Non-Individually Examined Nexteel Challenges AD Rate for Mandatory Respondent in OCTG Review
Korean steel producer Nexteel filed a complaint May 25 with the Court of International Trade over alleged errors in calculating antidumping duty rates during an administrative review on oil tubular goods from Korea. In it, Nexteel, a non-individually examined separate rate company, challenges the rate Commerce calculated for Hyundai Steel that resulted in a higher average rate assigned to Nexteel and the other 29 non-individually investigated respondents (Nexteel Co., Ltd v. United States, CIT No. 22-00140).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Nexteel said its non-examined respondent rate, calculated as an average of Hyundai Steel's rate and SeAH's rate, was inflated by errors in Commerce's calculations for Hyundai. Nexteel says Commerce's calculation of constructed value profit and selling expenses using the business proprietary information of SeAH; an adjustment to the general and administrative expense ratio of Hyundai's U.S. affiliate; and the application of neutral facts available for the calculation of that affiliate's yield loss on further manufacturing operations "is not supported by substantial evidence or otherwise in accordance with law."
Nexteel's arguments mirror those made by Hyundai in a separate challenge of its own rate from the review (see 2205100033). "Because NEXTEEL’s antidumping duty margin was based, in part, on the final weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Hyundai Steel, NEXTEEL’s final antidumping duty margin likewise is not supported by substantial evidence or otherwise in accordance with law," Nexteel said in the complaint.