Commerce Relies on Actual Costs of Prime and Non-Prime Goods on Remand in AD Case

The Commerce Department switched its original determination and relied on the actual costs of prime and non-prime products as reported by an antidumping respondent in Sept. 2 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade. Following the second remand in the case, Commerce made the change after the court sustained the other seven issues under contention in the first remand (Husteel Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00112).

The case stems from the 2016-17 antidumping administrative review of welded line pipe from South Korea, in which Nexteel Co. and Husteel Co. served as respondents. In the review, Commerce calculated the costs of non-prime welded lien pipe goods based on their resale value and then reallocated the difference between resale value and actual costs of production for non-prime products to the costs of prime products.

Judge Claire Kelly said this practice was “problematic” and violated the standards set in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case Dillinger France S.A. v. United States (see 2106150083). Under Dillinger, Commerce must calculate constructed value based on the actual costs of production for prime and non-prime products. Taking the ruling into consideration, Commerce then made the switch to rely on Nexteel's actual costs of prime and non-prime goods.

“As a result, the revised weighted-average dumping margin for NEXTEEL is 11.41 percent,” the remand results said. “The weighted-average dumping margin for SeAH of 7.24 percent is unchanged from the First Remand Results. Moreover, as a result of Commerce’s recalculation of the weighted average dumping margin for NEXTEEL, the revised review-specific rate applied to the nonselected respondents is 9.09 percent.”