Seah Steel Corp. v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-00150,Slip Op. 22-101 |
| Parties | SEAH STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION, IPSCO TUBULARS INC., TENARIS BAY CITY, INC., and VALLOUREC STARL.P., Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's remand results in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from the Republic of Korea.
Jeffrey M. Winton, Michael J. Chapman, Amrietha Nellan, and Vi N. Mai, Winton & Chapman PLLC, of Washington, D.C for Plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation.
Hardeep K. Josan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for Defendant United States.
With her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Mykhaylo Gryzlov, Senior Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Thomas M. Beline, Myles S. Getlan, James E. Ransdell, and Nicole Brunda, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corporation.
Gregory J. Spak, Frank J. Schweitzer, Kristina Zissis, and Matthew W. Solomon, White & Case LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenors Maverick Tube Corporation, IPSCO Tubulars Inc., and Tenaris Bay City, Inc.
Roger B. Schagrin, Elizabeth J. Drake, and Luke A. Meisner, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Vallourec Star, L.P.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge.
Plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation ("SeAH" or "Plaintiff") filed this action challenging the final results published by the U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce") in the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods ("OCTG") from the Republic of Korea ("Korea"). See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea ("Final Results"), 85 Fed.Reg. 41,949 (Dep't of Commerce July 13, 2020) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review; 2017- 2018); see also Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Results of the 2017-2018 Admin. Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea (July 6, 2020) ("Final IDM"), ECF No. 20-5.
Before the Court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea ("Remand Results"), ECF No. 80-1. See also United States Steel Corp.'s Comments Opp'n Remand Redetermination ("U.S. Steel's Br."), ECF No. 84; Def.'s Resp. Comments Regarding Remand Redetermination ("Def.'s Br."), ECF No. 85; Comments of SeAH Steel Corp. Supp. Commerce's January 24, 2022, Redetermination ("SeAH's Br."), ECF No. 86. For the reasons discussed below, the Court sustains the Remand Results.
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case and recites the facts relevant to the Court's review of the Remand Results. See SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States ("SeAH Steel I"), 45 CIT,, 539 F.Supp.3d 1341 (2021). Commerce initiated this fourth administrative review ("OCTG IV") of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea for the period covering September 1, 2017 through August 31, 2018. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Admin. Reviews, 83 Fed.Reg. 57,411, 57,413-14 (Dep't of Commerce Nov. 15, 2018) (initiation notice). Commerce selected Hyundai Steel Company ("Hyundai Steel") and SeAH as mandatory respondents for individual examination. Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea, 84 Fed.Reg. 63,615, 63,615 (Dep't of Commerce Nov. 18, 2019) (prelim. results of antidumping duty admin. review; 2017-2018); see also Decision Mem. for the Prelim. Results of the 2017-2018 Admin. Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea (Nov. 8, 2019) ( ), PR 285.[1]
In the Final Results, Commerce assigned weighted-average dumping margins of 0% for Hyundai Steel, 3.96% for SeAH, and 3.96% for non-examined companies. Final Results, 85 Fed.Reg. at 41,950. Commerce based normal value on constructed value for Hyundai Steel and SeAH because neither mandatory respondent had a viable home market or third-country market during the period of review. Final IDM at 68.
Commerce applied a differential pricing analysis and calculated SeAH's weighted-average duty margin by the alternative average-to-transaction method. Id. at 79-91. Commerce determined that a particular market situation existed in Korea based on a totality-of-the-circumstances assessment of five factors, namely: (1) subsidies from the Government of Korea to producers of hot-rolled coil, (2) the deluge of Chinese hot-rolled products exerting downward pressure on Korean domestic hot-rolled coil prices, (3) strategic alliances between Korean hot-rolled coil suppliers and Korean OCTG producers, (4) the Government of Korea's influence over the cost of electricity, and (5) steel industry restructuring efforts by the Government of Korea. See id. at 5-6. Commerce used a regression-based analysis to quantify the impact of the particular market situation in Korea and adjusted for the particular market situation determination by increasing the reported hot-rolled coil costs by a rate of 17.13%. See id. at 49, 61; Commerce's Final Analysis Mem. for SeAH (Jul. 21, 2020) ("SeAH Final Calculations Mem.") at 2, PR 350. Commerce utilized the 2018 financial statements of Tenaris S.A. ("Tenaris") and PAO TMK ("TMK") to calculate SeAH's constructed value profit and selling expenses. See Final IDM at 67. Commerce deducted SeAH's reported freight revenue up to actual freight cost and calculated SeAH's constructed export price profit rate using the Tenaris and TMK 2018 financial statements. See id. at 106, 109-11; see also Analysis of Data Submitted by SeAH Steel Corp. for Prelim. Results (Nov. 8, 2019) ( ) at 3, PR 290.
In SeAH Steel I, 45 CIT__,__, 539 F.Supp.3d 1341, 1366 (2022), the Court sustained two issues: (1) Commerce's profit calculation included in SeAH's constructed export price and (2) Commerce's exclusion of freight revenue in calculating SeAH's constructed export price. The Court remanded two issues: (1) Commerce's determination of a particular market situation in Korea as unsupported by substantial evidence and (2) Commerce's application of the Cohen's d test as part of the differential pricing analysis for further explanation. Id.
On remand under protest, Commerce determined that "[n]otwithstanding Commerce's objections to the Court's position that the evidence on which Commerce relied in reaching its finding of an affirmative [particular market situation] determination was insufficient, Commerce is reversing its [particular market situation] finding and removing the adjustment to SeAH's [cost of production] for purposes of this redetermination pursuant to remand." Remand Results at 6. With respect to the Cohen's d test for differential pricing, Commerce determined on remand that "it is unnecessary to address the issue of applicability of [the] Cohen's d test for purposes of this redetermination, because the selection of the comparison method has no material effect on the results of this redetermination." Id. at 8.
The Court has jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court authority to review actions contesting the final results of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order. The Court will hold unlawful any determination found to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The Court also reviews determinations made on remand for compliance with the Court's remand order. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38 CIT__,__, 992 F.Supp.2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff'd, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In SeAH Steel I, the Court reviewed Commerce's determination that a particular market situation distorted the cost of production of OCTG based on the cumulative effect of five factors: (1) subsidization of Korean hot-rolled coil products by the Korean Government; (2) distortive pricing of unfairly-traded Chinese hot-rolled coil; (3) "strategic alliances" between Korean hot-rolled coil suppliers and Korean OCTG producers; (4) distortive government control over electricity prices in Korea; and (5) steel industry restructuring efforts by the Korean Government. SeAH Steel I at 1352. This Court stated:
In summary, the Court concludes that substantial record evidence does not support Commerce's cumulative particular market situation determination in Korea for the 2017-2018 period of review because the record evidence does not demonstrate the existence during the period of review of the five factors allegedly underlying the particular market situation determination. The Court remands Commerce's particular market situation determination for further explanation or reconsideration consistent with this opinion.
Id. at 1358 (emphasis added).
Commerce determined on remand that based on the evidentiary record and the "constraints imposed on [Commerce] by the Court's ruling," there was an insufficient evidentiary basis to sustain an affirmative particular market situation determination. Remand Results at 7. Commerce explained that "[f]or this redetermination, under protest, we continue to find...
To continue reading
Request your trial