Notice2026-19932
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Less-Than-Fair-Value Amended Final Determination; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Order
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 30, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
On September 15, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in Stupp Corp. v. United States, Court no. 15-00334, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s fourth final results of redetermination pursuant to remand pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering the period of investigation October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014. Commerce is notifying the public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's amended final determination in that investigation, and that Commerce is amending the final determination and the resulting antidumping duty order with respect to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and to all other producers and exporters.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61832-61833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19932]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-876]
Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony With the Less-Than-Fair-Value Amended Final
Determination; Notice of Amended Final Determination and Notice of
Amended Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 15, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(CIT) issued its final judgment in Stupp Corp. v. United States, Court
no. 15-00334, sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)'s
fourth final results of redetermination pursuant to remand pertaining
to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of welded line pipe
from the Republic of Korea (Korea) covering the period of investigation
October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014. Commerce is notifying the
public that the CIT's final judgment is not in harmony with Commerce's
amended final determination in that investigation, and that Commerce is
amending the final determination and the resulting antidumping duty
order with respect to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin
assigned to SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and to all other producers
and exporters.
DATES: Applicable September 25, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Carroll, AD/CVD Operations,
Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4948.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 13, 2015, Commerce published its Final Determination in
the LTFV investigation of welded line pipe from Korea.\1\ Subsequently,
on November 10, 2015, Commerce published its Amended Final
Determination, correcting errors in the calculation of the estimated
weighted-average dumping margin calculated for one mandatory
respondent, as well as the resulting estimated weighted-average dumping
margin for all other producers and exporters.\2\ On December 1, 2015,
Commerce published the Order on welded line pipe from Korea.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61366 (October
13, 2015) (Final Determination), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (IDM).
\2\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 69637
(November 10, 2015) (Amended Final Determination).
\3\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the
Republic of Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 75056 (December
1, 2015) (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai HYSCO Co. Ltd. (Hyundai HYSCO), SeAH, and the petitioners
\4\ appealed Commerce's Final
[[Page 61833]]
Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination. In Stupp
I, CIT affirmed several aspects of Commerce's Amended Final
Determination including Commerce's differential pricing analysis.\5\
The CIT remanded to Commerce issues related Hyundai HYSCO twice, and
the CIT ultimately sustained Commerce's second final results of
redetermination.\6\ On April 7, 2020, because Hyundai HYSCO's estimated
weighted-average dumping margin changed as a result of the
reclassification of certain of Hyundai HYSCO's local sales, Commerce
issued a notice not in harmony with the Amended Final Determination in
accordance with Timken,\7\ as clarified by Diamond Sawblades.\8\ Upon
appeal by SeAH, in Stupp II the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed each part of Stupp I except for
Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test as part of the differential
pricing analysis, which the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded to
Commerce for further explanation of whether the application of the
Cohen's d test is reasonable.\9\ On October 8, 2021, the CIT remanded
Stupp II to Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The petitioners are: Stupp Corporation, a division of Stupp
Bros., Inc., TMK IPSCO, Welspun Tubular LLC USA, and Maverick Tube
Corporation (Maverick).
\5\ See Stupp Corp. v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1297
(CIT January 8, 2019) (Stupp I).
\6\ The CIT sustained Commerce's reversal of its rejection of
Maverick's supplemental case brief in Stupp Corporation et al. v.
United States, 413 F. Supp. 3d 1326 (CIT October 21, 2019). The CIT
remanded Commerce's decision regarding Hyundai HYSCO, which Commerce
further explained and the CIT sustained in Stupp Corp. v. United
States, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (CIT March 24, 2020).
\7\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (Timken).
\8\ See Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
\9\ See Stupp Corp. v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir.
2021) (Stupp II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its third final results of redetermination pursuant to Stupp II,
Commerce explained how its application of the Cohen's d test as part of
its differential pricing analysis is reasonable.\10\ In Stupp III, the
CIT affirmed Commerce's explanation.\11\ Subsequently, on appeal, the
Federal Circuit in Stupp IV held that Commerce failed to demonstrate
that SeAH's U.S. pricing data satisfied certain statistical criteria
identified by SeAH as necessary to permit a reasonable application of
the Cohen's d test.\12\ Thus, the Federal Circuit directed Commerce to
perform a differential pricing analysis consistent with the Federal
Circuit's precedential opinion in Marmen.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Stupp Corp. v. United States, Court No. 15 00334 (CIT
October 8, 2021), dated April 4, 2022, available at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/FinalRemandRedetermination">https://access.trade.gov/FinalRemandRedetermination</a>.
\11\ See Stupp Corp. v. United States, 619 F.Supp.3d 1314, 1328
(CIT February 24, 2023) (Stupp III).
\12\ See Stupp Corp. v. United States, No. 2023-1663, 2025 WL
1178392 (Fed. Cir. April 23, 2025) (Stupp IV), at *2.
\13\ See Stupp IV, No. 2023-1663, 2025 WL 1178392 at *2 (Marmen
Inc. v. United States, 134 F.4th 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (Marmen)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its fourth final results of redetermination, issued in March
2026, Commerce discontinued the use of Cohen's d test as part of its
differential pricing analysis, adopted the ``price difference test'' to
determine whether prices differ significantly, and also discontinued
use of the mixed method as an alternative comparison methodology.\14\
The CIT has sustained Commerce's fourth final results of
redetermination.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Stupp Corp. v. United States, Court No. 15-00334 (CIT June
16, 2025), dated March 16, 2026, available at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/FinalRemandRedetermination">https://access.trade.gov/FinalRemandRedetermination</a>.
\15\ See Stupp Corp. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 15-
00334, Slip Op. 26-113 (CIT September 15, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Final Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty Order
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending
its Amended Final Determination and its antidumping duty Order with
respect to SeAH and all other producers and exporters. The revised
estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter or producer dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH........................................................ 4.55
All Others.................................................. 5.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because SeAH has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have
been final results published in a subsequent administrative review,
this notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate for SeAH.
However, because the rate for all other producers and exporters has
changed, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S.
Customs and Border Protection regarding the cash deposit requirements
for all other producers and exporters. These cash deposit requirements
will remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 24, 2026.
Scot Fullerton,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2026-19932 Filed 9-29-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 30, 2026.
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.