Hyundai Steel Agrees With Commerce Remand Constructed Price Calculation
The Commerce Department correctly reconsidered and changed its methodology used to calculate the constructed export price for Korean oil country tubular good exporter Hyundai Steel, the company said in its second set of remand comments at the Court of International Trade. Hyundai said Commerce correctly reversed its decision to base the calculation of constructed export price profit on Kuwaiti sales data of the other mandatory respondent, SeAH Steel, and instead used Hyundai’s own financial statements in its August remand results, where it dropped the company's dumping margin from 19.54% to 9.63% (see 2308160065) (Hyundai Steel Co. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 22-00138).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The exporter noted that, despite Commerce's reasonable redetermination with respect to constructed export price profit, it said that "inaccuracies and distortions" still persisted regarding constructed value profit and selling expenses that it addressed in its Sept. 12 comments (see 2309130030).
In its own remand comments, DOJ backed Commerce, saying that the agency properly calculated Hyundai's constructed value profit and selling expenses. In the instant case, Hyundai "had no viable home market or third-country market," DOJ said. Further, there was no evidence for the actual amounts incurred by Hyundai for profits linked to a foreign like-product in Korea. Commerce was unable to calculate constructed value profit and selling expenses by the preferred method, forcing the department to consider alternatives provided in 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B), which notably does not provide a hierarchy among the alternatives.
Commerce found that SeAH’s profit was "both specific to OCTG and production within Korea." Alternative profit information on the record were all less specific to oil country tubular goods, did not reflect the production experience in Korea, or did not line up with the period of review, DOJ said.
Commerce also correctly calculated the exporter's constructed value profit cap and its use of facts available was reasonable, DOJ said. Because the record did not contain either profit information for oil country tubular goods sales in Korea or for products in the same general category, Commerce relied on neutral facts available, DOJ said. In this case, those neutral facts were SeAH’s profit from sales in a third country market.
Consolidated plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor Nexteel also weighed in, saying in its comments that it agreed with Commerce's calculation of Hyundai Steel's constructed export price profit and the decision to update Hyundai's AD margin.