CVD Petitioner Challenges Commerce's Finding of No Benefit in Korean Electricity Provision at LTAR
A domestic steel company is challenging the Commerce Department's finding in a countervailing duty administrative review that electricity in South Korea that was provided for less than adequate remuneration conferred no benefit. CVD petitioner Nucor Corp. also argued in its complaint at the Court of International Trade that Commerce was required verify questionnaire responses from the South Korean government regarding the provision of the electricity (Nucor Corp. v. United States, CIT # 23-00058).
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.
Commerce tapped Hyundai Steel Co. and KG Dongbu Steel Co. as mandatory respondents in the 2020 CVD administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea, fielding information from these companies and the South Korean government about the country's electricity market. Commerce preliminarily found that the Korea Electric Power Corp., the nation's state-owned electric utility, provided electricity for less than adequate remuneration under certain tariff classes, though the agency did not calculate a non-measureable benefit amount.
Commerce issued verification preparedness questionnaires to the respondents, but it didn't do the same for the South Korean government. Nucor argued administratively that Commerce's methodology for finding the benefit conferred via electricity provision was "improper and should be modified for the final determination." The petitioner pointed to "evidentiary flaws with the cost data" from KEPCO, though Nucor said that, even using this data, a benefit is conferred "if the tariff charged to the respondent does not cover 'cost of production' plus a 'profitable return on investment.'"
"Nucor argued that Commerce’s regulations require verification if an interested party timely requests verification and if verification has not been conducted in the two prior segments of the proceeding," Nucor added. "Because both of these conditions were satisfied, Nucor argued that Commerce’s failure to verify the [South Korean government]’s responses was unlawful." In the final results, Commerce continued to find that the provision of electricity for LTAR yielded no measurable benefit.