Commerce Issues Identical Remand Results Dropping PMS Finding in Korean OCTG AD Case

The Commerce Department filed its remand results in the Court of International Trade on July 12 in a case over the 2016-17 administrative review of the antdiumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from South Korea. The results mirror the redeterminations made in another case filed by the same company, SeAH Steel Co., in which Commerce dropped its finding of a particular market situation (see 2107010048). After the court said that there was not enough evidence to support the agency's finding that the Korean steel market was heavily subsidized and there was a global glut of key inputs for the oil tubes from China, Commerce no longer applied the PMS adjustment, but noted its disagreement with the court over how to weigh the evidence (SeAH Steel Co. v. United States, CIT #19-00086).

"We believe that the evidence of overcapacity could be indicative of the presence of a PMS in Korea; however, a party alleging that overcapacity contributed to a PMS in a particular country during a particular period should be able to demonstrate that the effects of global overcapacity were more acute or severe in that particular country during the relevant period," Commerce said. "Government programs, like the steel industry restructuring programs announced, but not enacted, by the Government of Korea, as documented on the record of this review, could be evidence that Commerce would find demonstrative of a PMS. However, on this record there is no evidence that any of the respondents availed themselves of the programs or that the programs were in effect during the POR."

The remand results, conversely, sustained three other determinations that Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sent back for further explanation or reconsideration. The agency backed its decision to allocate production line suspension costs to one of the mandatory respondents' general and administrative expenses, apply one of the mandatory respondents' U.S. affiliate's reported general expense ratio to further manufacturing costs and include a reviewed company's valuation losses related to raw materials and work-in-process tin its G&A expense ratio calculation. If sustained, the results would lead to a reduction in the two mandatory respondents' antidumping duty rates for the review. SeAH's went from 16.73% to 5.28%, Nexteel's went from 32.24% to 9.77% and the non-examined parties to the litigation's went from 24.49% to 8.82%.