Optima Steel International, LLC et al v. United States

Slip Op. 21-168
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
OPTIMA STEEL INTERNATIONAL, LLC
AND TOKYO STEEL MANUFACTURING
CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge
Court No. 21-00327
OPINION
[Sustaining Commerce’s remand redetermination.]
Dated: December 17, 2021
Daniel L. Porter, Ana Maria Amador-Gil, and James C. Beaty, Curtis Mallet-Prevost,
Colt & Mosle LLP, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.
Hardeep K. Josan, Trial Attorney, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY, for Defendant. Of
counsel was David W. Richardson, Senior Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for
Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Barnett, Chief Judge: Before the court is a consent motion to sustain the U.S.
Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or “the agency”) remand results and enter
judgment. Consent Mot. to Sustain the Remand Results and Enter J. (“Consent Mot.”),
ECF No. 31. Commerce issued its remand results on October 15, 2021. Confidential
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Remand Results”), ECF
No. 26-1. The court hereby sustains Commerce’s Remand Results.
Case 1:21-cv-00327-MAB Document 32 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 3

Court No. 21-00327 	Page 2
Plaintiffs Optima Steel International, LLC (“Optima”) and Tokyo Steel
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Tokyo Steel”) commenced this case challenging Commerce’s
liquidation instructions issued pursuant to an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order covering hot-rolled steel from Japan. See Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat
Products From Japan, 84 Fed. Reg. 31,025 (Dep’t Commerce June 28, 2019) (final
results of antidumping duty admin. review) (“Final Results”). Tokyo Steel, a mandatory
respondent in the administrative review, received a calculated rate in the Final Results.
See Compl. ¶¶ 22, 25, ECF No. 2; Final Results, 84 Fed. Reg. at 31,027. Following the
review, Commerce issued liquidation instructions providing that merchandise produced
by Tokyo Steel during the relevant period should be liquidated at the rate calculated for
Tokyo Steel. See Compl. ¶¶ 26–28. In December 2019, however, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (“CBP”) liquidated several entries of subject merchandise imported by
Optima and produced by Tokyo Steel, but exported by an unaffiliated Japanese trading
company, at a higher rate, allegedly because of an error in Commerce’s liquidation
instructions concerning the trading company’s name. Id. ¶¶ 29, 46, 49–50.
On October 1, 2021, Defendant United States (“the Government”), filed a
consent motion for a voluntary remand to reconsider the liquidation instructions. Def.’s
Mot. for Voluntary Remand, ECF No. 21. The court granted this motion, Order (Oct. 1,
2021), ECF No. 22, and Commerce’s Remand Results followed.
J URISDICTION AND S TANDARD OF REVIEW
The court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1)(B), (D). The
court reviews an action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) in accordance with
Case 1:21-cv-00327-MAB Document 32 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 3

Court No. 21-00327 	Page 3
the standard of review set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, as
amended. See 28 U.S.C. § 2640(e).
DISCUSSION
In the Remand Results, Commerce revised the liquidation instructions to reflect
the full name of the trading company consistent with the record developed during the
administrative review and indicated that it intends to issue the revised instructions to
CBP. Remand Results at 1, 3. Plaintiffs assert that judgment is merited because “the
Remand Results accurately reflect the record before the [agency] in the underlying
administrative proceeding and provide for accurate liquidation of the entries identified in
this appeal.” Consent Mot. at 1. Both parties request that the court sustain the Remand
Results. Id. at 1–2.
CONCLUSION
There being no challenges to the Remand Results, which are otherwise in
accordance with the law, the court will sustain Commerce’s Remand Results.
Judgment will enter accordingly.
/s/ 	Mark A. Barnett
Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge
Dated: December 17, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:21-cv-00327-MAB Document 32 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 3