NEXTEEL Co. v. United States

Slip Op. 20-
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
NEXTEEL CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
and
SEAH STEEL CORPORATION,
Consolidated Plaintiff,
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
v.
Consol. Court No. 18-00083
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand redetermination following the 2015–
2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from the
Republic of Korea.]
Dated: October 16, 2020
J. David Park, Henry D. Almond, Daniel R. Wilson, Leslie C. Bailey, and Kang Woo Lee,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff NEXTEEL Co., Ltd.
Jeffrey M. Winton and Amrietha Nellan, Winton & Chapman PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for
Consolidated Plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation.
Hardeep K. Josan, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for Defendant United States. With her on the brief
were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia
Consol. Court No. 18-00083 Page 2
Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Mykhaylo Gryzlov, Office of the Chief Counsel for
Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Thomas M. Beline, Myles S. Getlan, and James E. Ransdell, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corporation.
Gregory J. Spak, Frank J. Schweitzer, Kristina Zissis, and Matthew W. Solomon, White & Case
LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenors Maverick Tube Corporation and Tenaris
Bay City, Inc.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This action arises out of the final results of the second
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from the
Republic of Korea (“Korea”) conducted by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”),
covering the period from September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2016. See Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods From the Republic of Korea, 83 Fed. Reg. 17,146 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 18,
2018) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review; 2015–2016). Before the court
are Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Aug. 3, 2020,
ECF No. 96-1 (“Second Remand Redetermination”), which the court ordered in NEXTEEL Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, 44 CIT ___, Slip Op. 20-69 (May 18, 2020) (“NEXTEEL II”), and
Unopposed, Partial Consent Motion for Entry of Judgment, Aug. 28, 2020, ECF No. 98
(“Consent Motion”). For the reasons discussed below, the court sustains the Second Remand
Redetermination and grants the Consent Motion.
BACKGROUND
The court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this action.
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. v. United States, 43 CIT __, __, 392 F. Supp. 3d 1276, 1283–84 (2019)
(“NEXTEEL I”), and NEXTEEL II, 44 CIT at __, slip op. at *2–5.
Consol. Court No. 18-00083 Page 3
In NEXTEEL I, the court remanded to Commerce for reconsideration of numerous
issues, including Commerce’s application of total facts available to Plaintiff NEXTEEL Co., Ltd.
(“NEXTEEL”), Commerce’s particular market situation analysis, Commerce’s classification of
proprietary products of Consolidated Plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”), and
Commerce’s decision to deduct SeAH’s general and administrative expenses. NEXTEEL I, 43
CIT at __, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 1297. Following the first remand by the court, Commerce filed its
remand results under protest. Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Nov.
5, 2019, ECF No. 81-1. Commerce continued to find that a particular market situation existed in
Korea. Id. at 18.
In NEXTEEL II, the court remanded to Commerce for a second time for reconsideration
of Commerce’s particular market situation determination. NEXTEEL II, 44 CIT at __, slip op. at
*21. Commerce filed its Second Remand Redetermination under protest, reversed its particular
market situation determination, and recalculated the margins of NEXTEEL and SeAH without a
particular market situation adjustment. Second Remand Redetermination at 3. Commerce
recalculated the weighted-average dumping margins, which changed from 5.41% to 3.40% for
SeAH, from 46.71% to 18.29% for NEXTEEL, and from 26.06% to 10.85% for the non-
examined companies. Id. at 5.
Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corporation filed a motion requesting that the
court sustain the Second Remand Redetermination. Consent Motion. No party opposed the
Consent Motion. No party filed comments opposing the Second Remand Redetermination.
Consol. Court No. 18-00083 Page 4
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c).
The court will hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found to be unsupported
by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The results of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are reviewed also
for compliance with the court’s remand order. See ABB Inc. v. United States, 42 CIT __, __,
335 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 1211 (2018).
DISCUSSION
Commerce’s Second Remand Redetermination is consistent with the court’s prior
opinions and orders in NEXTEEL I and NEXTEEL II. Commerce has, under respectful protest,
reversed its particular market situation determination and recalculated the margins of NEXTEEL
and SeAH without a particular market situation adjustment. Second Remand Redetermination at
3. The weighted-average dumping margins changed from 5.41% to 3.40% for SeAH, from
46.71% to 18.29% for NEXTEEL, and from 26.06% to 10.85% for the non-examined
companies. Id. at 5. Because the court concludes that the Second Remand Redetermination is in
accordance with the law and complies with the court’s remand order, the court sustains the
Second Remand Redetermination.
CONCLUSION
The court sustains the Second Remand Redetermination. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Consent Motion, ECF No. 98, is GRANTED; and it is further
Consol. Court No. 18-00083 Page 5
ORDERED that the remaining deadlines and opportunities for comments in opposition
and in support of the Second Remand Redetermination, as specified in Slip Op. 20-69, ECF No.
95, are hereby stricken.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: October 16, 2020
New York, New York