Notice2022-19627
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 9, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On August 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the Court or CIT) issued its final judgment in SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-00086, Slip Op. 22-100, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering the period September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margins assigned to NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), and the non-individually examined companies who are party to the litigation.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55398-55400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19627]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-870]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea:
Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; Notice of Amended Final Results
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 26, 2022, the U.S. Court of International Trade (the
Court or CIT) issued its final judgment in SeAH Steel Corp. v. United
States, Consol. Court No. 19-00086, Slip Op. 22-100, sustaining the
U.S. Department of Commerce's (Commerce) remand results pertaining to
the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain
oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea)
covering the period September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017.
Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not
in harmony with Commerce's final results of the administrative review,
and that Commerce is amending the final results with respect to the
dumping margins assigned to NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), SeAH Steel
Corporation (SeAH), and the non-individually examined companies who are
party to the litigation.
DATES: Applicable September 6, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Schmitt or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4880 or (202) 482-6312,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 24, 2019, Commerce published its Final Results in the 2016-
2017 AD administrative review of OCTG
[[Page 55399]]
from Korea.\1\ In this administrative review, Commerce selected two
mandatory respondents for individual examination: NEXTEEL and SeAH.
Commerce calculated final weighted-average dumping margins of 32.24
percent for NEXTEEL and 16.73 percent for SeAH; Commerce assigned to
the non-examined companies a weighted-average dumping margin of 24.49
percent, in the Final Results.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of
Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2016-2017, 84 FR 24085 (May 24, 2019) (Final Results), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH, NEXTEEL, AJU Besteel Co., Ltd. (AJU Besteel), ILJIN Steel
Corporation (ILJIN), Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai), and Husteel Co.,
Ltd. (Husteel), challenged the Final Results on multiple grounds.\3\ In
its Remand Order, the court sustained Commerce's determinations with
respect to calculation of constructed value profit based on SeAH's
third-country sales from a previous segment of the proceeding;
inclusion of a penalty in SeAH's general and administrative (G&A)
expense ratio as supported by substantial evidence; the differential
pricing analysis; the exclusion of freight revenue profit; and
application of an affiliated reseller's G&A expense ratio to SeAH's
non-further manufactured products. However, the Court remanded five of
Commerce's determinations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, Consolidated Court No.
19-00086, Slip. Op. 21-43 (CIT April 14, 2021) (Remand Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The particular market situation determination and adjustment,
for further explanation or reconsideration.
2. The reallocation of costs for NEXTEEL's non-prime merchandise
based on the actual costs of prime and nonprime products.
3. The treatment of SeAH's production line suspension costs, for
further explanation or reconsideration.
4. The recalculation of SeAH's further manufacturing cost.
5. The inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as G&A
expenses, for further explanation or reconsideration.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final results of redetermination pursuant to the Remand
Order, issued on July 16, 2021, Commerce reconsidered the five
determinations listed above.\5\ In the Redetermination, Commerce:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 19-
00086, Slip. Op. 21-43 (CIT April 14, 2021), dated July 16, 2021
(Redetermination). Note that this was the second correction, or
third filing, of these remand results. On June 30, 2021, Commerce
had issued and filed with the Court the Final Results of Remand
Redetermination, which contained an inadvertent clerical error in
the dumping margins listed on page 3. On July 8, 2021,the Court had
issued an order that authorized Commerce to correct this error. On
July 9, 2021, Commerce had filed with the Court its correction to
the Final Results of Remand Redetermination, which contained yet
another inadvertent clerical error in the dumping margin for non-
individually-examined respondents on pages 3 and 66. Commerce
therefore corrected the clerical error, but did not otherwise modify
the original June 30, 2021, Remand Results.
1. Reversed the particular market situation finding and removed the
adjustment from the margin calculations for NEXTEEL and SeAH.
2. Reversed its finding with respect to reallocation of NEXTEEL's
non-prime products, relying instead on the actual costs of prime and
non-prime products as reported by NEXTEEL.
3. Provided further explanation of the treatment of SeAH's
production line suspension costs.
4. Provided further explanation of the recalculation of SeAH's
further manufacturing cost.
5. Provided further explanation of the inclusion of SeAH's
inventory valuation losses as G&A expenses.
As a result, Commerce recalculated the weighted-average dumping
margins. The weighted-average dumping margin for NEXTEEL changed from
32.24 percent to 9.77 percent; the weighted-average dumping margin for
SeAH changed from 16.73 percent to 5.28 percent; and the weighted-
average dumping margin for the non-examined companies changed from
24.49 percent to 7.53 percent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 2022, the CIT fully sustained E&C's Redetermination:
(1) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the particular market situation determination and adjustment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 19-
00086, Slip Op. 22-100 (CIT August 26, 2022) (SeAH Judgement) at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the reallocation of costs for NEXTEEL's non-prime merchandise based on
the actual costs of prime and nonprime products.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the treatment of SeAH's production line suspension costs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the recalculation of SeAH's further manufacturing cost.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at 36-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The CIT sustained Commerce's Redetermination with respect to
the inclusion of SeAH's inventory valuation losses as G&A expenses.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 42-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\12\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\13\ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held
that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision not ``in
harmony'' with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of
entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The Court's August 26,
2022, judgment sustaining the Redetermination constitutes a final
decision of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final
Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication
requirement of Timken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\13\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
the Final Results with respect to NEXTEEL, SeAH, and the non-examined
companies who are party to this litigation for the period September 1,
2016, through August 31, 2017. The revised dumping margins are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The non-examined companies which are parties to this
litigation and whose rates are subject to change are: (1) AJU
Besteel Co., Ltd. (AJU Besteel); (2) Husteel Co., Ltd. (Husteel);
(3) Hyundai Steel Company (note that, on September 21, 2016,
Commerce published the final results of a changed circumstances
review with respect to OCTG from Korea, finding that Hyundai Steel
Corporation is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO for
purposes of determining AD cash deposits and liabilities, see Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review:
Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea, 81 FR 64873
(September 21, 2016); Hyundai Steel Corporation is also known as
Hyundai Steel Company and Hyundai Steel Co. Ltd.) (Hyundai Steel);
and (4) ILJIN Steel Corporation (ILJIN).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd............................................ 9.77
SeAH Steel Corporation...................................... 5.28
Non-examined Companies \14\................................. 7.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because NEXTEEL, SeAH, AJU Besteel, Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai
Steel have a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final
results published in a subsequent administrative review, we will not
issue
[[Page 55400]]
revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rates.
Liquidation of Suspended Entries
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from
liquidating entries that were produced and/or exported by NEXTEEL,
SeAH, AJU Besteel, Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai Steel, and were entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period
September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017. Liquidation of these
entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction
during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed,
upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to
instruct CBP to assess ADs on unliquidated entries of subject
merchandise produced and/or exported by NEXTEEL, SeAH, AJU Besteel,
Husteel, ILJIN, and Hyundai Steel, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess ADs on all appropriate
entries covered by this review when the importer-specific ad valorem
assessment rate is not zero or de minimis. Where an importer-specific
ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis,\15\ we will instruct
CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to ADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516(A)(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 6, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-19627 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 9, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.