Union Steel Manufacturing Co. v. United States
2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 67
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- This is a consolidated challenge in the US Court of International Trade to the ITA’s Final Results in the fifteenth administrative review of the CORE antidumping order from Korea for POR Aug 1, 2007–Jul 31, 2008.
- Plaintiffs Union, Dongbu, HYSCO, and U.S. Steel challenge the Final Results; U.S. Steel and HYSCO are defendant-intervenors, with Nucor also participating as a defendant-intervenor.
- Commerce based Union’s G&A and interest expense ratios on DSM’s 2008 financial statements, arguing it reflects the period most closely corresponding to the POR, but Union contends the 2008 data are aberrational post-POR data not representative of POR costs.
- Commerce applied a quarterly-cost methodology with an indexing approach for calculating COP and used it for multiple purposes (below-cost test, recovery-of-costs test, CV, DIFMER), prompting remand following SeAH and related decisions.
- The court remands to reconsider (i) the 2008 DSM statement usage for Union’s interest expense (and related G&A), (ii) the quarterly-cost and indexing methodologies and their use across applications, (iii) the contemporaneous-month determination under 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e)(2), (iv) whether laminated CORE and painted CORE are identical, (v) the zeroing methodology, and (vi) the date of sale for HYSCO’s U.S. sales, with resulting margin adjustments to be reflected in Dongbu’s rate.
- Dongbu did not exhaust administrative remedies for a separate individually-determined margin, so relief on that claim is denied; remand may adjust its rate in light of remand results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of DSM's 2008 financials to compute Union's interest expense | Union contends 2008 data are aberrational post-POR and not representative | Department followed its standard practice to use the financial statement most closely corresponding to the POR | Remand to reassess data source and accuracy of Union's interest expense |
| Quarterly-cost methodology and indexing applications under COP tests | Argues the indexed quarterly approach and cost-recovery logic violate statutory requirements | Department justified departures as addressing significant cost variations | Remand to reconsider the quarterly-cost and indexing methodologies and their applications |
| Contemporaneous month (90/60-day window) deviations | Deviation from the 90/60-day window impairs accuracy of price-to-price matches | Nonstandard method necessary when using the quarterly-cost approach | Remand to reconsider contemporaneous-month determination |
| Model-match: laminated CORE versus painted CORE treated as identical | There are material differences; should not be treated identically | Department previously treated them as identical for matching purposes | Remand to reconsider model-match classification |
| Zeroing in the fifteenth review | Zeroing may be unlawful inconsistent with investigations | Zeroing upheld by precedent; may remand for explanation | Remand to address zeroing methodology or provide justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (costs and data accuracy in margins matter for dumping determinations)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand for explanation of zeroing differences in reviews vs investigations)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (confirms need to explain/justify cross-case interpretations of cost methods)