NIPPON STEEL CORP. v. U.S.

Nos. 99-1379, 99-1386.

219 F.3d 1348 (2000)

NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION, NKK Corporation, Kawasaki Steel Corporation, and Sumimoto Metal Industries, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, and USS-POSCO Industries, Defendants-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 26, 2000.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Daniel J. Plaine, Douglas R. Cox, Miguel A. Estrada, John H. Sturc, and Lisa A. Murray. Of counsel on the brief were Matthew J. Clark, Howrey & Simon, of Washington, DC; Daniel L. Porter; and James P. Durling, Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, of Washington, DC; and Leonard M. Shambon, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, of Washington, DC.

Roger M. Golden, Fenwick & West, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant USS-POSCO Industries. With him on the brief were Phyllis E. Andes, and Patrick C. O'Brien.

Velta A. Melnbrencis, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant United States. On the brief were David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; and Katherine A. Barski, Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were Stephen J. Powell, Chief Counsel; Elizabeth C. Seastrum, Senior Counsel; Thomas H. Fine, Senior Attorney; and Melanie A. Frank, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LINN, Circuit Judge.


FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

This government appeal challenges a preliminary injunction of the Court of International Trade prohibiting the Department of Commerce from continuing its administrative proceeding under 19 U.S.C. § 1677j(c) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.225(i) (1998) to determine whether certain imported steel had been "altered in form . . . in minor respects" and therefore still was covered by an antidumping duty order, even though the altered products...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases