Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 494 F.Supp.3d 1287

Commerce completed the 2015–2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from Korea and published amended final results assigning weighted-average dumping margins (Hyundai 18.77%; SeAH 14.39%).
Plaintiffs (SeAH, Hyundai, NEXTEEL, Husteel) challenged multiple aspects of Commerce’s determination; the Court earlier remanded issues including Commerce’s market‑situation adjustment to HRC costs and Commerce’s treatment of SeAH’s third‑country (Canada) sales and a requested constructed export price (CEP) offset.
In Husteel I and Husteel II the Court sustained some Commerce positions but remanded the CEP‑offset question for further consideration.
On second remand, Commerce reconsidered the record, accounted for selling activities performed by SeAH’s U.S. affiliates (PPA and State Pipe), concluded SeAH’s Canadian sales are at a more advanced level of trade than its CEP sales, and granted SeAH a CEP offset under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(7)(B).
Commerce recalculated margins (SeAH 4.23%; Hyundai 9.24%; review‑specific rate for non‑selected respondents 6.74%); no party objected to the second remand results.
The Court sustained Commerce’s second remand redetermination as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce should grant SeAH a constructed export price (CEP) offset because Canadian LOT is more advanced than CEP	SeAH argued a CEP offset is warranted where Canadian LOT is at a more advanced distribution stage and no LOT adjustment is feasible	Commerce, after reconsideration, supported granting the CEP offset based on LOT comparison and lack of data for a LOT adjustment	Court sustained Commerce’s grant of a CEP offset to SeAH as supported by substantial evidence and law
Whether Commerce properly excluded U.S. affiliates’ selling activities when identifying CEP LOT	Challengers previously contended Commerce’s LOT analysis was flawed and insufficiently explained	Commerce applied Micron/regulatory precedent to exclude selling activities reflected in CEP price (those performed by PPA and State Pipe) and reassessed Canadian LOT accordingly	Court found Commerce reasonably excluded U.S. affiliates’ activities and properly compared LOTs
Whether Commerce’s second remand complied with the Court’s remand order and evidentiary standards	Plaintiffs sought a remand‑compliant explanation and substantial‑evidence support for any change	Commerce revised its LOT analysis, explained its reasoning, and recalculated margins consistent with statute and the Court’s remand instructions	Court held the redetermination complied with the remand and was supported by substantial evidence

Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (CEP LOT analysis excludes selling activities reflected in price after §1677a(d) deductions)
Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Commerce must notify the public when a court decision is not in harmony with an agency determination)
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (clarifies Timken notice requirements)
Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Commerce may adopt positions under protest to preserve appeal rights)