NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, 399 F.Supp.3d 1353

This case reviews the U.S. Department of Commerce’s administrative review (2014–2015) of the antidumping order on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from South Korea and Commerce’s Remand Redetermination following this Court’s earlier opinion (NEXTEEL I).
The Court previously remanded Commerce’s Final Results in part, instructing Commerce to remove a "particular market situation" (PMS) adjustment and to clarify other determinations.
On remand Commerce recalculated margins without applying the PMS adjustment, reclassified SeAH’s proprietary OCTG (reporting code 075) into code 080, and explained its treatment of Pusan Pipe America’s (PPA) general & administrative (G&A) costs.
Multiple parties (NEXTEEL, Hyundai, SeAH, Husteel, AJU Besteel, and several domestic producers) submitted comments on Commerce’s Remand Redetermination; the Government replied.
The Court sustained Commerce’s remand treatment of the PMS issue and SeAH product classification, but remanded again because Commerce’s treatment of PPA’s G&A expenses as U.S. selling (indirect selling) or further-manufacturing costs lacked adequate record support and explanation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce properly removed the "particular market situation" adjustment on remand	Commerce should be required to retain PMS; removal unsupported	Commerce complied with the Court’s remand instructions and record does not support PMS	Court upheld Commerce’s removal of PMS; remand redetermination consistent with prior remand order
Whether Commerce correctly classified SeAH’s proprietary OCTG (code 075) with API-equivalent code 080	SeAH: proprietary products differ by production process (heat treatment) and stencil; should not be grouped with N-80	Commerce: model-match hierarchy ranks physical properties (grade) above process; tensile/hardness match N-80 so grouping is proper	Court affirmed Commerce’s reclassification; substantial evidence supports using the model-match hierarchy over strict API labeling
Whether Commerce permissibly deducted PPA’s G&A as U.S. selling (indirect selling) or as further-manufacturing costs in CEP calculation	SeAH: Commerce cannot recharacterize G&A as selling expenses and failed to show record support for that treatment	Commerce: G&A can be allocated as indirect selling when reselling occurs and as further-manufacture when further manufacturing occurs; PPA’s G&A supports allocation	Court held Commerce’s explanation and record citation were inadequate; remanded for clearer explanation and record support for treating PPA’s G&A as selling expenses

Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (agency methodology choices are subject to substantial-evidence review; industry standards are informative but not controlling)