Seah Steel Vina Corp. v. United States, 38 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1633

Background

Commerce issued final antidumping determinations for OCTG (oil country tubular goods) from Vietnam (an NME), using surrogate values from India to calculate normal value (NV) and comparing to export price to determine dumping margins.
SeAH Steel VINA Corp. (SSV) and U.S. Steel challenged various aspects of Commerce’s calculations; both moved for judgment on the agency record. The court remanded most issues to Commerce for reconsideration.
Key contested topics: application of partial adverse facts available (AFA) to SSV; valuation methodology for three variations of J55 hot-rolled coil (HRC) used by SSV; whether domestic inland insurance should have been deducted from export price; selection of surrogate financial statements for overhead/SG&A/profit calculations; and multiple issues around brokerage & handling (B&H) surrogate values for exports and imports, allocation and per‑ton assumptions, and yield‑loss adjustments.
Administrative record included SSV questionnaires/responses, invoices, verification materials, and the World Bank “Doing Business India: 2014” report (used for B&H surrogate values).
The Government sought a voluntary remand (and the court granted it) to allow Commerce to reconsider selection of financial statements and other calculations; the court otherwise sustained Commerce’s refusal to apply partial AFA to SSV.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Partial AFA for SSV	U.S. Steel: SSV withheld or failed to timely disclose use of multiple J55 HRC types; partial AFA warranted.	Commerce/Gov: SSV complied with requests and answered consistent with API definitions; no withholding or failure to cooperate.	Court: Commerce’s refusal to apply partial AFA is supported by substantial evidence; claim denied.
2) Valuation of J55 HRC	U.S. Steel: Commerce should value separately three distinct J55 HRC variants (regular, upgradeable, high‑Cr) because compositions and prices differ.	Commerce: Used average ME purchase price under its ME‑inputs practice; treated the three as the same input.	Court: Remanded — Commerce provided insufficient explanation for treating the three variations as a single input; must explain or recalculate.
3) Domestic inland insurance deduction	U.S. Steel: Contract language shows SSV paid inland insurance; Commerce should value/deduct it from export price.	Commerce/SSV: Language reflects risk‑of‑loss allocation (not separate insurance); no separate insurance cost to deduct.	Court: Remanded — Commerce failed to explain sufficiently why contract isn’t insurance; must explain or reclassify.
4) Brokerage & handling, allocation, and financial statements	SSV: Commerce improperly included/document‑prep costs, misallocated Doing Business costs, added import B&H to ME input price, failed to offset yield loss, and used one company’s financials (Welspun) improperly. U.S. Steel: Commerce’s choices were reasonable and consistent with practice.	Gov: Seeks remand to reconsider financial statements; Commerce relied on Doing Business report and its practices.	Court: Multiple remands — Commerce must (a) reconsider selection of financial statements; (b) explain/document inclusion or exclusion of document‑prep B&H costs and allocation method (per‑ton proportionality); (c) reconsider addition of B&H to ME input price and whether an agency practice applies; (d) reconsider yield‑loss adjustment and provide full explanation.

Key Cases Cited

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (reviewing substantial‑evidence standard)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (best‑efforts standard for AFA)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (agency must explain grounds relied upon)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (agency must articulate satisfactory explanation)
Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (use best available information for factor valuation)
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 612 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (remand for further explanation when record needs clarification)
SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (standards for voluntary remand)
Essar Steel Ltd. v. United States, 678 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (purpose of AFA is to incentivize cooperation)