2012 WL 1423885
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- U.S. Steel and Nucor challenged Commerce's Final Results in the fourteenth administrative review of CORE from Korea for POR Aug 1, 2006–Jul 31, 2007.
- Remand Redetermination addressed: (a) treating Union’s affiliated-substrate cost adjustments as non-negligible, (b) applying major-input to POSCO Group purchases, (c) applying major-input to Union’s JFE Steel purchases via a trading company with a revised method, (d) not collapsing Union with the POSCO Group.
- Commerce recalculated Union’s margin, reducing it from 7.56% to 7.45%, but this reduction was contested pending related proceedings on zeroing.
- Nucor alone challenged the non-collapse decision; no other party objected to the remand results.
- Court held that Commerce’s remand results on cost adjustments, major-input applications, and the revised methodology were in accordance with law, but postponed final judgment on the 7.45% margin due to open issues in a related case (Union Steel v. United States).
- Remand relied on criteria in 19 C.F.R. § 351.401 to assess whether Union and POSCO Group should be collapsed as a single entity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Remand Redetermination properly applied the major-input rule to Union’s steel substrate purchases. | U.S. Steel/Nucor argued for correct application to all relevant inputs. | Commerce sufficiently applied major-input rule to applicable inputs with explanation. | Affirmed as to major-input applications. |
| Whether Commerce properly adjusted Union’s substrate costs for affiliated purchases. | Adjustments should be disregarded as negligible or incorrect. | Remand Redetermination correctly treated these adjustments as non-negligible. | Affirmed; adjustments upheld. |
| Whether Union and the POSCO Group should be collapsed into a single entity for the fourteenth review. | Court should collapse due to significant intertwining and common ownership. | Record shows no significant potential for price/production manipulation; no collapse required. | Affirmed not to collapse; decisions supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether Commerce’s revised methodology for valuing Union's purchases via a trading company was lawful and adequately explained. | Methodology should be the same as Final Results or require different justification. | Remand provided a reasoned explanation for the revised methodology. | Affirmed; methodology sufficiently explained. |
| Whether the 7.45% dumping margin for Union should be final, given related proceedings. | Margin could be finalized in light of all remand issues. | Margin open issue due to concurrent case; judgment deferred. | Deferred; margin open due to Union Steel v. United States proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 759 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (2011) (remand proceedings; admissible reconsideration of collapse)
- Union Steel v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (2011) (remand scope related to fourteenth review; open margin issue)