ [Commerce] will no longer
list these name permutations in the PRC-wide entity . . . .
Remand Results at 5-6. In its comments, SDC indicates its agreement with Commerce’s
determinations on remand, and since “this is the relief that Plaintiff sought in this action,” asks the
court to sustain the Remand Results. Pl.’s Cmts. Remand Results, ECF No. 37, 1-2. The defendant
United States submits that it has complied with the court’s remand order and, there being no further
dispute in this action, it, too, asks the court to sustain the Remand Results. See Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s
Cmts. Remand Results, ECF No. 38.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Final Results, except for the matters covered by the Remand Results,
are sustained; it is further
ORDERED that the Remand Results are sustained; and it is further
ORDERED that the subject entries whose liquidation was enjoined in this action, see ECF
No. 11 (order granting consent motion for preliminary injunction), must be liquidated in
accordance with the court’s final decision, as provided for in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e) (2012).
/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton, Judge
Dated: 	JuO\, 2017
New York, New York
Case 1:16-cv-00062-RKE Document 39 Filed 07/03/17 Page 2 of 2