CIT Again Upholds Commerce's Decision to Find Korea's Provision of Electricity Didn't Confer Benefit
The Court of International Trade upheld the Commerce Department's finding that the South Korean government doesn't subsidize the steel industry via the provision of electricity for less than adequate remuneration. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, issuing a nearly identical opinion in a second case brought by countervailing duty petitioner Nucor Corp. (see 2304190017), said the agency permissibly analyzed whether the electricity prices paid by all companies, including the two CVD respondents, were consistent with market principles and supported its decision with substantial evidence.
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.
Nucor, the petitioner in the 2019 CVD review of cold-rolled steel flat products from South Korea, challenged whether Commerce legally disregarded the government price to the respondents for electricity. The agency explained its Tier 3 analysis required it to analyze whether the electricity prices the Korean Electricity Power Corp. (KEPCO), Korea's electricity provider, charged were consistent with market principles by seeing whether the prices recovered costs plus profit. Choe-Groves noted the statute "does not require that Commerce focus on the prices that the respondents actually paid KEPCO for electricity, as alleged by Nucor," though the agency did so anyway.
Nucor also challenged the agency's finding that the provision of electricity did not confer a benefit, alleging "overwhelming record evidence to the contrary." Nucor "fails to provide evidence substantiating this claim," the judge said. "Mere allegations are insufficient to raise doubts as to the veracity of the evidence upon which Commerce relied in making its determination." Choe-Groves used identical language in the ruling as in the court's opinion in Nucor's case against the 2019 review of the CVD order on corrosion-resistant steel goods from South Korea.
(Nucor Corp. v. U.S., Slip Op. 23-55, CIT # 22-00137, dated 04/19/23; Judge: Jennifer Choe-Groves; Attorneys: Alan Price of Wiley for plaintiff Nucor Corp.; Misha Preheim for defendant U.S. government; Yujin McNamara of Akin Gump for defendant-intervenor South Korea)