US, AD Respondents Defend Commerce's Decision to Drop PMS Finding in Line Pipe AD Review
Domestic companies party to an antidumping duty matter are incorrect to argue that the Commerce Department should continue finding that a particular market situation exists for a welded line pipe input, Commerce argued in Sept. 16 comments at the Court of International Trade. Plaintiff Nexteel Co. added that the defendant-intervenors' points are moot since they have not highlighted any error of fact or law made by the trade court in striking down Commerce's past rationale for its PMS finding. The statute also does not allow for a PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, Nexteel and the U.S. said in rebuking the U.S. companies (Nexteel Co. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03898).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The case concerns the 2017-2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from South Korea. In the review, as it has done in other cases, Commerce said that a PMS existed in the market for South Korea hot-rolled coil steel. The agency said a PMS was created based on the confluence of subsidies from the South Korean government, low-priced imports from China, strategic alliances between HRC suppliers and welded line pipe producers, and the South Korean government's intervention in the electricity market. Commerce then used this finding to adjust mandatory respondents SeAH's and Nexteel's cost of production for the sales-below-cost test.
Judge Claire Kelly remanded every element of the PMS issue. The judge cited the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., which struck down Commerce's PMS adjustment in the sales-below-cost test (see 2112100039). Kelly further went through each of Commerce's reasons for establishing the PMS, remanding them for further consideration. For many of them, the judge ruled that the agency failed to show how they combined with the other factors to establish the PMS. On remand, Commerce dropped its PMS finding and the PMS adjustment to the sales-below-cost test.
The defendant-intervenors signed off, only to be met with opposition from the U.S., Nexteel and plaintiff SeAH Steel Corp. SeAH added to Commerce's defense by arguing that the defendant-intervenors have not put forth a basis to overturn the negative PMS finding. "[Defendant-intervenors] entire argument is simply a recitation of Commerce’s own reasoning in its final determination for the underlying administrative review, and exclusively relies on evidence that was already considered by Commerce in reaching its final determination," SeAH said. "Since the Court rejected Commerce’s finding in the final determination for failing to be supported by substantial evidence, Commerce correctly determined on remand that the evidence on the record did not support a finding of a PMS. [The defendant-intervenors] have not provided a legal or factual basis to overturn that conclusion."