Union Steel Manufacturing Co. v. United States
2014 CIT 27
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2014Background
- This action challenges Commerce's Remand Redetermination for the fifteenth CORE antidumping review of Korea, addressing multiple issues from the Final Results.
- Union, HYSCO, and Dongbu are Korean producers; U.S. Steel, Nucor, and Whirlpool intervened; the court previously remanded to reconsider several methodologies.
- Commerce revised Union's interest expense ratio using DSM's 2007 and 2008 statements, and adopted a blended approach to address aberrational 2008 currency losses.
- Remand also revised Union’s G&A ratio, adjusted major input costs (coil steel substrate), and created a separate lamination category for CORE in model matching.
- The Remand Redetermination kept zeroing for Union, retained a quarterly cost approach for several calculations, and altered the contemporaneous-month and date-of-sale determinations in various ways.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using DSM's 2007 and 2008 statements for Union's interest expense is reasonable | Union argues blended data distorts POR-specific costs. | Commerce reasonably blends to reflect POR periods and mitigate post-POR FX losses. | Sustained blended DSM approach. |
| Whether major-input adjustments to Union’s COP/finance costs are permissible | Nucor contends major input adjustments require different treatment to reflect arm's-length costs. | Adjustments necessary for accuracy and statutory compliance. | Remand to reconsider major input adjustment. |
| Whether revised below-cost and recovery-of-costs tests for Union/HYSCO comply with § 1677b(b)(2)-(b)(D) | Union/HYSCO challenge the surrogate/quarterly data approach and gaps in data. | Quarterly data with unindexed costs better reflect fluctuations and overall POR. | Sustain Union’s application; remand as to HYSCO's costs. |
| Whether the Department properly departed from the normal DIFMER/CV methodology | Objection to deviations without adequate justification. | Normal practice favored by Department under fluctuating costs. | Remand to address justification for quarterly DIFMER/CV use. |
| Whether the 90/60-day contemporaneous-month window was properly applied or justified | Shortening window reduces identical matches and accuracy. | Significant cost changes justify shorter window to reflect contemporaneity. | Remand to reconsider contemporaneous-month methodology. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corus Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (courts defer to agency's method when reasonable and supported by record)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (court scrutinizes agency's statutory interpretation and requires adequate explanation)