PMS Adjustment Drop Sustained Yet Again by CIT in South Korean Steel AD Case
The Commerce Department again reversed course on applying a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for South Korean steel in an antidumping review, and those remand results were sustained by the Court of International Trade in a June 24 decision.
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.
The case stems from the 2016-17 antidumping administrative review of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea. In the initial review, Commerce found four factors that contributed to a PMS for the cost of production. Judge Gary Katzmann said Commerce used an "impermissible interpretation" of Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 -- the part of the bill that defines "ordinary course of trade" and "normal value" for antidumping proceedings.
The remand results lower the dumping margins for mandatory respondent Dong-A Steel Co. and other respondent Kukje Steel Co. However, much to Kukje's objection, the judge said the same adjustment drop cannot be made to the other mandatory respondent in the case, HiSteel Co., since it was not party to the litigation.
The agency's initial finding of a PMS "'relied on substantially the same record evidence in reaching its PMS determination here' that the court had previously found to be insufficient in" three other related cases concerning Korean steel makers Nexteel Co. and Hyundai Steel Co., Katzmann said.
(Dong-A Steel Company v. United States, Slip Op. 21-79, CIT # 19-00104, dated 06/24/21, Judge Katzmann. Attorneys: Jarrod Goldfeder of Trade Pacific for plaintiffs Dong-A Steel Company and Kukje Steel Co.; Robert Kiepura for defendant U.S. government)