Union Steel v. United States
2011 WL 5925326
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Union challenges the Final Results of the thirteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CORE from Korea, covering POR Aug 1, 2005–Jul 31, 2006.
- Union contends Commerce erred in treating non-laminated, painted CORE and laminated CORE as identical in physical characteristics under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(16)(A).
- The court previously held that the laminated vs. non-laminated comparison was unlawful, prompting remands (Union III).
- In the Second Remand Results, Commerce held that non-laminated, painted CORE cannot be lawfully compared to laminated CORE as identical in physical characteristics and classified laminated CORE as a separate type.
- Commerce also altered its use of zeroing during the thirteenth review, and Union moved for reconsideration based on subsequent Circuit rulings (JTEKT/Dongbu).
- The court now affirms the Second Remand Results on the model-match issue, and grants reconsideration to address zeroing on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-laminated, painted CORE is identical to laminated CORE under 1677(16)(A). | Union: they are identical. | Commerce: not identical; differences are commercially significant. | Not identical; Second Remand Results sustained. |
| Whether Commerce properly changed the model-match methodology on remand. | Union: change improper without reopen. | Commerce validly adjusted to comply with statute. | Commerce may adjust; remand to address zeroing justification. |
| Whether the court should remand to explain or reconsider zeroing under Dongbu/JTEKT. | Union: zeroing should be reconsidered in light of Dongbu/JTEKT. | No need to reopen beyond the Second Remand Results. | Remand appropriate to provide required explanation or alteration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (industry-wide standards can underpin commercial significance findings)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remands require explanation of zeroing construction)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (questioned the legality of zeroing in administrative reviews)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (zeroing in antidumping investigations/ reviews discussed)
- Union Steel v. United States, 645 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (CIT 2009) (earlier remand/zeroing posture in Union II)
- Union Steel v. United States, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (CIT 2011) (Union III remand decision on model-match)