Husteel Co. v. United States, 2020 CIT 103

Background

This case concerns Commerce’s first administrative review (2015–2016) of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe (WLP) from South Korea; plaintiffs include Husteel, Hyundai, NEXTEEL, and SeAH; domestic producers intervened.
In its Amended Final Results, Commerce found a particular market situation (PMS) in Korea and upwardly adjusted respondents’ hot-rolled coil (HRC) costs, and it rejected SeAH’s Canadian sales as unrepresentative (relying on a Canadian dumping finding), using constructed value for SeAH’s normal value.
The U.S. Court of International Trade in Husteel I remanded, holding Commerce’s PMS finding was unsupported by substantial evidence and that Commerce had not adequately explained relying solely on the Canadian finding to deem SeAH’s Canadian sales unrepresentative.
On remand Commerce, under protest, reversed the PMS adjustment, used SeAH’s Canadian third-country sales to calculate SeAH’s normal value, corrected a ministerial error, and declined to grant a constructed export price (CEP) offset for SeAH’s Canadian sales.
The court sustained Commerce’s reversal of the PMS finding and its decision to use SeAH’s Canadian sales for normal value, but remanded Commerce’s refusal to grant a CEP offset for further explanation or reconsideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a PMS existed in Korea requiring upward adjustment of HRC costs	PMS existed due to cumulative effects (Chinese overcapacity, Korean subsidies, producer alliances, electricity market) distorting costs	Commerce argued PMS supported initially but on remand reversed under protest after court found its prior analysis deficient	Court sustained Commerce’s reversal of the PMS finding (Commerce’s remand complied with Husteel I)
Whether SeAH’s Canadian sales are representative for normal value (use of third-country sales)	SeAH argued Canadian sales are representative and should be used; Commerce previously erred relying solely on the CITT finding of dumping	Commerce initially rejected Canada sales as unrepresentative based on CITT dumping finding but on remand found them representative	Court sustained Commerce’s use of SeAH’s Canadian sales for normal value (remand complied with Husteel I)
Whether Commerce must apply a CEP offset to SeAH’s Canadian sales	SeAH argued a CEP offset is required because U.S. sales are at a more advanced level of trade than its Canadian sales	Commerce conceded it failed to properly consider the issue on remand and requested further remand to address PPA’s selling functions	Court remanded Commerce’s decision not to apply a CEP offset for further explanation or reconsideration (remand granted)
Challenge to Commerce’s ministerial correction / request to rely on constructed value	Maverick/IPSCO urged Commerce to calculate SeAH’s margin using constructed value or alternatively sustain Commerce’s ministerial correction	Commerce corrected a data-conversion ministerial error; but acknowledged CEP analysis issue could affect rates	Court did not reach the ministerial-correction/constructed-value challenge because CEP remand may change calculations; issue deferred to remand

Key Cases Cited

Husteel Co. v. United States, 426 F. Supp. 3d 1376 (CIT 2020) (prior opinion remanding Commerce’s PMS and representativeness analyses)
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (standard for substantial evidence review)
Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (substantial evidence principles)
CS Wind Vietnam Co. v. United States, 832 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (consideration of detracting record evidence)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review standard)
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (standards for remand requests)