Steelmaker Opposes Second Remand Redetermination on Alleged Korean CV Subsidy
A steelmaker petitioner opposed the results of the Commerce Department’s second remand in a case challenging the results of a 2018 administrative review on South Korean carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate, saying that Commerce didn’t explain why the petitioner hadn’t provided enough evidence to prompt the agency to examine a particular subsidy (Nucor v. U.S., CIT # 21-00182).
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.
In the remand results, Commerce rejected the allegation made by the petitioner, Nucor, that administrative review respondent POSCO received a subsidy from the South Korean government because its production facilities participated in a government program that reduced electricity prices for off-hours use (see 2312200067). It said Nucor hadn't provided it enough information in its allegation to induce the government to investigate the subsidy, noting that a claim must do more than “merely describ[e] a subsidy practice as countervailable.”
It also said it had already looked into and decided not to countervail the subsidy. In fact, Nucor’s failure to mention that prior investigation, even though Nucor knew of it, meant the CVD petitioner had failed to provide Commerce all easily accessible, relevant evidence in its allegation, Commerce said.
Nucor said it doesn't dispute Commerce’s outlined standard for initiating a countervailing subsidy investigation, but argued that it had provided “concrete and specific evidence.” The petitioner also said that no “reasonably available information” undermined its allegation.
“In this regard, the Second Remand Redetermination merely repackages the same explanations that the agency presented in its final determination and First Remand Redetermination, without addressing the Court's specific concerns,” it said.
It said Commerce was expecting precise benchmark data on the alleged countervailable subsidies that was not reasonably available to Nucor. It asked the redetermination be remanded again so Commerce could describe the actual reasonably available information that Nucor omitted.
Nucor also challenged Commerce’s ruling in the remand results that POSCO Plantec, an affiliate which had received clear countervailing subsidies, was not a cross-owned input supplier of scrap metal to POSCO. It said Commerce failed to address any of the issues the Court of International Trade directed it to upon remand.
Commerce said in its second remand results that it had found POSCO Plantec was usually directly affiliated with POSCO, but that during the period of review Plantec was owned by a group of creditors and thus not controlled by POSCO.
Nucor said Commerce had been supposed to have explained why it treated scrap from Plantec differently than scrap from other cross-owned affiliates, as well as to further explain or correct its finding of insufficient evidence that Plantec’s scrap was primarily used by POSCO. It also said Commerce failed to answer key questions about a steelmaking converter vessel Plantec gave POSCO.
It also disagreed with Commerce’s ruling that Plantec’s transfer of control to creditors was enough to show it was not controlled by POSCO.
“This partial loss of decision-making authority, however, does not represent a transfer of ‘control’ over Plantec for the purpose of U.S. countervailing duty law,” Nucor said.