CIT Remands 2009-10 AD Review of Korea Steel Pipe on Input Price Determination
The Court of International Trade on Dec. 4 remanded the final results of the 2009-10 antidumping duty administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea (A-580-809) for the Commerce Department to reconsider the way it priced inputs used by respondent SeAH in steel production.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In the circular welded pipe review, Commerce had used the steel input prices as part of its “cost of production” analysis. If home market prices are lower than production costs for a given amount of an investigated company’s sales, those below-cost home market sales are disregarded, because they would otherwise skew downward AD duty rates. When it decided whether to use the input prices charged by SeAH’s affiliates or input prices charged by non-affiliated companies, Commerce chose not to take into account the grade of steel used in raw steel inputs used by SeAH, because the differences in price were minor and “inconsequential.” Commerce ended up using the affiliates' prices.
Domestic companies countered that even a minor difference in price between grades could potentially impact the cost of production analysis and the final duty margins. For instance, if purchases of a high-grade input from an affiliated supplier are compared to purchases of a low-grade input from an unaffiliated supplier, any below-market prices charged by the affiliate would be masked by the difference in price related to grades.
CIT found that Commerce didn’t do a good enough job at looking into whether it should take steel grade into account when deciding which input prices to use. Although domestic companies had raised the argument during the review, and even provided some evidence of price differences, Commerce simply called the differences inconsequential without citing evidence or requesting more information, CIT said. The court sent the case back down for reconsideration.
(Wheatland Tube Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 13-146, dated 12/04/13, Judge Musgrave)