Nucor Corp. v. United States, 2025 CIT 27

Nucor challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce's findings in the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Korea, specifically regarding alleged subsidies received by POSCO.
Commerce calculated a de minimis subsidy rate for POSCO and declined to initiate an investigation into Nucor’s claim that off-peak electricity was being provided at less than adequate remuneration (LTAR) by the Korean government.
The case has gone through multiple remands, with the court repeatedly asking Commerce to clarify and properly evaluate whether off-peak electricity prices should be investigated separately from the broader time of usage electricity system.
In its third remand, Commerce reiterated that Nucor had not provided information reasonably available to support its LTAR allegation as required by statute and regulations.
Commerce also held that even if additional information was supplied, it was provided after relevant deadlines.
The court sustained Commerce’s third remand decision, finding its analysis was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce used and applied the correct initiation standard for a subsidy investigation	Commerce’s initiation standard was unclear, inconsistent, and too demanding	Commerce articulated and applied the correct, statutory, evidence-based standard	Court held Commerce used the proper legal standard and supported its findings with evidence
Whether Nucor’s evidence was enough to trigger an off-peak electricity LTAR investigation	Nucor’s evidence met the threshold; off-peak prices should be viewed apart from whole system	Nucor’s evidence insufficient; must consider full time-of-usage system, not subset alone	Court agreed with Commerce: Nucor failed to provide sufficiently supported or targeted evidence
Whether Commerce should ignore timing and accept late evidence	Late evidence should be considered, given its relevance	Agency not required to consider new allegations or evidence submitted after deadline	Court did not reach this, as Commerce’s primary rationale was enough to sustain the result
Whether off-peak electricity pricing can be separately countervailed	Yes, as an independent program within the broader tariff structure	Must evaluate within the context of the overarching, market-consistent tariff schedule	Court held no need to isolate subset; KEPCO’s total system was found consistent with market principles

RZBC Grp. Shareholding Co. v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1288 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) (standard for initiation of subsidy investigations; low threshold but requires support for all alleged elements)
Delverde, SrL v. United States, 989 F. Supp. 218 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997) (may require extra evidence of changed circumstances for previously reviewed programs)
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 600 F. Supp. 3d 1225 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2022) (prior remand emphasizing need for clear application of initiation standards)
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 653 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2023) (requiring Commerce to address off-peak pricing allegations in proper market context)
Nucor Corp. v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2024) (reiterating need for Commerce to explain standards and evidence for off-peak electricity)