CIT Grants Voluntary Remand on Use of Constructed Value for PMS in ADD Case

The Court of International Trade on May 3 granted the Commerce Department’s request to reopen its 2016-17 antidumping duty administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Commerce had requested remand of the final results because a CIT decision issued in a separate case in December 2020 ruled against the agency’s application of a particular market situation finding under similar circumstances.

In both that case and in the agency’s final results on South Korean circular welded pipe, Commerce had found that a particular market situation prevented it from using its normal comparison of an exporter’s actual home market prices to the prices of its exports to the U.S., forcing it to calculate constructed value for the home market. Commerce then, again citing the particular market situation, adjusted production costs used to calculate the constructed value.

“The court concluded that Commerce’s exclusion of home market sales without conducting the sales-below-cost test to affirmatively confirm that sales were made below the cost of production as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1) was not in accordance with the law,” CIT said, referring to its December decision, which involved a Thai exporter called Saha Thai. “The court concluded further that the statute did not authorize Commerce to exclude home market sales under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(15)(C) when Commerce had conceded that ‘it had not considered whether a particular market situation existed in the home market for the sale of the foreign like product such that home market sales cannot be used as the basis for normal value,’” CIT said.

“It is undisputed that Saha Thai II was issued after Commerce published the Remand Results and that Commerce’s determinations that were discussed in Saha Thai II are analogous to Commerce’s determinations in the Remand Results,” CIT said. “The court concludes that the issuance of Saha Thai II is an intervening event that may affect the validity of Commerce’s Remand Results and remands Commerce’s particular market situation determinations and adjustments for reconsideration.”

(Husteel Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 21-51, CIT # 19-00107, Judge Choe-Groves. Attorneys: Donald Cameron for plaintiff Husteel Co., Ltd.; Jeffrey Winton for consolidated plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation; Robert Gosselink for consolidated plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company; David Park for consolidated plaintiff NEXTEEL Co., Ltd.; Patricia McCarthy for defendant U.S. government; Roger Schagrin for defendant-intervenor Wheatland Tube Company.)