US Steel Challenges Commerce's Finding That AD Respondent Didn't Reimburse US Affiliate
The Commerce Department violated the law when it found that antidumping duty review respondent BlueScope Steel Pty did not reimburse its U.S. affiliate, BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA), for antidumping duties, U.S. Steel Corp. said in a Sept. 20 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The agency failed to consider evidence provided by U.S. Steel that detracts from the agency's conclusion and failed to provide a reasoned explanation that reimbursement was not occurring, the steel giant said (United States Steel Corporation v. United States, CIT #21-00528).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
U.S. Steel challenges the final results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Australia in which BlueScope was mandatory respondent. In comments submitted before the review's preliminary results, U.S. Steel said that BlueScope's transfer pricing formula, compared with the transfer price invoiced to its importer, shows that reimbursement occurred between BlueScope's foreign producer, BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd and BSA.
But Commerce rejected this notion, finding that "BSA was not reimbursed for any payment of duties based on BlueScope’s pricing methodology in which AIS calculates BSA’s transfer price by, among other things, deducting an amount for estimated antidumping duties from the price calculated for its ultimate affiliated purchaser, Steelscape. As a practical matter, the fact that AIS lowered its transfer price to BSA by the amount of estimated antidumping duties offers no relief to BSA because the lowered transfer price will be accurately reflected in AIS’s dumping margin."
U.S. Steel blasted this decision in its complaint, declaring that "Commerce's determination displays a lack of understanding of its own antidumping margin calculation." The steel company also said that this finding undermines the efficacy of the AD order and its related cash deposits. In its claims against Commerce, U.S. Steel said that the agency failed to consider certain record evidence, including U.S. Steel's arguments that reimbursement of AD duties happened when AIS lowered its transfer price to BSA by the amount of the dumping duty.
The complaint also went after Commerce's alleged failure to apportion profit as being between further manufacturing activities and the subject merchandise. Again, U.S. Steel said that Commerce "misunderstands how its margin calculation program is supposed to work." The company asserted that Commerce instead failed to back its conclusion that constructed export price profit is a profit allocable to U.S. selling expenses, including further manufacturing activities divided by total expenses and multiplied by profit, as unsupported by substantial evidence.