SeAH Steel Vina Corp. v. United States
269 F. Supp. 3d 1335
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- This case is a challenge to Commerce’s antidumping determination for oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Vietnam; the court previously remanded most issues and Commerce issued Remand Results on May 1, 2017.
- Parties: Plaintiff SeAH Steel VINA Corp. (SSV) and defendant-intervenor United States Steel (U.S. Steel); both contested aspects of Commerce’s Remand Results.
- Core factual inputs: SSV reported three types of J55 hot-rolled coil (regular J55, high-chromium J55, and higher-carbon J55-H); some ME purchases by SSV occurred outside the period of investigation (POI).
- Commerce used surrogate values from India (Indian import HTS data) for some coil types and selected Bhushan Steel Ltd.’s financial statements for overhead/SG&A/profit ratios; it also reclassified SSV’s freight contract as including inland insurance and used an Argo Dutch mushroom-insurance figure as the surrogate.
- Key administrative calculations contested: surrogate valuation for J55-H and high-chromium J55, selection of surrogate financial statements, yield-loss calculation, valuation and existence of domestic inland insurance, inclusion of document-preparation in brokerage & handling (B&H) surrogate, and allocation methodology for B&H costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrogate value for J55-H coil | SSV/U.S. Steel: Commerce should have used SSV’s ME purchases (more specific) despite being pre-POI | Commerce: prefers contemporaneous public surrogate data; ME purchases were outside POI | Remand required: Commerce must explain or reconsider preferring contemporaneity over specificity for J55-H |
| Surrogate value for high-chromium J55 | U.S. Steel: Indian import data are aberrational vs other countries’ prices | Commerce: Indian HTS data are contemporaneous, product-specific, from an economically comparable country and not shown to be aberrational | Sustained: substantial evidence supports use of Indian import data for high-chromium J55 |
| Selection of surrogate financial statements (Bhushan) | SSV: Bhushan is fully integrated while SSV is semi-integrated; Apollo/Lloyds or others should be used | Commerce: prefers producer of identical merchandise; Bhushan produced OCTG and statements are contemporaneous and audited | Sustained: Commerce reasonably chose Bhushan given imperfect alternatives and record support |
| Yield-loss calculation | U.S. Steel: denominator should be upgradable OCTG only (produces higher yield-loss) | Commerce: only one known SSV-sourced scrap sale; use total subject merchandise as denominator | Sustained: substantial evidence supports Commerce’s recalculated, lower yield-loss percentage |
| Domestic inland insurance existence/value | SSV: contract language reflects common-carrier liability; Argo Dutch figure inflates insurance (mushrooms) and is not specific | Commerce: contract language insures against accidental damage; no record Indian insurance surrogate except Argo Dutch; used it after inflation adjustment | Remand required: Commerce must better explain why Argo Dutch is best available or select alternative/open record |
| Inclusion of document-preparation in B&H surrogate | SSV: broker did not perform document preparation so Commerce should exclude that portion | Commerce: Doing Business report aggregates document costs; contract indicates broker may perform document tasks; SSV did not clearly prove none were broker-prepared | Sustained: Commerce reasonably declined adjustment because conditions for excluding document-prep costs were unmet |
| Allocation of B&H costs (per-ton assumption) | SSV: B&H charges are per-shipment or per-container, not proportional to weight; Commerce erred imputing per-ton allocation | Commerce: SSV freight contract shows per-ton and per-container pricing; record supports possible proportionality | Remand required: Commerce must explain allocation rationale further or revise it |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (substantial-evidence standard described)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (standard for reviewing Commerce reasonableness)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (guidance on surrogate-data contemporaneity and specificity)
- Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United States, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (use of surrogate financial statements and financial ratios)
- Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Commerce’s broad discretion valuing factors of production)
- Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 612 F.3d 1348 (courts review only agency rationale provided)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (court must judge agency action on agency’s stated grounds)