CIT Sustains Rejection of Exporter's Proposed Quality Code for Sour Service Pressure Vessel Plate

The Court of International Trade on Dec. 21 sustained the Commerce Department's continued rejection of exporter AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's proposed quality code for sour service pressure vessel plate. Upholding Commerce's fourth remand results in the antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, Judge Leo Gordon said Dillinger didn't make the "requisite showing to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate here" after the court already rejected the claim.

Gordon also rejected AD petitioner Nucor Corp.'s challenge to the adjustment to the model match methodology that included a separate quality code for sour transport plate in calculating Dillinger's margin. The result of the opinion sticks Dillinger with a 4.99% dumping rate.

In its prior decision, Gordon noted that Commerce's exact methodology was remanded in the case Bohler Bleche BMBH & Co. v. U.S., after the court found the agency failed to adequately account for the alloy content of specialized high alloy steel goods. As a result, Commerce also failed to account for serious differences in physical characteristics, costs and price (see 2306230054). The trade court remanded the case so the agency could consider the Bohler ruling.

During the remand proceeding, Commerce reconsidered its rejection of Dillinger's proposed quality code for sour service petroleum transport plate in light of the Bohler decision, including the code in the control numbers used in the margin calculations. The code was used to account for "commercially significant physical differences between sour service petroleum transport plate and other steels designated specifically for the transport of petroleum products."

Dillinger didn't contest the remand, but claimed that in light of the likeness to the Bohler case, Commerce should also accept the quality code for sour service pressure vessel steel. Since the code already was rejected given that the issue was untimely raised, "Dillinger's arguments on this issue essentially amount to a request for reconsideration," the court said. And Dillinger's reliance on Bohler is "misplaced," since the issue wasn't untimely raised in Bohler.

Despite the resulting increase in the AD rate, Nucor challenged the remand on the grounds that Commerce provided no analysis of its finding that Dillinger demonstrated the "consistently higher costs and net prices for sour service petroleum transport plate." Gordon found Nucor's claims "unpersuasive," since Commerce clearly explained why the case is analogous to Bohler.

The agency said the respondent in Bohler argued for a revision to the model-match hierarchy via the addition of two product characteristic fields to account for commercially significant physical differences, while Dillinger similarly proposed a revision that accounted for different physical characteristics. Nucor said the agency relied on information never presented to it. Gordon disagreed, noting that while more analysis was presented to the court, the information was on the record.

(AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, Slip Op. 23-187, CIT Consol. # 17-00158, dated 12/21/23; Judge: Leo Gordon; Attorneys: Marc Montalbine of deKieffer & Horgan for plaintiff AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke; Robert LaFrankie of Crowell & Moring for plaintiff-intervenor thyssenkrupp Steel Europe AG; Kara Westercamp for defendant U.S. government; Jeffrey Gerrish of Schagrin Associates for defendant-intervenor SSAB Enterprises; Stephanie Bell of Wiley Rein for defendant-intervenor Nucor Corp.)