CIT Upholds PMS Adjustment Drop for South Korean Steel Input in AD Case
The Court of International Trade in an Aug. 24 opinion upheld the Commerce Department's move to drop its particular market situation adjustment for a key input of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea in an antidumping duty review. Commerce had previously dropped the PMS adjustment for one of review's mandatory respondents but not the other. In the case's fourth remand results, the agency dropped the adjustment for the other, lowering non-selected respondent SeAH Steel Corp.'s dumping rate from 19.28% to 9.77%. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the move to drop the adjustment for the other respondent.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The case concerns the 2015-16 administrative review of the AD order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea in which Hyundai and Husteel served as the mandatory respondents. Through multiple court opinions, the court held that Commerce cannot make a PMS adjustment to the cost of production in a sales-below-cost test when calculating normal value (see 2107190029). This ruling was affirmed by a key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case and appeared in the present matter (see 2112150025).
So, under protest, Commerce dropped the PMS adjustment for Hyundai and Husteel, leading to a rate drop from 30.85% to 12.92% for Hyundai. However, Commerce continued to make the adjustment for Husteel's normal value for transactions found to be based on constructed value when recalculating SeAH's rate, setting the stage for further argument at the trade court.
In case's previous opinion, Choe-Groves upheld the PMS drop for Hyundai but not for Husteel, looking at whether the PMS adjustment was based on substantial evidence. As it had previously, Commerce based the PMS on five factors: "1) subsidization by the Government of Korea of hot-rolled coil; (2) Chinese steel products that flooded the Korean market; (3) strategic alliances between certain Korean hot-rolled coil suppliers and CWP producers; (4) distortions in the Korean electricity market; and (5) the Government of Korea’s role in restructuring the private steel industry." The judge went through each factor and found that they were not backed by substantial evidence. On remand, the agency dropped the adjustment for Husteel, thus dropping the rate for SeAH (see 2208020062).
Choe-Groves then upheld this PMS adjustment drop. "Commerce’s recalculation of SeAH’s dumping margin without a particular market situation adjustment is consistent with the Court’s prior opinions and orders in Hyundai Steel I, Hyundai Steel II, Hyundai Steel III, and Hyundai Steel IV," the opinion said.
(Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 22-98, CIT Consol. #18-00154, dated 08/24/22, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. Attorneys: J. David Park of Arnold & Porter for plaintiff Hyundai Steel; Jeffrey Winton of Winton & Chapman for consolidated plaintiff SeAH Steel; Joshua Kurland for defendant U.S. government; Roger Schagrin of Schagrin Associates for defendant-intervenor Wheatland Tube Co.)