NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, 475 F.Supp.3d 1378

This case arises from the second administrative review (Sept. 1, 2015–Aug. 31, 2016) of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from Korea.
In an earlier decision (NEXTEEL I), the Court remanded multiple Commerce determinations (including use of total facts available, a particular market situation (PMS) finding, classification and expense adjustments) for reconsideration.
On first remand, Commerce maintained its PMS finding; the Court again remanded the PMS issue in NEXTEEL II.
On second remand, Commerce (under respectful protest) reversed its PMS determination and recalculated dumping margins without applying a PMS adjustment.
The recalculated weighted-average dumping margins fell from 5.41% to 3.40% for SeAH, from 46.71% to 18.29% for NEXTEEL, and from 26.06% to 10.85% for non‑examined companies.
Defendant-Intervenor U.S. Steel moved to sustain Commerce’s Second Remand Redetermination by consent; no party opposed. The Court sustained the redetermination, granted the consent motion, and struck remaining filing deadlines set in the prior slip op.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce's PMS determination was supported	PMS was unsupported and should not be applied	Commerce originally defended PMS but on second remand reversed it	Court sustained Commerce's reversal and no PMS adjustment was applied
Whether Commerce's recalculation of margins without PMS complied with the Court's remand	Recalculation without PMS is required and appropriate	Commerce performed the recalculation under protest but implemented it	Court found the recalculation lawful and sustained the results
Whether the Second Remand Redetermination is supported by law and record	Remand results comply with law and prior orders	Government asked the Court to sustain the redetermination	Court concluded the redetermination is in accordance with law and remand order
Whether to enter judgment on consent and strike remaining deadlines	Plaintiffs consented / did not oppose entry of judgment	U.S. Steel moved for entry of judgment; no opposition	Court granted the Consent Motion and struck remaining deadlines

NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (CIT 2019) (earlier opinion remanding multiple Commerce determinations)
ABB Inc. v. United States, 335 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (CIT 2018) (standard of review for redeterminations pursuant to court remand)