United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 22-1

Before the Court in Husteel Co. Ltd., et. al., v. United States, et. al., Consol. Court No. 19-00112, Slip Op. 22-1 (January 3, 2022) was Plaintiffs’ challenge against Commerce’s second remand redetermination in the 2016-2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from Korea. Id. at 2. “Tenaris USA is the only party that objects to the Second Remand Results.” Id. at 5. Tenaris USA argued that “Commerce’s methodology as set forth in the First Remand Results fully comported with Dillinger and, on remand, Commerce only needed to provide an explanation of how the methodology complied with the statutory requirements as interpreted by the Court of Appeals.” Id. at 6. Tenaris USA argued that “Commerce does not rely on any record evidence in support of its determination that NEXTEEL’s books and records reasonably reflect its actual costs.” Id. at 13. Tenaris USA contended that Commerce should have stood by Commerce’s original determination that “assigning full costs to [non-prime] products does not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the merchandise.” Id. at 14. For the following reasons, the court sustained Commerce’s Second Remand Results. Id. at 4.

The court will uphold Commerce’s determination unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Id. at 7. In this case, the court found that “Commerce’s determination that NEXTEEL’s books and records were kept in accordance with GAAP in Korea is supported by substantial evidence because NEXTEEL reported that it maintains its books and records in accordance with GAAP in Korea and provided documentation in support of that claim.” Id. at 12. “Commerce’s conclusion that NEXTEEL’s books and records reasonably reflect NEXTEEL’s actual costs is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. “Other than incorrectly arguing that Commerce does not rely on any record evidence in support of its conclusion, Tenaris USA does not make any other argument or point to any record evidence to demonstrate that the “full cost” reported in NEXTEEL’s books and records does not reasonably reflect “actual cost” as required by the statute.” Id. at 14. The court explained that “Tenaris USA’s arguments regarding the reasonableness of Commerce’s prior determinations are not relevant, and, in any event, insufficient.” Id. Thus, the court found that “Commerce’s determination that NEXTEEL’s full costs of production and sale of non-prime products as reflected in NEXTEEL’s books and records is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. As such, the court sustained Commerce’s Second Remand Results. Id. at 15.