U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1986

United States Steel Corp. v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided May 23, 1986 · Archer

792 F.2d 1101; 7 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2552 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

J. Michael Jarboe, Pittsburgh, Pa., argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was John J. Mangan., Platte B. Moring, III, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for defendantsappellees. With him on the brief were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Velta A. Melnbrencis. Lynn G. Kamarck and Elizabeth K. Dorminey, Import Admin., U.S. Dept, of Commerce, of counsel., Louis H. Kurrelmeyer, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, Washington, D.C., argued for intervenor-appellee SSAB Svenskt Staal AB. With him on the brief was Robert Reed Gray.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Nuove Industrie Elettriche Di Legnano S.P.A. v. United States (United States Court of International Trade 1990)
United States Steel Corporation v. United States (Fed. Cir. 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

ARCHER, Circuit Judge.

At oral argument, Appellee, United States, suggested mootness because all of the entries of merchandise here involved have been liquidated. Appellant, United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), agreed this was true but argued that we should nevertheless decide this appeal. It contended that the short time frame would make judicial review of the action of the International Trade Administration (ITA) unavailable in this and similar circumstances where ITA has terminated a suspension order prior to the completion of a countervailing duty investigation.

U.S. Steel’s assertion is not correct. Here, U.S. Steel did not appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction by the Court of International Trade, which it could have done pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1), nor did it seek a stay of the agency action pending appeal after the decision of that court. With these alternatives available, we must dismiss this appeal which would not redress the alleged injury of U.S. Steel because it could not reach the entries in question.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.