Recent CAFC Decision Rejecting PMS Adjustment Key to Antidumping Case, US Steel Tells CIT

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling is "critical" to an antidumping duty case brought by exporter SeAH Steel Corporation, defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel Corporation said in a March 21 notice of supplemental authority at the Court of International Trade. The recent Federal Circuit opinion held that the Commerce Department did not properly support its position that a particular market situation existed affecting inputs to oil country tubular goods from South Korea (see 2203110044). While the appellate court's decision upheld the trade court's ruling that the PMS determination was not justified, the court used different reasoning that U.S. Steel finds crucial to its case (SeAH Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT Consol. #19-00086).

The Federal Circuit in the other case rejected the discounting of evidence that predates the period of review as impermissible weighing of evidence. The court also rejected that "particularity" must exist for each PMS factor and that "particularity" requires the market situation to be unique in kind, U.S. Steel said. "Relatedly, NEXTEEL interprets 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)’s 'such that' clause as clarifying the 'factual support' necessary to find a PMS under that subsection, i.e., that it relate to production costs and not be something 'ordinary' like an 'ongoing global phenomenon' 'alone,'" the notice said.

SeAH's case contests the 2016-17 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. In April, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves first remanded the case, finding that Commerce's contention that a PMS distorted the cost of production of OCTG goods in South Korea was not backed by proper evidence. In its remand, Commerce flipped this finding under respectful protest (see 2107010048).