2020 CIT 92
Ct. Intl. Trade2020Background
- This case challenges Commerce’s Final Results of the first administrative review of the countervailing-duty (CVD) order on certain corrosion-resistant steel from Korea (2015–2016).
- Parties include plaintiff Nucor, consolidated plaintiffs Dongbu Incheon and Dongbu Steel (collectively Dongbu), plaintiff-intervenor U.S. Steel, and several defendant-intervenors including Hyundai Steel.
- Commerce made several determinations: Dongbu was uncreditworthy; private investor prices were available; government-controlled banks influenced loan restructuring; Dongbu’s loan restructuring was specific; Hyundai Steel and Hyundai Green Power were not cross-owned; and Nucor’s input-supplier arguments were moot.
- Nucor failed to administratively raise the argument about the significance of private-investor equity shares, so the court declined to reach that claim for lack of exhaustion.
- The court sustained Commerce’s finding that Hyundai Steel and Hyundai Green Power were not cross-owned and therefore that input-supplier arguments were moot, but remanded Commerce’s determinations that (1) private-creditor loans on the creditors committee could not be used as commercial benchmarks and (2) Dongbu’s loan restructuring was specific, for further explanation or reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dongbu received a countervailable benefit from government equity infusions | Nucor: private-investor share was insignificant and Commerce erred in finding no benefit | Commerce: private investor prices were available; significance argument not preserved administratively | Court: Nucor failed to exhaust this issue; did not reach the merits |
| Whether private loans from creditors committee can be used as benchmarks for government-loan benefits | Dongbu: private loans could be used if they meet benchmark criteria | Commerce: government-controlled banks influenced private banks so those loans aren’t commercial benchmarks | Court: remanded — Commerce’s conclusion lacked substantial evidentiary citation; must support or reconsider |
| Whether Dongbu’s loan restructuring was a specific subsidy | Dongbu: Commerce misunderstood/failed to address restructuring vs. bankruptcy treatment | Commerce: relied on prior investigation and IDM to support specificity finding | Court: remanded — Commerce did not adequately address Dongbu’s argument or provide substantial record support |
| Whether Hyundai Green Power and Hyundai Steel were cross-owned | Nucor: operations are intertwined; Hyundai could effectively control Hyundai Green Power | Commerce: Hyundai owned only 29% — below levels indicating cross-ownership | Court: sustained Commerce — record supports no cross-ownership |
| Whether Nucor’s input-supplier arguments were moot | Nucor: subsidies to Hyundai Green Power should be attributed to Hyundai Steel as input supplier | Commerce: input-supplier analysis requires cross-ownership; absent cross-ownership the issue is moot | Court: sustained Commerce as lawful because cross-ownership prerequisite not met |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 348 F. Supp. 3d 1248 (2018) (describing exhaustion and preservation requirements for administrative arguments)
- Nucor Corp. v. United States, 927 F.3d 1243 (2019) (explaining preservation through meaningful administrative argument)
- Hyundai Heavy Indus. Co. v. United States, 332 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (2018) (holding agency conclusions unsupported when IDM lacks record citations)
- Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 917 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (2013) (discussing creditworthiness analysis and Commerce’s discretion in applying factors)
- Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co. v. United States, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1316 (2018) (describing statutory standard for specificity of domestic subsidies)
- Stein Indus., Inc. v. United States, 365 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (2019) (remanding where Commerce failed to address a party’s relevant argument)