SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States
33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1296
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- This case involves SeAH Steel Corp.'s challenge to Commerce's Final Results of Antidumping Review on Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Korea and the Court-ordered remand to reconsider major inputs and the cost recovery test.
- On remand, Commerce determined that steel specification, in addition to grade, affected major input costs and adjusted data accordingly, reducing SeAH's dumping margin from 9.05% to 7.92%.
- The Court affirmed Commerce's major input analysis but held that Commerce's cost recovery methodology—quarterly indexing—violated the statutory requirement and exceeded Commerce's authority.
- The Court remanded to Commerce to use a cost recovery method consistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(2)(D), specifically to apply the unindexed weighted-average per-unit cost of production for the period of review.
- Commerce previously argued its indexing addressed distortions from nickel price spikes; the Court rejected this rationale as contrary to the statute and required a return to the POR-based, unindexed COP in the NV calculation.
- The case includes issues of administrative exhaustion for Bristol Metals, but the Court notes Bristol did not exhaust by commenting on the draft remand, thus limiting objections to the major-input analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Remand Redetermination’s major input analysis properly accounted for steel specifications in SeAH’s inputs. | SeAH argues specification distinctions between STS and ASTM should affect the major input analysis. | Commerce determined specification differences impact cost inputs and should be considered. | Affirmed in favor of Commerce on major input analysis. |
| Whether Commerce’s quarterly-indexed cost recovery test complies with the cost recovery statute. | SeAH contends indexing alters the statutorily required single benchmark COP for the POR. | Commerce asserts indexing is allowed to offset distortions from cost fluctuations and yields a valid weighted average. | Remanded; Commerce must use the unindexed weighted-average COP for the POR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. v. United States, 751 F.Supp.2d 1345 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010) (exhaustion doctrine in trade cases; strict approach)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (exhaustion exceptions and statutory interpretation guidance)
- SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 704 F.Supp.2d 1353 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2010) (earlier remand affirming in part; guidance on remand scope)