Hyundai Steel Company v. United States

Slip Op. 21-88
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
HYUNDAI STEEL COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
and
SEAH STEEL CORPORATION,
Consolidated Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY,
Defendant-Intervenor.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Consol. Court No. 18-00154
OPINION AND ORDER
[Remanding the second remand results by the U.S. Department of Commerce
following the 2015–2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea.]
Dated: July 19, 2021
J. David Park, Henry D. Almond, Daniel R. Wilson, and Kang Woo Lee, Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Hyundai Steel
Company.
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 2
Jeffrey M. Winton and Amrietha Nellan, Winton & Chapman PLLC, of
Washington, D.C., for Consolidated Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor SeAH Steel
Corporation.
Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United
States. With her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, and Jeanne E. Davidson, Director. Of counsel on the brief was Elio
Gonzalez, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement &
Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Roger B. Schagrin, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-
Intervenor Wheatland Tube Company.
Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiff Hyundai Steel Company (“Hyundai Steel”)
and Consolidated Plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”), (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”), challenge the final determination in the 2015–2016 administrative
review of the antidumping duty order covering circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
(“CWP”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”). Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea (“Final Results”), 83 Fed. Reg. 27,541
(Dep’t Commerce June 13, 2018) (final results of antidumping duty administrative
review; 2015–2016); see also Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Admin. Review of Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from
the Republic of Korea; 2015–2016 (Dep’t Commerce June 7, 2018), ECF No. 51-
22, PD 314 (“Final IDM”). 1
Before the court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
1 Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PD”) document numbers.
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 3
Remand, ECF No. 85-1 (“Second Remand Results”), which the court ordered in
Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States (“Hyundai Steel II”), 44 CIT __, 483 F. Supp.
3d 1273 (2020). Because the Second Remand Results explained the basis for the
remand particular market situation adjustment and determination by the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), the court reviews both the Final Results
of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 73-1 (“Remand Results”),
and the Second Remand Results in this opinion. Plaintiffs argue that Commerce
failed to comply with the court’s remand instructions when Commerce repeated
and explained its particular market situation determination and adjustment in the
Second Remand Results. Pl. [Hyundai Steel]’s Comments Opp’n Second Remand
Redetermination at 1–2, ECF No. 89 (“Hyundai Cmts.”); Comments [SeAH]
Commerce’s Feb. 2, 2021, Redetermination at 2, ECF No. 88 (“SeAH Cmts.”).
Hyundai Steel argues that Commerce’s particular market situation determination is
not in accordance with the law and that the “underlying [particular market
situation] determination and consequent calculations still remain unsupported by
substantial record evidence and contrary to law.” Hyundai Cmts. at 2–3. Hyundai
Steel reiterates its contention that Commerce’s particular market situation
determination and subsequent adjustment to the cost of production are not
authorized by statute. Id. at 3–12. Defendant United States (“Defendant”) argues
that Commerce complied with the court’s remand order and made its particular
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 4
market situation determination and adjustment in accordance with the law. Def.’s
Resp. Comments Regarding Second Remand Redetermination at 6–9, ECF No. 90
(“Def. Cmts.”). Defendant-Intervenor Wheatland Tube Company did not file
comments.
For the following reasons, the court remands the Second Remand Results.
ISSUES PRESENTED
The court reviews the following issues:
1. 	Whether Commerce’s particular market situation adjustment to the
cost of production when conducting a sales-below-cost test is in
accordance with the law; and
2. 	Whether Commerce’s particular market situation determination is in
accordance with the law.
BACKGROUND
The court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this
case and recites the facts relevant to the court’s review of the Second Remand
Results. See Hyundai Steel II, 44 CIT at __, 483 F. Supp. 3d at 1275–77; see also
Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States (“Hyundai Steel I”), 43 CIT __, __, 415 F.
Supp. 3d 1293, 1295–1301 (2019).
In the Final Results, Commerce determined that a particular market situation
in Korea distorted the cost of production of CWP. Final IDM at 3. Commerce
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 5
applied an upward adjustment to the cost of production of CWP based on the
subsidy rate of hot-rolled steel coil. Id. (citing Countervailing Duty Investigation
of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 81 Fed.
Reg. 53,439 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 12, 2016) (final affirmative determination), as
amended, 81 Fed. Reg. 67,960 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 3, 2016)). Commerce
conducted a sales-below-cost test and disregarded certain sales made at prices
below the cost of production. See Decision Mem. for the Prelim. Results of
Antidumping Duty Admin. Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from
the Republic of Korea: 2015–2016 at 19–20, PD 275 (“Prelim. DM”); Final IDM
at 3 (noting that Commerce used the same calculation methodology for the Final
Results as explained in the Prelim. DM). Commerce calculated normal value from
the remaining above-cost home market sales for mandatory respondents Hyundai
Steel and Husteel Steel Company. Prelim. DM at 15, 19–20; Final IDM at 3.
In Hyundai Steel I, the court concluded that Commerce’s particular market
situation determination was unsupported by substantial evidence. Hyundai Steel I,
43 CIT at __, 415 F. Supp. 3d at 1301. In the Remand Results, Commerce
conducted a new review of the record and determined again that a particular
market situation distorted the cost of hot-rolled steel coil in the Korean market.
Remand Results at 4–5. Commerce made an upward adjustment to the cost of hot-
rolled steel coil, performed the sales-below cost test, and calculated normal value
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 6
from the remaining above-cost home market sales. See id. at 4 n.22.
Hyundai Steel argued for the first time on remand that Commerce’s
particular market situation determination and subsequent upward adjustment to the
cost of production for the sales-below-cost test contravened the statute. Hyundai
Steel II, 44 CIT at __, 483 F. Supp. 3d at 1276–77; see also Remand Results at 24,
39. Commerce asserted that it was not required to address those legal arguments
and Defendant argued that Hyundai Steel waived the arguments. Hyundai Steel II,
44 CIT at __, 483 F. Supp. 3d at 1276–77. The court concluded that departure
from the general rule of waiver was warranted and remanded for Commerce to
explain the statutory authority to conduct a cost-based particular market situation
analysis when normal value is based on home market sales and to adjust the cost of
production for purposes of the sales-below-cost test of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b),
specifically within the context of relevant caselaw from this Court. Hyundai Steel
II, 44 CIT at __, 483 F. Supp. 3d at 1276–77, 1281.
Commerce explained on second remand its view that Section 504 of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (“TPEA”), Pub. L. No. 114-27, § 504,
129 Stat. 362, 385, authorizes Commerce to make particular market situation
determinations and adjust the cost of production for the sales-below-cost test when
calculating normal value based on home market sales. Second Remand Results at
3.
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 7
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28
U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the court authority to review actions contesting the
final results of an administrative review of an antidumping duty order. The court
will uphold Commerce’s determinations unless they are unsupported by substantial
record evidence, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The court also reviews determinations made on remand for
compliance with the court’s remand order. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm.
v. United States, 38 CIT __, __, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802
F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Governing Law
Commerce determines antidumping duties by calculating the amount by
which the normal value of subject merchandise exceeds the export price or the
constructed export price for the merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1673. When reviewing
antidumping duties in an administrative review, Commerce must determine: (1) the
normal value and export price or constructed export price of each entry of the
subject merchandise, and (2) the dumping margin for each such entry. Id.
§ 1675(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A). The statute dictates the steps by which Commerce may
calculate normal value “to achieve a fair comparison” with export price or
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 7 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 8
constructed export price. Id. § 1677b(a).
First, the statute specifies the methodology for Commerce to determine
which sales should be considered and disregarded in calculating normal value.
Normal value is “the price at which the foreign like product is first sold . . . in the
exporting country . . . in the ordinary course of trade.” Id. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i).
Sales outside the ordinary course of trade are excluded from normal value.
“Ordinary course of trade” is defined in Section 1677(15) as excluding: (1) sales
made at less than the cost of production, and (2) sales that cannot be compared
properly with the export price or constructed export price due to a particular
market situation. Id. § 1677(15)(A), (C). To determine whether “sales . . . have
been made at prices that represent less than the cost of production,” the statute
directs Commerce to conduct the sales-below-cost test. Id. § 1677b(b)(1). The
cost of production is defined by statute to include the cost of materials and
processing, amounts for selling, general, and administrative expenses, and the cost
of all containers and expenses incidental for shipment. Id. § 1677b(b)(3). Sales
that Commerce determines, by application of the sales-below-cost test, were made
at prices below the cost of production or that Commerce determines were made in
a particular market situation, are outside the ordinary course of trade and are
disregarded from the calculation of normal value. See id. § 1677b(b)(1),
(a)(1)(B)(i). “Whenever such sales are disregarded, normal value shall be based on
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 8 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 9
the remaining sales of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade.”
See id. §§ 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i), (b)(1); 1677(15)(A), (C).
Second, when using market prices to determine normal value, Commerce
may make certain adjustments to the remaining home market prices. The statute
lists authorized adjustments for incidental shipping, delivery expenses, and direct
taxes, and for differences between the subject merchandise and foreign like
products in quantity, circumstances of sale, or level of trade. Id. § 1677b(a)(6),
(7).
Third, when using home market sales for normal value, if Commerce cannot
determine the normal value of the subject merchandise based on home market
sales, then Commerce may use qualifying third-country sales or a constructed
value as a basis for normal value. Id. § 1677b(a)(4), (a)(1)(B)(ii), (b)(1).
Constructed value represents: (1) the cost of materials and fabrication or other
processing of any kind used in producing the merchandise; (2) the actual amounts
incurred and realized for selling, general, and administrative expenses, and for
profits, in connection with the production and sales of a foreign like product, in the
ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country; and (3) the cost of
packing the subject merchandise. Id. § 1677b(e). When calculating constructed
value, if Commerce determines that a particular market situation exists “such that
the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 9 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 10
accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade, [then]
[Commerce] may use . . . any other calculation methodology.” Id.
II. 	Particular Market Situation Adjustment to the Cost of Production
for the Sales-Below-Cost Test
For purposes of determining whether sales were made at less than cost,
Commerce adjusted the reported costs of production of hot-rolled steel coil, a
primary CWP input, based on its determination that a particular market situation in
Korea distorted the cost of hot-rolled steel coil. See Remand Results at 4; see also
Second Remand Results at 3. Defendant argues that Commerce complied with the
court’s order to explain Commerce’s statutory authority and that Commerce’s
particular market situation adjustment was in accordance with the law. Def. Cmts.
at 6, 9. Plaintiffs oppose the Second Remand Results and argue that Commerce
did not comply with the court’s order. Hyundai Cmts. at 1; SeAH Cmts. at 2.
Hyundai Steel maintains that Commerce’s particular market situation adjustment
calculation was unsupported by substantial evidence and not in accordance with
the law. Hyundai Cmt. at 2. Hyundai Steel argues that Commerce’s interpretation
of the statute relied on critical omissions, was inconsistent with caselaw, and relied
inappropriately on legislative history. Hyundai Cmts. at 3–12.
As this Court has held repeatedly, the statute does not authorize a particular
market situation adjustment to the cost of production when Commerce applies the
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 10 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 11
sales-below-cost test to determine which home market sales to exclude from the
calculation of normal value. See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. v. United States,
43 CIT __, __, 422 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1368–70 (2019); Husteel Co. v. United
States, 44 CIT __, __, 426 F. Supp. 3d 1376, 1383–89 (2020); Borusan
0DQQHVPDQQ%RUX6DQD\L9H7LFDUHW$ùv. United States, 44 CIT __, __, 426 F.
Supp. 3d 1395, 1411–12 (2020); Dong-A Steel Co. v. United States, 44 CIT __, __,
475 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1337–41 (2020); Husteel Co. v. United States, 44 CIT __,
__, 476 F. Supp. 3d 1363, 1370–73 (2020); Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co. v.
United States, 44 CIT __, __, 476 F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1382–86 (2020).
Commerce applied an adjustment to the cost of production calculation set
forth in Section 1677b(b)(3) for purposes of the sales-below-cost test pursuant to
Section 1677b(b)(1). See Remand Results at 4; Second Remand Results at 2.
Commerce relied mistakenly on Section 504 of the TPEA for the authority to
adjust the cost of production for the sales-below-cost test. Commerce explained
that:
[W]here a [particular market situation] affects the [cost of production]
of the foreign like product because it distorts the cost of inputs, it is
reasonable to conclude that such a situation may prevent a proper
comparison of the export price with normal value based on home
market 	prices 	just 	as 	it 	would 	when 	normal 	value 	is 	based 	on
[constructed value]. . . . 	[A]n examination of a [particular market
situation] for purposes of the sales-below-cost test is consistent with the
Act 	when 	considering 	that 	the 	provision 	at 	issue, 	[19 	U.S.C.
§ 1677b(e)], specifically includes the term “ordinary course of trade.”
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 11 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 12
The definition of that term, again, found in [Section 1677(15)], is
integral to that [particular market situation] provision. Accordingly, it
is consistent with the Act for Commerce to analyze a [particular market
situation] allegation in determining whether a company’s comparison-
market sale prices were below cost, and therefore, are outside the
“ordinary course of trade.”
Second Remand Results at 4–5. In Commerce’s view, the amendments provide
Commerce “discretion to use ‘any other calculation methodology’ if costs are
distorted by a [particular market situation], including for the purposes of [the cost
of production] . . . .” Id. at 7. In other words, Commerce made a particular market
situation adjustment to costs based on Section 1677b(e). Commerce asserted that
the cost-based particular market situation analysis and alternative calculation
methodology set forth in Section 1677b(e) are available whether Commerce bases
normal value on home market sales or constructed value. Commerce also asserted
that the sales-below-cost test set forth in Section 1677b(b)(1), by relying on the
phrase “ordinary course of trade” defined in Section 1677(15)(C) as excluding
sales made in a particular market situation, authorizes Commerce to conduct the
particular market situation analysis and adjust costs based on Sections 1677b(b)(1)
and 1677(15)(C). Id. at 4–5, 7.
Section 504 of the TPEA amended the statutory provisions governing
constructed value. The amendment authorizes Commerce to use alternative cost
methodologies when computing constructed value after making a particular market
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 12 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 13
situation determination. The amended language provides:
For purposes of paragraph (1) [in reference to calculating constructed
value], if a particular market situation exists such that the cost of
materials and fabrication or other processing of any kind does not
accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of trade,
the administering authority [Commerce] may use another calculation
methodology under this part or any other calculation methodology.
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e). The amended statute gives Commerce discretion to adjust
the cost of production calculation methodology when determining constructed
value if Commerce determines that a particular market situation exists. See id.
Commerce cannot rely on Section 1677b(e) when Commerce bases normal value
on home market sales. No part of the statute allows Commerce to use any other
methodology when market sales are used for normal value. Saha Thai Steel Pipe
Pub. Co., 43 CIT at __, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1368–70; Husteel Co., 44 CIT at __,
426 F. Supp. 3d at 1383–89; Borusan, 44 CIT at __, 426 F. Supp. 3d at 1411–12;
Dong-A Steel Co., 44 CIT at __, 475 F. Supp. 3d at 1340–41; Husteel, 44 CIT at
__, 476 F. Supp. 3d at 1371; Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., 44 CIT at __, 476 F.
Supp. 3d at 1384. The “any other methodology” language is reserved solely for
when normal value is determined by constructed value. Husteel Co., 44 CIT at __,
426 F. Supp. 3d at 1388.
With respect to Sections 1677b(b)(1) and 1677(15)(C), Defendant argues
that Section 1677b(b)(1)’s reference to the phrase “ordinary course of trade”
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 13 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 14
authorizes Commerce to conduct a cost-based particular market situation analysis
and make an adjustment in the course of the sales-below-cost test. Def. Cmts at 9–
10.
Section 1677b(b)(1) provides:
(b) Sales at less than cost of production
(1) Determination; sales disregarded
Whenever the administering authority has reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of normal value have been
made at prices which represent less than the cost of production
of that product, the administering authority shall determine
whether, in fact, such sales were made at less than the cost of
production. If the administering authority determines that sales
made at less than the cost of production—
(A) 	have been made within an extended period of time
in substantial quantities, and
(B) 	were not at prices which permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time,
such sales may be disregarded in the determination of normal
value. Whenever such sales are disregarded, normal value shall
be based on the remaining sales of the foreign like product in the
ordinary course of trade. If no sales made in the ordinary course
of 	trade 	remain, 	the 	normal 	value 	shall 	be 	based 	on 	the
constructed value of the merchandise.
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(1). Section 1677b(b)(1) sets forth the sales-below-cost test
based on the calculation specified in Section 1677b(b)(3) to confirm that sales
were made at less than the cost of production. Within Section 1677b(b) for “Sales
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 14 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 15
at less than cost of production,” the subsection 1677b(b)(1) for “Determination;
sales disregarded” authorizes Commerce to disregard those below-cost sales as
outside the ordinary course of trade. Id. § 1677b(b)(1).
The plain language of the reference to “ordinary course of trade” provides
that sales on which normal value are based must be in the ordinary course of trade.
Id. § 1677b(b)(1), (a)(1)(B)(i). Sales made at less than cost, between affiliates, and
in a particular market situation are excluded from the definition of “ordinary
course of trade” in Section 1677(15). Thus, sales in those three categories are
disregarded for purposes of calculating normal value based on market sales.
Nothing in the statute grants Commerce the authority to modify the sales-below-
cost test to permit a particular market situation analysis or adjustment, and the
specificity of the sales-below-cost test leaves no ambiguity. See Conn. Nat’l Bank
v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992) (“[C]ourts must presume that a
legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says
there.”).
In sum, although Section 504 of the TPEA amended Section 1677b(e) for
“Constructed value” to grant Commerce the discretion to use an alternative
calculation methodology, and Section 1677(15) for “Ordinary course of trade” to
grant Commerce an additional ground on which it may disregard sales from the
normal value calculation when using home market sales, the Section 504
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 15 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 16
amendment did not amend Section 1677b(b), which sets out the calculation of the
cost of production for the sales-below-cost test to determine whether and which
sales should be disregarded as outside the ordinary course of trade when normal
value is based on home market sales. “[W]here ‘Congress includes particular
language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act,
it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the
disparate inclusion or exclusion.’” Thomas v. Nicholson, 423 F.3d 1279, 1284
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983)). Thus,
the statute authorizes Commerce to disregard certain sales when basing normal
value on home market sales, or to use an alternative calculation methodology upon
a cost-based particular market situation determination when basing normal value
on constructed value.
Commerce applied a cost-based particular market situation adjustment for
purposes of the sales-below-cost test of Section 1677b(b)(1), while basing normal
value on home market sales. The statute does not authorize Commerce to adjust
the cost of production as an alternative calculation methodology when using
normal value based on home market sales under Section 1677b(e) as claimed by
Commerce. The statute also does not authorize Commerce to adjust the cost of
production for purposes of the sales-below-cost test under Sections 1677b(b)(1)
and 1677(15)(C) as claimed by Commerce. Section 1677b(e) applies only when
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 16 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 17
Commerce bases normal value on constructed value. Because Commerce based
normal value on home market sales, not constructed value, Section 1677b(e) is
inapplicable. Nothing in Sections 1677b(b)(1) and 1677(15)(C) authorizes
Commerce to adjust the cost of production for the sales-below-cost test. The court
concludes, therefore, that Commerce’s particular market situation adjustment to the
cost of production is not in accordance with the law. Because Commerce may not
adjust the cost of production when using normal value based on home market
sales, the court does not consider the lawfulness or reasonableness of Commerce’s
adjustment calculation.
III. 	Particular Market Situation Determination
Commerce determined on remand that a particular market situation distorted
costs based on the totality of five factors, namely: (1) Korean subsidies of hot-
rolled steel coil; (2) Korean imports of hot-rolled steel coil from China; (3)
strategic alliances between Korean hot-rolled steel coil producers and CWP
producers; (4) distortions in the Korean electricity market; and (5) steel industry
restructuring efforts by the Korean Government. Remand Results at 6. Plaintiffs
argue that Commerce’s particular market situation determination is not in
accordance with the law and is unsupported by substantial record evidence.
Hyundai Cmts. at 2; SeAH Cmts. at 3–4.
Commerce based its particular market situation determination on distortions
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 17 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 18
in the cost of hot-rolled steel coil, a primary CWP input. See Second Remand
Results at 3; Remand Results at 4. Commerce explained:
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 (TPEA)
added the concept of “particular market situation” in the definition of
the term “ordinary course of trade,” for purposes of [constructed value]
under section [1677b(e)], and through these provisions for purposes of
the 	[cost 	of 	production] 	under 	section 	[1677b(b)(3)]. 	Section
[1677b(e)] of the Act states that “if a particular market situation exists
such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other processing of any
kind does not accurately reflect the [cost of production] in the ordinary
course of trade, the administering authority may use another calculation
methodology under this subtitle or any other calculation methodology.”
Thus, under section 504 of the TPEA, Congress has given Commerce
the authority to determine whether a [particular market situation] exists
within the foreign market from which the subject merchandise is
sourced, and to determine whether the costs of materials, fabrication,
or processing of such merchandise fail to accurately reflect the [cost of
production] in the ordinary course of trade.
Second Remand Results at 3–4. Commerce made the particular market situation
determination under Section 1677b(e) based on the assertion that Section
1677b(e)’s reference to “ordinary course of trade” incorporates Section 1677b(e)
into the cost of production calculation in Section 1677b(b)(3). Id. at 4–5.
As discussed in the previous section, Section 1677b(e) applies expressly
when Commerce bases normal value on constructed value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e).
Nothing in the statute can be read to authorize a cost-based particular market
situation determination when Commerce bases normal value on home market sales.
The statute does not provide for a cost-based particular market situation analysis
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 18 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 19
when using home market sales to calculate normal value. Commerce made an
unlawful particular market situation cost-based determination in this case, while
basing normal value on home market sales. The court concludes that Commerce’s
cost-based particular market situation determination is not in accordance with the
law, and the court thus does not consider whether Commerce’s particular market
situation determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record.
CONCLUSION
The court concludes that Commerce’s cost-based particular market situation
determination and subsequent adjustment are not in accordance with the law.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Second Remand Results are remanded for Commerce
to reconsider its particular market situation determination and adjustment in light
of this opinion; and it is further
ORDERED that this case will proceed according to the following schedule:
(1) 	Commerce shall file the third remand results on or before
September 13, 2021;
(2) 	Commerce shall file the administrative record on or before
September 27, 2021;
(3) 	Comments in opposition to the third remand results shall be
filed on or before October 12, 2021;
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 19 of 20

Consol. Court No. 18-00154 	Page 20
(4) 	Comments in support of the third remand results shall be filed
on or before November 8, 2021; and
(5) 	The joint appendix shall be filed on or before November 15,
2021.
/s/ 	Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: 	July 19, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:18-cv-00154-JCG Document 93 Filed 07/19/21 Page 20 of 20