Union Steel v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 2
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Union challenged Commerce's Final Results for thirteenth CORE antidumping review of Korea, including its model-match methodology and lamination issue.
- Court previously denied Union's challenge to the 'zeroing' practice and granted remand on the model-match issue.
- Remand Redetermination kept laminated CORE products in the 'painted' category, applying § 1677(16)(A)’s 'identical in physical characteristics' standard.
- Court held oral argument on remand and received post-argument submissions.
- The court found the Remand Redetermination's four factual findings insufficient to prove laminates are minor, commercially insignificant differences.
- The court ordered Commerce to issue a second remand redetermination after reassessing whether laminated and non-laminated CORE products are truly identical in physical characteristics.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laminated CORE is identical in physical characteristics to painted CORE | Union contends differences are material and commercially significant. | Remand Redetermination concluded differences are minor and not commercially significant. | Remand Redetermination set aside; insufficient substantial evidence to treat laminated as identical. |
| Whether record evidence shows laminated CORE is marketed separately | Brochures show separate laminated product lines; marketing suggests distinction. | Record evidence purportedly shows laminated not marketed separately. | Not sustained; record shows separate laminated lines exist, undermining the non-separation finding. |
| Whether four remand findings support the identical-in-physical-characteristics conclusion | Findings are probative of whether physical differences are minor. | Findings are sufficient to support the Remand Redetermination. | Findings lack substantial weight; they do not establish minor, non-significant differences. |
| Whether the 'compelling reasons' principle justifies altering the model-match methodology | A change is warranted given record showing significant differences. | Court should respect prior methodology absent compelling reasons. | Court rejects reliance on practice; compelling reasons required, which were not shown. |
| Whether the Remand Redetermination complies with Pesquera’s interpretation of 'identical in physical characteristics' | Pesquera supports treating minor differences as non-significant. | Remand Redetermination aligns with Pesquera’s framework. | Remand Redetermination failed; substantial evidence does not support the 'identical' finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (identical in physical characteristics can include minor, non-commercially significant differences)
- Union Steel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 645 F.Supp.2d 1298 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009) (remand and model-match methodology review; substantial evidence standard)