Rsi (India) Pvt., Ltd. v. United States (1989)

Secs. 2502 (1) and 2503(c)(5), the Congress incorporated into United States Law." RSI (India) Pvt., Ltd. v. United States, 876 F.2d 1571, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1989) 5 The following description of the calculation that Commerce carried out in its draft remand determination to determine whether a countervailable subsidy existed evidences Commerce's error: 1) For each month of 1985, the record contains an "international" metric ton price of pig iron.

"The list in question is a list prepared under the [GATT] which, by 19 U.S.C. §§ 2502 (1) and 2503(c)(5), the Congress incorporated into United States Law.” RSI (India) Pvt., Ltd. v. United States, 876 F.2d 1571, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1989). .

In that case, the CAFC concluded Commerce “is under no legal duty to construct an imaginary noncoun-tervailable subsidy when the real subsidy is not shown to have been constructed in any such way and can not be shown to be nondistortive of market forces.” RSI, 876 F.2d at 1574 (emphasis added).

See RSI (India) Pvt., Ltd. v. United States, 876 F.2d 1571, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1989). .

See RSI (India) Pvt., Ltd. v. United States, 876 F.2d 1571, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1989) 2 More specifically, the Domestic Industry submits that: (1) the casting manufacturers used varying amounts of scrap iron; (2) the price of pig iron varies according to purity, therefore making it improper to rely on a single world market price in determining the rebate; (3) the Indian government's world market price was not comparable with Indian pig iron import statistics, was not based on cont…

See RSI (India) Pvt., Ltd. v. United States, 12 CIT 331 , 687 F. Supp. 605 , aff’d, 876 F.2d 1571 (Fed.