Commerce Department Erred in PMS Analysis but Still Reached Proper Conclusion, Nexteel Says
The Commerce Department's remand redetermination concerning an antidumping duty review on oil country tubular goods from South Korea still suffers from "legal and factual flaws" despite the correct conclusion that no particular market situation existed that distorted the costs of production, Nexteel said in its Dec. 2 comments to the Court of International Trade. Nexteel told the court that, due to what it sees as the correct conclusion, CIT should sustain the remand redetermination but should force Commerce to reconsider the PMS issue should it come up before the court in the future (Nexteel and Seah Steel v. U.S. and U.S. Steel CIT # 18-00083).
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.
Nexteel's comments follow the March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to remand the investigation to Commerce, finding the department did not properly support its decision that a PMS existed due to low-cost Chinese hot-rolled steel, which is the main input to the Korean oil country tubular goods (see 2203110044). Commerce revisited the proceedings and issued its final remand redetermination Oct. 24 (see 2210240069).
The Commerce Department erred when it failed to address the CAFC's requirement that it find a link between hot-rolled steel imports from China and the price of inputs used by Nexteel. As part of that failure, Nexteel says Commerce incorrectly found that company-specific analysis was unnecessary when there was sufficient evidence that the entire market was distorted. Because Commerce's determinations must be consistent with CAFC’s opinion remanding the case, Nexteel says Commerce's process was flawed even if the company does not contest the overall conclusion.