Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States

Slip Op. 21-70
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
HUSTEEL CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
and
NEXTEEL CO., LTD. ET AL.,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES
Defendant,
and
MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION ET
AL.,
Defendant-Intervenors and
Consolidated Defendant-
Intervenors.
Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Consol. Court No. 19-00112
PUBLIC VERSION
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining in part and remanding in part the U.S. Department of Commerce’s
corrected remand redetermination in the 2016–2017 administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea.]
Dated: June 7, 2021
Donald B. Cameron, Morris, Manning & Martin LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiff
Husteel Co., Ltd. 	Also on the brief were Brady W. Mills, Julie C. Mendoza, R. Will
Planert, Mary S. Hodgins, and Eugene Degnan.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 2
PUBLIC VERSION
J. 	David 	Park, 	Arnold 	& 	Porter 	Kaye 	Scholer 	LLP, 	of 	Washington, 	DC, 	for
consolidated plaintiffs Hyundai Steel Company and NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. Also on the
briefs were Henry D. Almond, Daniel R. Wilson, Leslie C. Bailey, and Kang Woo Lee.
Jeffrey M. Winton, Winton & Chapman PLLC, of Washington, DC, for consolidated
plaintiff SeAH Steel Corporation. Also on the briefs was Amrietha Nellan.
Robert R. Kiepura, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. Also on the brief were
Bryan M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director,
and L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director. Of Counsel was Reza Karamloo, Senior
Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S.
Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.
Elizabeth J. Drake, Roger B. Schagrin, Christopher T. Cloutier, and Luke A. Meisner,
Schagrin Associates, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors California Steel
Industries and Welspun Tubular LLC USA.
Gregory J. Spak, White & Case, LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors
Maverick Tube Corporation and IPSCO Tubulars Inc. Also on the briefs were Frank
J. Schweitzer, Kristina Zissis, and Matthew W. Solomon.
Kelly, 	Judge: 	Before 	the 	court 	is 	the U.S. 	Department 	of 	Commerce’s
(“Commerce”) remand redetermination in the 2016–2017 administrative review of
the antidumping duty (“ADD”) order on welded line pipe (“WLP”) from the Republic
of Korea (“Korea”) filed pursuant to the court’s remand order in Husteel Co. v. United
States, as later corrected pursuant to the court’s order granting Commerce’s request
for a remand. See 44 CIT __, __, 471 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1371 (2020) (“Husteel”); Final
Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand, Jan. 8, 2021, ECF No. 84
(“Remand Results”); see also Order, Jan. 15, 2021, ECF No. 87 (“Remand Order”)
(granting Defendant’s request for an expedited remand to correct a clerical error);
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 2 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 3
PUBLIC VERSION
Corrected Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand, Jan. 22, 2021,
ECF No. 88 (“Corrected Remand Results”).
In Husteel, the court remanded Commerce’s decision to reject SeAH Steel
Corporation’s (“SeAH”) third country sales (into Canada) and instead to calculate the
normal value of SeAH’s subject WLP based on constructed value. See 44 CIT at __,
471 F. Supp. 3d at 1359–61. Moreover, with respect to Commerce’s methodology for
calculating the constructed value of SeAH’s and NEXTEEL Co. Ltd.’s (“NEXTEEL”)
subject 	WLP, 	the 	court 	remanded 	for 	further 	explanation 	or 	reconsideration:
Commerce’s finding that a particular market situation (“PMS”) in Korea distorted the
cost of producing WLP during the period of review (“POR”), see id. at __, 471 F. Supp.
3d at 1361–64; Commerce’s reliance on Hyundai Steel Company’s (“Hyundai”)
constructed value profit ratio (“CV profit ratio”) and selling expenses from the first
administrative review to construct profit and selling expenses associated with SeAH’s
and NEXTEEL’s foreign market sales during this administrative review, as well as
Commerce’s decision to establish Hyundai’s information as the only reasonable profit
cap pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii) (2018),1 	see Husteel, 44 CIT at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at
1364–66; Commerce’s reallocation of costs reported by NEXTEEL associated with the
sale of non-prime products and resultant deduction to NEXTEEL’s constructed value,
1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant
provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2018 edition.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 3 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 4
PUBLIC VERSION
see id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1366–67; Commerce’s reallocation of costs reported
by NEXTEEL associated with the suspension of certain product lines from cost of
goods sold assigned to those products specifically to general and administrative
(“G&A”) expenses, and resultant adjustment to NEXTEEL’s reported G&A expense
ratio for WLP, see id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1367–68; and Commerce’s decision to
use annual weighted-averages for the review period to calculate SeAH’s costs. 	See
id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1368–69. 	With respect to its calculation of the export
price (here, constructed export price) of SeAH’s U.S. sales, the court remanded for
further explanation or reconsideration Commerce’s decision to deduct certain G&A
expenses incurred by SeAH’s U.S. sales affiliate Pusan Pipe America (“PPA”). See id.
at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1369–70. The court instructed Commerce to recalculate the
non-examined 	company’s 	rate 	applicable 	to 	Husteel 	Co., 	Ltd. 	(“Husteel”) 	as
appropriate to reflect any adjustments to its calculation of NEXTEEL’s and SeAH’s
dumping margin. Id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1370–71.
On remand, Commerce, under respectful protest, 2 reverses its decision to
disregard SeAH’s sales of WLP into Canada and uses those sales to determine the
normal value of SeAH’s entries. 	See Remand Results at 2, 22–23. 	Also under
respectful protest, Commerce reverses its finding that a PMS in Korea distorted the
cost of producing WLP during the POR, see id. at 2, 23–24, and uses SeAH’s sales
2 By adopting a position “under protest,” Commerce preserves its right to appeal. See
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 4 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 5
PUBLIC VERSION
into Canada as the basis for constructing NEXTEEL’s profit and selling expenses.
See id. at 2, 24–25. 	However, Commerce further explains its decision to adjust
NEXTEEL’s constructed value to account for losses associated with the sale of non-
prime WLP products, as well as its decision to reclassify NEXTEEL’s reported losses
relating to the suspension of certain product lines. 	See id. at 2, 9–13, 31–36.
Commerce also further explains its decision to use an annual weighted-average of
costs during the review period to calculate SeAH’s costs. 	See id. at 13–17, 25–27.
Lastly, Commerce further explains its decision to deduct certain G&A expenses
incurred by PPA from SeAH’s constructed export price. 	See id. at 17–21. 	For the
following reasons, Commerce’s remand redetermination is sustained in part and
remanded in part.
BACKGROUND
The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case as set out in its
previous opinion ordering remand to Commerce, and now recounts those relevant to
the court’s review of Commerce’s remand redetermination. 	See Husteel, 44 CIT at
__, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1357–59. 	On August 10, 2018, Commerce published the
amended final results of its 2016–2017 administrative review of the ADD order
covering WLP from Korea, spanning a period of review from December 1, 2016
through November 30, 2017. See Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 84
Fed. Reg. 27,762, 27,762 (Dep’t Commerce June 14, 2019) (final results of [ADD]
admin. review and final determination of no shipments; 2016–2017) (“Final Results”)
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 5 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 6
PUBLIC VERSION
as amended by 84 Fed. Reg. 35,371 (Dep’t Commerce July 23, 2019) (amended final
results 	of 	[ADD] 	admin. 	review; 	2016–2017) 	(“Amended 	Final 	Results”) 	and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memo., A-580-876, (June 7, 2019), ECF No. 36-5
(“Final Decision Memo”). Commerce assigned rates of 38.87 percent for NEXTEEL,
22.70 percent for SeAH, and 29.89 percent for non-selected respondents. 	See
Amended Final Results, 84 Fed. Reg. at 35,372. 	Pursuant to U.S. Court of
International Trade Rule 56.2, Husteel, SeAH, NEXTEEL, and Hyundai brought this
consolidated action challenging various aspects of Commerce’s final determination.
See Pl. [Husteel]’s Mot. J. Agency R., Dec. 18, 2019, ECF No. 46; [Consol. Pl. SeAH]’s
Mot. J. Agency R., Dec. 18, 2019, ECF No. 41; Consol. Pl. [NEXTEEL]’s 56.2 Mot. J.
Agency R., Dec. 18, 2019, ECF No. 44; Consol. Pl. [Hyundai]’s 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R.,
Dec. 18, 2019, ECF No. 45.
In Husteel, the court remanded Commerce’s final determination for further
explanation or reconsideration. See 44 CIT at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1371. The court
held that Commerce’s decision to disregard SeAH’s sales of WLP into Canada was
unsupported by substantial evidence because Commerce relied solely on findings of
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) to determine that SeAH’s sales
into 	Canada 	were 	unrepresentative, 	without 	addressing 	detracting 	evidence
illustrating material differences between antidumping law in the U.S. and Canada.
See id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1359–61. 	The court also found wanting several
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 6 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 7
PUBLIC VERSION
aspects of Commerce’s methodology for calculating the constructed value of SeAH’s
and NEXTEEL’s entries of subject WLP.
Namely, the court held that Commerce did not support with substantial
evidence 	its 	determination 	that 	global 	steel 	overcapacity, 	domestic 	subsidies,
strategic alliances between manufacturers, and government involvement in the
electricity market cumulatively created a PMS that distorted the cost of hot-rolled
coil (“HRC”)—a primary input in the manufacture of subject WLP—such that
Commerce was prevented from conducting a proper comparison between the normal
value and U.S. price of respondents’ entries of subject WLP during the POR. See id.
at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1361–64. 	The court also observed that Commerce’s
calculation of NEXTEEL’s and SeAH’s profit and selling expenses erred in two
respects. 	First, 	the 	court 	held 	that 	Commerce’s 	invocation 	of 	19 	U.S.C.
§ 1677b(e)(2)(B)(ii) as the basis for resorting to Hyundai’s CV profit ratio and selling
expense information from the first administrative review of the ADD order on subject
WLP is contrary to law because § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires Commerce to use a
“weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by exporters or
producers that are subject to the investigation or review[.]” 	Husteel, 44 CIT at __,
471 F. Supp. 3d at 1365 (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(ii)). Second, to the extent
that Commerce relied on 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii) to establish Hyundai’s profit
and selling expense information as the only reasonable profit cap, the court held that
Commerce’s determination was unsupported by substantial evidence; given its
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 7 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 8
PUBLIC VERSION
decision to disregard SeAH’s third country sales as unrepresentative, Commerce’s
profit cap determination did not contemplate those third country sales as an
alternative source of profit and selling expense information. See Husteel, 44 CIT at
__, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1365–66 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii)). Moreover, the
court deemed inadequate Commerce’s explanation as to how its decision to reallocate
costs reported by NEXTEEL to reflect losses realized on the sale of non-prime WLP
products comports with agency practice, and how that practice was reasonable under
the statute. 	See id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1366–67. 	Finally, the court observed
that it was unclear whether Commerce’s justification for using weighted-average
costs spanning the review period (i.e., annual costs) to calculate SeAH’s costs during
the POR in light of purported cost-fluctuations, instead of its quarterly pricing
methodology, took into account the apparent correlation in SeAH’s prices and costs
between the first and second quarters—the period during which SeAH purportedly
experienced significant cost-fluctuations. See id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1368–69.
Regarding calculation of SeAH’s constructed export price, the court held that
Commerce’s final determination neither clarified why Commerce is treating PPA’s
G&A expenses as indirect selling expenses, nor explained why doing so is reasonable
such 	that 	Commerce 	may 	deduct 	the 	expense 	under 	19 	U.S.C.
§ 1677a(d)(1)(D). See Husteel, 44 CIT at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1369–70. The court
instructed 	Commerce 	to 	“recalculate 	the 	non-examined 	company’s 	rate 	as
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 8 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 9
PUBLIC VERSION
appropriate to reflect any adjustments to its calculation of the dumping margins for
NEXTEEL and SeAH.” Id. at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1370–71.
On December 7, 2020, NEXTEEL filed a notice of supplemental authority,
apprising the court and the parties of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s
(“Court of Appeals”) decision in Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, 981 F.3d 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Dillinger”). 	On January 8, 2021, Commerce filed the final results
of its remand redetermination. See generally Remand Results. On January 14, 2021,
Defendant moved for a remand in order to correct a clerical error resulting from
Commerce’s inadvertent failure to update NEXTEEL’s constructed value selling
expense and profit calculations. See Def.’s Mot. for Expedited Remand, Jan. 14, 2021,
ECF No. 85. Notwithstanding SeAH’s objection to the amount of time requested by
counsel for Defendant, see Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Remand, Jan. 15, 2021, ECF No.
86, the court granted the motion. 	See generally Remand Order. 	On January 22,
2021, Commerce filed the final results of its second remand redetermination, stating
that it corrected NEXTEEL’s margin calculation to reflect its decision to use SeAH’s
third country sales as the basis for NEXTEEL’s profit and selling expenses. 	See
generally Corrected Remand Results.
On February 22, 2021, the parties submitted their comments on the final
results of Commerce’s corrected remand redetermination. 	See [SeAH’s] Cmts. [on
Remand Results] Confidential Version, Feb. 22, 2021, ECF No. 91 (“SeAH’s Br.”);
Maverick Tube Corporation & IPSCO Tubulars Inc.’s Cmts. on [Remand Results],
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 9 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 10
PUBLIC VERSION
Feb. 22, 2021, ECF No. 93 (“Def-Intervenors’ Br.”); [NEXTEEL’s] Remand Cmts., Feb.
22, 2021, ECF No. 94 (“NEXTEEL’s Br.”). On March 24, 2021, the parties filed their
respective replies to comments submitted on Commerce’s remand redetermination.
Reply Cmts. of [SeAH] to [Def-Intervenors’ Br.], Mar. 24, 2021, ECF No. 97 (“SeAH’s
Reply Br.”); NEXTEEL’s Reply to [Def-Intervenors’ Br.], Mar. 24, 2021, ECF No. 99
(“NEXTEEL’s Reply Br.”); Maverick Tube Corporation & ISPCO Tubulars, Inc.’s
Reply Cmts. on [Remand Results], Mar. 24, 2021, ECF No. 100; Def.’s Resp. to Cmts.
on [Remand Results], Mar. 24, 2021, ECF No. 98 (“Def.’s Resp. Br.”).
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) (2018), which grant the court authority to review actions contesting
the final determination in an administrative review of an ADD order. The court will
uphold Commerce’s determination unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence
on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
“The results of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are also reviewed ‘for
compliance with the court’s remand order.’” Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v.
United States, 38 CIT __, __, 968 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (2014) (quoting Nakornthai
Strip Mill Public Co. v. United States, 32 CIT 1272, 1274, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1306
(2008)).
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 10 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 11
PUBLIC VERSION
DISCUSSION
I. 	SeAH’s Third Country Sales
Defendant-Intervenors Maverick Tube Corporation and ISPCO Tubulars, Inc.
(collectively, “Tenaris USA”) contend that Commerce’s reversal of its finding that
SeAH’s third country sales into Canada are unrepresentative is unreasonable. 	See
Def-Intervenors’ Br. at 3–9. 	In Tenaris USA’s view, Commerce should have further
explained its prior finding that SeAH’s third country sales are unrepresentative in
light of the court’s remand order in Husteel. 	See id. 	Defendant and SeAH counter
that Commerce reasonably explained that there was no record evidence that would
allow it to address detracting evidence regarding material inconsistencies between
U.S. and Canadian antidumping law. See Def.’s Resp. Br. at 4–6; SeAH’s Reply Br.
at 3–4. For the following reasons, Commerce’s determination is sustained.
Where Commerce finds that home market sales are an inappropriate basis for
determining normal value, it may instead use third country sales. 	See 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(a)(1). Commerce may only rely on third country sales where the “prices [for
those sales are] representative,” where the aggregate quantity of sales are at a
sufficient level, and where Commerce does not determine that a PMS prevents a
proper comparison between the export price, or constructed export price, and the
third country price. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(B)(ii). 	The statute does not define
what it means for prices to be representative, but Commerce’s regulations and
regulatory history reveal that where the aggregate quantity of third country sales are
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 11 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 12
PUBLIC VERSION
at 	a 	sufficient 	level, 	those 	sales 	are 	presumptively 	representative 	unless
demonstrated otherwise. 	See 19 C.F.R. § 351.404(b)–(c) (2018) 3 (providing that
Commerce shall consider a third country market viable if the aggregate quantity of
sales are at a sufficient level, but setting forth an exception where it is established,
to the satisfaction of Commerce, that, inter alia, the prices are not representative);
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 Fed. Reg. 27,296, 27,357 (Dep’t
Commerce May 19, 1997); 4 see also Alloy Piping Prods. v. United States, 26 CIT 360,
339–340 & n.7, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1276–77 & n.7 (2002) (citations omitted).
Commerce’s determination that sales into a third country comparator market are not
representative must be supported by substantial evidence. 	See, e.g., Motor Vehicle
3 Unless otherwise indicated, further citations to Title 19 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are to the 2018 edition.
4 The regulatory history to 19 C.F.R. § 351.404 provides, in pertinent part, that:
In the Department’s view, the criteria of a “particular market situation”
and the “representativeness” of prices fall into the category of issues that
the Department need not, and should not, routinely consider . . . the
[Statement 	of 	Administrative 	Action] 	at 	821 	recognizes 	that 	the
Department must inform exporters at an early stage of a proceeding as
to which sales they must report. 	This objective would be frustrated if
the Department routinely analyzed the existence of a “particular market
situation” or the “representativeness” of third country sales . . . the party
alleging . . . that sales are not “representative” has the burden of
demonstrating that there is a reasonable basis for believing that a
“particular 	market 	situation” 	exists 	or 	that 	sales 	are 	not
“representative.”
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 Fed. Reg. at 27,357; see also Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. D OC. N O . 103-826,
vol. 1, at 821 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4162.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 12 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 13
PUBLIC VERSION
Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 48–49 (1983). 	“The
substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight.” 	CS Wind Vietnam Co. v. United States, 832 F.3d 1367,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 720
(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Here, Commerce acknowledges that the CITT’s finding that SeAH’s sales into
Canada were dumped is the only record evidence supporting its prior determination
that those sales are unrepresentative. 	See Remand Results at 22–23. 	Although
Tenaris USA believes that Commerce could have reasonably addressed detracting
evidence that Canada’s dumping law is materially inconsistent with U.S. dumping
law, see Def-Intervenors’ Br. at 7–9, Commerce observes that none of the parties point
to record evidence that would allow it to substantiate such an analysis. See Remand
Results at 22–23. 	Given that third country sales at a sufficient aggregate level are
presumptively 	representative, 	see 	19 	C.F.R. 	§ 	351.404(b)–(c), 	and 	that 	record
evidence detracts from the evidentiary weight that Commerce assigned to the CITT’s
findings when determining that SeAH’s Canadian sales were unrepresentative,
Commerce’s determination is reasonable. 	Commerce’s reliance on SeAH’s third
country sales to determine normal value is sustained.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 13 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 14
PUBLIC VERSION
II. 	Commerce’s CV Calculation
1. 	Particular Market Situation
Although Commerce respectfully disagrees with the court’s holding that its
PMS determination was unsupported by substantial evidence, see Husteel, 44 CIT at
__, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1361–64, Commerce indicates that it is unable to point to
additional record evidence to overcome the court’s objections. See Remand Results at
6–7. 	None of the parties challenged Commerce’s reversal. 	See id. at 23–24.
Commerce’s decision to reverse its determination that a PMS in Korea distorted the
cost of producing WLP during the POR under respectful protest is sustained.
2. 	Profit and Selling Expense Information
As explained, Commerce respectfully disagrees with the court’s holding that
its decision to disregard SeAH’s third country sales is unsupported by substantial
evidence. See, e.g., Remand Results at 24. However, since it now “rel[ies] on SeAH’s
third country sales as the CV profit and selling expenses for NEXTEEL, rather than
data 	from 	[Hyundai],” 	Commerce 	concludes 	that 	whether 	its 	decision 	to 	use
Hyundai’s 	information 	from 	the 	first 	administrative 	review 	is 	supported 	by
substantial evidence or otherwise in accordance with law is moot. 	Remand Results
at 7, 24–25. 	Although Tenaris USA submits that Commerce should use Hyundai’s
CV profit and selling expense rate information, Tenaris USA’s position is dependent
on Commerce deciding to disregard SeAH’s third country sales. See Def-Intervenors’
Br. at 9–13. 	Commerce otherwise observes that none of the parties point to “any
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 14 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 15
PUBLIC VERSION
record evidence that would allow Commerce to overcome the Court’s objections[.]”
Remand Results at 24–25. Commerce’s decision to use SeAH’s third country sales to
determine CV profit and selling expenses for NEXTEEL under respectful protest is
sustained.
3. 	Reclassification of NEXTEEL’s Suspended Production Losses
NEXTEEL contends that Commerce fails to explain why its decision to
reclassify losses reported by NEXTEEL relating to the suspended production of
certain product lines is consistent with 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A). 	See NEXTEEL’s
Br. at 11–14. 	Defendant and Tenaris USA submit that Commerce reasonably
explains that its determination comports with its practice of adjusting costs where a
company’s normal books and records do not reasonably reflect production costs. See
Def.’s Resp. Br. at 12–15; Def-Intervenors’ Br. at 19–22. 	According to Defendant,
NEXTEEL’s objections amount to a mere disagreement with Commerce’s evidentiary
conclusion that the length of the suspension of NEXTEEL’s product lines indicate
that the costs incurred are necessarily borne by NEXTEEL’s subject products. 	See
Def.’s Resp. Br. at 12–15. 	For the following reasons, Commerce’s determination is
sustained.
When 	determining 	constructed 	value 	of 	subject 	merchandise, 	Commerce
normally calculates costs and expenses “based on the records of the exporter or
producer of the merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with the generally
accepted accounting principles [(“GAAP”)] of the exporting country (or the producing
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 15 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 16
PUBLIC VERSION
country, where appropriate)[.]” 	19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A). 	However, even if a
respondent’s normal books and records are GAAP-compliant, the statute affords
Commerce some discretion to depart from those records if it determines that they do
not “reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the
merchandise.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A); see also Remand Results at 9.
According 	to 	Commerce, 	its 	“normal 	practice 	in 	determining 	whether
particular items should be included in G&A is to review the nature of the item and
its relation to the general operations of the company as a whole.” Remand Results at
29 (citing Magnesium Metal from the Russian Federation, 70 Fed. Reg. 9,041 (Dep’t
Commerce Feb. 24, 2005) (notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo. at Cmt. 10, A-821-819, (Feb. 24, 2005)
available 	at 	https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/russia/E5-765-1.pdf 	(last
visited May 25, 2021)). Commerce’s position is that expenses owing to extended (as
opposed to routine or maintenance-related) suspension of specific product lines no
longer relate to ongoing production of those specific products. 	See Remand Results
at 8–9. 	Thus, it appears to be Commerce’s practice to “associate[ ] these costs with
the general operations of the company as a whole (i.e., with general expenses), and
not . . . to products associated with that production line (i.e., [cost of goods sold]).” See
id. at 9. 	Pointing to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b)(3)(B), Commerce reasons that the statute
directs it to include, as part of its calculation of the COP for the subject merchandise,
“costs associated with the general operations of the company (i.e., normal costs that
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 16 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 17
PUBLIC VERSION
are not directly associated with a product).” Remand Results at 30 (citing 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(b)(3)(B)).
Reasonably discernible from its observation that,5 because “[n]o revenue from
any products normally produced on [the suspended] lines was generated for the
period . . . the costs associated with the suspended production lines were necessarily
covered by all the other products NEXTEEL produced[,]” see id. at 30, is Commerce’s
supposition that costs should generally relate to a benefit during the period of review,
that 	costs 	associated 	with 	extended 	suspension 	of 	production 	of 	non-subject
merchandise no longer relate to the benefit of ongoing production and revenue
5 Commerce’s explanation as to how its methodology comports with the requirements
of 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A) is less than ideal. 	Commerce states that 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(b)(3)(B) directs it to include “as part of [costs of production] costs associated
with the general operations of the company (i.e., normal costs that are not directly
associated with a product)[,]” Remand Results at 30, but § 1677b(b)(3)(B) directs
Commerce 	to 	determine 	G&A 	expenses 	“based 	on 	actual 	data 	pertaining 	to
production and sales of the foreign like product[.]” Id. Commerce admits that it seeks
to include “non-product costs as G&A expenses,” then summarily concludes that this
“does not contravene the statute.” 	Remand Results at 29. 	As NEXTEEL submits,
left unstated by Commerce’s analysis is whether, why, and to what extent losses
associated with the suspension of product lines for the production of non-subject
merchandise 	relate 	to 	G&A 	expenses 	incurred 	in 	the 	production 	of 	subject
merchandise, 	such 	that 	NEXTEEL’s 	GAAP-compliant 	accounting 	does 	not
reasonably reflect costs. See, e.g., NEXTEEL’s Br. at 12–13. Nonetheless, the court
can discern from Commerce’s analysis its view that an expense should relate to a
benefit, and that in this instance it makes more sense to account for an expense that
is incurred over an extended period of time where there is no related benefit (in this
case, no ongoing production and revenue generation) as an expense incurred by the
general operations of a company. Cf., e.g., Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Co. v. United
States, 635 F.3d 1335, 1341–43 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Remand Results at 8. For
the reasons stated above, Commerce’s approach is reasonable under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(f)(1)(A).
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 17 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 18
PUBLIC VERSION
generation from those products during the period of review, see, e.g., id. at 8, and
that, as a consequence, those costs more reasonably relate to the general operations
of the company. 	The court cannot say that it is unreasonable for Commerce, in its
expertise, to determine that a company’s attribution of costs relating to the extended
suspension of certain non-subject product lines as costs of goods sold results in an
inaccurate reflection of the general expenses incurred in the production of subject
merchandise. 	Although a company may shut down product lines from time to time
for various intervals, at some point an extended shutdown suggests that the costs of
that product line are more akin to expenses borne by the company in its general
operations. 6 Therefore, Commerce’s determination is sustained.
4. 	NEXTEEL’s Non-Prime WLP Products
NEXTEEL argues that Commerce erred in continuing to reallocate the cost of
production of its non-prime products and that Commerce’s decision is inconsistent
with the Court of Appeals’ decision in Dillinger. See NEXTEEL’s Br. at 2–10 (citing,
inter alia, Dillinger, 981 F.3d 1318). 	Defendant counters that Commerce complied
6 According to NEXTEEL, “Commerce has still not provided clarity to respondents as
to which production suspensions” may be considered temporary as opposed to
prolonged. NEXTEEL’s Br. at 13. However, NEXTEEL cites no authority to support
the position that Commerce may not assess the length of a shutdown on a case-by-
case basis. Here, Commerce explains that “[t]he production shutdown started before
the POR and continued after the POR, establishing that it was not a routine
shutdown but a prolonged shutdown[.]” Remand Results at 30. Commerce adds that
although “no specific time is associated with a routine shutdown, normally the
shutdown is short-term.” Id. at 31. It is enough that Commerce reasonably explains
its determination in this instance.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 18 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 19
PUBLIC VERSION
with the court’s remand order by clarifying its practice and explaining why its
practice is reasonable. See Def.’s Resp. Br. at 15–18. Moreover, Defendant submits
that Commerce’s determination is consistent with the Court of Appeals’ decision. See
id. at 18–19 (citing, inter alia, Dillinger, 981 F.3d 1318). 	For the following reasons,
Commerce’s determination is remanded.
As explained, Commerce normally calculates costs “based on the records of the
exporter or producer of the merchandise, if such records are kept in accordance with
the [GAAP]” of the exporting or producing country. 	19 U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A).
However, even if a respondent’s records are kept in accordance with the GAAP of the
exporting or producing country, Commerce departs from those records where it
determines that a respondent’s records do not fairly reflect the costs associated with
the production and sale of the merchandise. 	See Remand Results at 10; see also 19
U.S.C. § 1677b(f)(1)(A).
In this case, NEXTEEL’s books and records allocated the costs of prime and
non-prime products based on costs incurred in the production of each. 	Commerce
reallocated the costs as identified in the NEXTEEL’s books and records. 	See, e.g.,
Final Decision Memo at 42–43. Namely, Commerce shifted non-prime costs, which it
perceived could not be recovered from sales of non-prime product, to prime product.
See, e.g., id.; Memo. Re: NEXTEEL’s Cost of Production & Constructed Value
Calculation Adjustments for the Final Determination at Attach. 2B, PD 327, CD 371,
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 19 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 20
PUBLIC VERSION
bar codes 3847069-01, 3847068-01 (June 11, 2019). 7 	This reallocation resulted in a
higher per unit cost for prime products. 	See, e.g., Oral Arg. at 01:20:00–01:21:22,
June 25, 2020, ECF No. 79.
In making its reallocation, Commerce explains its practice:
is to analyze the products sold as non-prime to determine whether they
are truly the production of “good” product or if they are more akin to
yield loss and the sale of the scrapped “bad” product in an attempt to
recover whatever value they can get. Our analysis looked at several
factors including: (1) how such products are treated in the respondent's
normal books and records; (2) whether they remain in scope; and (3)
whether they can still be used in the same applications as the prime
subject merchandise.
Remand Results at 34. 	Although an explanation of how Commerce applies these
criteria is lacking, it is reasonably discernible that Commerce considers the three
criteria as part of a broader examination into the totality of the circumstances to
ascertain whether non-prime products should be regarded as scrap or yield loss under
the statute, such that costs of those products (less any offset recovered by their sale) 8
is a cost of the prime product. 	See id. at 9–10, 29 (citing, inter alia, [WLP] From
7 On August 22, 2019, Defendant submitted indices to the confidential and public
administrative records underlying Commerce’s final determination. 	These indices
are located on the docket at ECF No. 36-1 and 36-2, respectively. 	All references in
this opinion to documents from the administrative record underlying Commerce’s
final determination are identified by the numbers assigned by Commerce in those
indices and preceded by “PD” and “CD” to denote public or confidential documents.
8 According to Commerce, the latter category of “bad” non-prime products “should not
be allocated a cost akin to good production.” 	Remand Results at 36. 	“Instead, the
non-prime 	product 	should 	be 	given 	credit 	for 	whatever 	salvage 	value 	it 	can
command.” Id. (citation omitted).
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 20 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 21
PUBLIC VERSION
[Korea], 80 Fed. Reg. 61,366 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 13, 2015) (final determination of
sales at less than fair value) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo. at Cmt.
9, 	A-580-876, 	(Oct. 	5, 	2015), 	available 	at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/korea-south/2015-25980-1.pdf 	(last
visited May 25, 2021) (“WLP from Korea IDM”); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From
Mexico, 82 Fed. Reg. 27,233 (Dep’t Commerce June 14, 2017) (final results of [ADD]
administrative review; 2014–2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memo. at
Cmt. 	3, 	A-201-844 	(June 	7, 	2017), 	available 	at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/mexico/2017-12304-1.pdf 	(last 	visited
May 25, 2021)); see also Final Decision Memo at 42.
More problematic, however, is Commerce’s explanation of how a methodology
that calculates costs of non-prime products based on its resale value and reallocates
the difference between the resale value and actual costs of producing non-prime
products to the costs of prime products accords with the Court of Appeals’ instruction
to use actual costs when calculating constructed value. 	See Dillinger, 981 F.3d at
1321–24. Dillinger holds that Commerce must calculate constructed value based on
the actual costs incurred in the production of prime and non-prime products. See 981
F.3d at 1321–24 & n.1. 	The Court of Appeals explained that the legislative history
to § 1677b(f) demonstrates Congress’ clear intent that costs used to construct the
value of subject merchandise “accurately reflect the resources actually used in the
production of the merchandise in question[.]” 	Id. at 1322 	(quoting S. REP. NO . 103-
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 21 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 22
PUBLIC VERSION
412, at 75 (1994)); see also id. at 1321 n.1. 	Since Commerce’s methodology involves
using likely sales value for non-prime products instead of actual costs as reported by
NEXTEEL, Dillinger calls into question whether or not Commerce’s treatment of
NEXTEEL’s non-prime WLP products complies with the statute. 	Commerce’s
explanation of its practice is inadequate in light of Court of Appeals’ precedent. See
Hyundai Elecs. Indus. v. United States, 30 CIT 63, 65–66, 414 F. Supp. 2d 1289,
1291–92 (2006). 	Therefore, the court must remand for further explanation or
reconsideration.
III. 	Use of SeAH’s Average Costs for the Review Period
SeAH asserts Commerce’s refusal to use quarterly-average costs to calculate
SeAH’s normal value is not supported by substantial evidence.9 See SeAH’s Br. at 3–
9 SeAH submits that, consonant with Commerce’s position that it must “find
correlation between the sales and cost throughout the entire POR (or at least the
majority of the quarters),” an analysis of:
the quarterly costs and sales prices from one quarter to the next for the
control numbers (“CONNUMs”) that had cost and sales data for all or
most of the quarters of the review period demonstrates that SeAH’s
prices and costs were 	throughout the entire review
period and not just between two quarters.
See SeAH’s Br. at 5. 	Moreover, SeAH argues that Commerce’s analysis of cost and
price data for quarters not subject to significant cost-fluctuations is unreasonable.
See id. at 7–11.
[[ 	]]
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 22 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 23
PUBLIC VERSION
11. 10 Defendant argues that Commerce reasonably determined that its quarterly cost
methodology was not warranted. 	See Def.’s Resp. Br. at 9–12. 	For the following
reasons, Commerce’s determination is sustained.
When determining normal value based on home market or third country sales,
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(b) requires that Commerce disregard sales that are made below
the cost of production. 	Commerce usually compares prices to a weighted-average of
costs incurred throughout the entire POR (i.e., annual costs). 	See Remand Results
at 15; see also id. 13 & n.52 (citing, inter alia, Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire
Rod from Canada, 71 Fed. Reg. 3,822 (Dep’t Commerce Jan. 24, 2006) (notice of final
results of antidumping duty administrative review) and accompanying Issues and
Decisions 	Memo. 	at 	Cmt. 	5, 	A-112-840, 	(Jan. 	24, 	2006) 	available 	at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/canada/E6-823-1.pdf (last visited May,
25, 2021)); Antidumping Methodologies for Proceedings that Involve Significant Cost
Changes Throughout the Period of Investigation (POI)/[POR] that May Require
Using Shorter Cost Averaging Periods, 73 Fed. Reg. 26,364, 26,365 (Dep’t Commerce
May 9, 2008) (request for comment) (“Cost Averaging Methodology”). 	According to
Commerce, “[r]elying on an annual average cost tends to smooth out . . . short-term
10 Although the heading to SeAH’s argument states that Commerce’s calculation of
SeAH’s 	constructed 	value 	is 	unreasonable, 	see 	SeAH’s 	Br. 	at 	3, 	the 	court
understands—from SeAH’s references to Commerce’s below cost sales analysis, see,
e.g., SeAH’s Br. at 8, and the fact that Commerce used SeAH’s third country sales to
determine SeAH’s normal value, see Remand Results at 6—that the reference to
constructed value is unintentional.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 23 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 24
PUBLIC VERSION
per-unit cost fluctuations resulting in a normalized average production cost to be
compared to sales prices over the same extended period of time.” Id., 73 Fed. Reg. at
26,365 (citations omitted).
Nonetheless, Commerce deviates from its standard methodology when it
determines that there are significant changes in costs during the POR. See generally
id., 73 Fed. Reg. 26,364; see also Final Decision Memo at 55 (citing Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bar From Taiwan, 82 Fed. Reg. 34,925 (Dep’t Commerce July 27, 2017)
(final determination of sales at less than fair value) and accompanying Issues and
Decision 	Memo. 	at 	Cmt. 	2, 	A-583-859, 	(July 	20, 	2017)), 	available 	at
https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/taiwan/2017-15840-1.pdf 	(last 	visited
May 25, 2021) (“Rebar from Taiwan IDM”). 	In such instances, Commerce instead
relies on quarterly-average costs, provided that there is a linkage (i.e., reasonable
correlation) between costs and sales information during the shorter averaging
periods. 	See Rebar from Taiwan IDM at Cmt. 2; see also Final Decision Memo at 55.
Husteel concluded that it was not discernible from Commerce’s analysis in its
final determination whether and to what extent Commerce considered the correlation
between SeAH’s prices and costs between the first and second quarters. See 44 CIT
at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1368–69. On remand, Commerce acknowledges that record
evidence shows SeAH’s “prices and costs are correlated between the first and second
quarter of the POR[,]” but nonetheless clarifies that departure to its quarterly pricing
methodology requires linkage between prices and costs throughout the entire POR
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 24 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 25
PUBLIC VERSION
because relying on cost-averages during shorter review periods where prices “have
not been set in reaction to the changing costs . . . is no more accurate than
[Commerce’s] normal annual average cost and price comparison methodology.”
Remand Results at 15–16; see also Husteel, 44 CIT at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at 1369.
Commerce’s judgment, in light of record evidence showing that prices did not react to
cost-fluctuations, that comparing prices to cost-averages for shorter periods would
not further its goal of calculating a dumping margin that accurately reflects a
company’s normal selling practices, and thus would not justify departure from
Commerce’s standard methodology, is reasonable. See Remand Results at 15–16; see
also, e.g., Cost Averaging Methodology, 73 Fed. Reg. at 26,365 (citing, inter alia, 19
C.F.R. 	§ 	351.102 	(2008)). 	Even 	if 	a 	company 	experienced 	a 	significant 	cost-
fluctuations during a portion of the POR, evidence that the company’s prices do not
react to cost-fluctuations during the rest of the POR logically suggests that the cost-
fluctuations did not impact the company’s pricing practices. 	Thus, it is reasonable
to infer that the cost-fluctuations are not germane to Commerce’s inquiry into
whether, and to what extent, the company engaged in underselling during the POR.
At the very least, it is reasonable for Commerce to find, based on such inferences,
that the circumstances do not provide a compelling enough reason to justify departure
from its standard practice, which helps Commerce calculate an accurate dumping
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 25 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 26
PUBLIC VERSION
margin by normalizing prices across the POR. 11 	Therefore, SeAH’s attempt to
demonstrate that prices are reasonably correlated throughout the POR by pointing
to evidence that “prices for subject merchandise were substantially above unit costs
during every quarter of the review” is unavailing. See SeAH’s Br. at 4–7.
For its part, SeAH submits that Commerce’s analysis is unreasonable under
the particular circumstances of this case because “the use of a single review-period
average cost will overstate the cost used to test sales during the first quarter, and
thus incorrectly and unfairly find that sales prices during the first quarter were below
cost, even though those sales were above costs at the time they were made.” SeAH’s
Br. at 10; see also id. at 7–11 (citing, inter alia, Nucor Corp. v. United States, 33 CIT
207, 287, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1332 (2009)). 	Moreover, according to SeAH, since
changes in unit costs and unit prices were negligible, Commerce’s methodology
effectively requires that SeAH’s prices be highly sensitive to changes in costs, as
opposed to just reasonably correlated. SeAH’s Br. at 8 & n.12. 12 	SeAH’s arguments
11 According to Commerce, requiring that “changes in selling prices reasonably
correlate to changes in unit costs” also promotes a more “reasonable and predictable
criteria” because “[o]therwise[,] in every case there can be outliers and differing facts
that are only argued by interested parties if it is beneficial.” Remand Results at 26.
To the extent that Commerce furthers its overarching obligation to calculate an
accurate dumping margin, it is not unreasonable to take into account such practical
constraints when developing its methodology.
12 SeAH points to Table 2 in its brief, see SeAH’s Br. at 7, which, as described by
SeAH, indicates that “cost changes between the second and third quarter were
between 	and 	percent, and the cost changes between the third and
fourth quarters were between 	and 	percent.” See SeAH’s Br. at 8 n.12.
[[ 	]] 	[[ 	]]
[[ 	]] 	[[ 	]]
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 26 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 27
PUBLIC VERSION
do not persuade. 	Even if SeAH offers another reasonable interpretation of the
evidence, that alone is insufficient to demonstrate that Commerce’s determination
that SeAH’s costs and prices were not linked throughout the POR—based on record
evidence showing that SeAH’s prices and costs trended in the opposite direction—is
unreasonable. 	The court cannot reweigh the evidence. 	See Downhole Pipe &
Equipment, L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
IV. 	Allocation of G&A Expenses when Calculating Constructed Export
Price
SeAH argues that Commerce’s continued treatment of G&A expenses incurred
by its U.S. sales affiliate, PPA, as indirect selling expenses, and resultant decision to
deduct those expenses from SeAH’s constructed export price pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677a(d)(1)(D), is not supported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in
accordance with law. See SeAH’s Br. at 11–16. According to SeAH, the statute does
not authorize Commerce to deduct non-selling expenses when calculating constructed
export price, and Commerce’s classification of PPA’s G&A expenses as indirect selling
expenses is unreasonable given the fact that PPA performs both manufacturing and
selling functions. See id. 	Defendant counters that Commerce reasonably determined
that PPA predominantly performs selling functions for SeAH, and thus, with respect
to 	calculation 	of 	SeAH’s 	constructed 	export 	price, 	PPA’s 	G&A 	expenses 	are
reasonably regarded as indirect selling expenses. See Def.’s Resp. Br. at 6–9. For the
following reasons, Commerce’s determination is sustained.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 27 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 28
PUBLIC VERSION
As explained, when reviewing an ADD order, Commerce calculates dumping
margins by comparing the normal value of the merchandise to its export price—here,
constructed export price. 	See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673, 1675(a)(2)(A), (C); see also id. at
§§ 1677(35), 1677a. 	Commerce uses constructed export price to determine the
dumping margin when the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise sells to
an affiliated buyer. 	See 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(b). 	The constructed export price is the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold to the affiliated buyer as adjusted
under subsections (c) and (d). 	See id. 	Relevant here, subsection (d)(1) requires
Commerce to deduct various selling expenses from the constructed export price, and
subsection (d)(2) requires Commerce to deduct costs of further manufacture or
assembly from the constructed export price. 	See id. at § 1677a(d). 	Pursuant to 19
U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(D), Commerce normally 	calculates, and deducts from the
constructed export price, indirect selling expenses.
In Husteel, the court concluded that Commerce did not explain why its
treatment 	of 	PPA’s 	G&A 	expenses 	as 	indirect 	selling 	expenses 	of 	SeAH 	was
reasonable and authorized under the statute. 	See 44 CIT at __, 471 F. Supp. 3d at
1370. Here, Commerce explains that it treats PPA’s G&A expenses as indirect selling
expenses because “PPA’s primary function is to facilitate SeAH’s U.S. sales[,]”
Remand Results at 18, and PPA’s “G&A activities support those selling operations.”
Id. at 20; see also id. at 38 (“PPA is predominantly a selling entity and, thus, it is
reasonable to treat its G&A expenses as selling expenses.”). Commerce adds that “it
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 28 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 29
PUBLIC VERSION
is not disputed that PPA has no production capabilities of its own[.]” Id. at 18. Given
that 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(D) instructs Commerce to include in its deductions from
the constructed export price “any selling expenses not deducted” under the other
subparagraphs, Commerce explains that, where a “U.S. affiliated selling entity
provides no further-manufacturing services,” its policy is to regard “everything that
the entity does” as “part of its selling activities.” Remand Results at 20.
Commerce’s determination to treat PPA’s G&A expenses as indirect selling
expenses for purposes of calculating SeAH’s constructed export price is reasonable.
As Commerce explains, the statute does not explicitly instruct Commerce as to how
it should treat G&A expenses incurred by a U.S. sales affiliate. See id. at 19–20. It
stands to reason that, under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(d)(1)(D), Commerce would regard
expenses incurred pursuant to general operations of a company that mainly exists to
facilitate SeAH’s U.S. sales as “indirect selling expenses” because the benefits derived
from those expenses predominantly further SeAH’s selling activities in the United
States (as opposed, for example, to SeAH’s ability to produce merchandise). 	See
Remand Results at 20 (“The G&A expenses of the U.S. affiliated selling entity are
associated with supporting and accomplishing the greater selling function of the
entity, which is to advance sales in the U.S. market for the respondent, SeAH.”); see
also id. at 38–41.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 29 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 30
PUBLIC VERSION
SeAH 	criticizes 	Commerce 	for 	“simply 	re-defining 	the 	nature 	of 	PPA’s
operation for the purposes of the [r]edetermination, despite the fact that no new
information concerning PPA’s operations has been placed on the record.” SeAH’s Br.
at 12–14. 13 	However, Commerce may reassess the record and its findings on remand
so long as it reasonably explains its redetermination, see SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332
U.S. 194, 199–201 (1947), and SeAH does not point to detracting record evidence that
impugns the reasonableness of Commerce’s rationale. Commerce’s determination is
sustained.
V. 	Ministerial Errors in Recalculating SeAH’s Margins
Defendant-Intervenor 	Tenaris 	USA 	requests 	that 	the 	court 	sustain 	a
correction Commerce made to its calculation of SeAH’s dumping margin on remand,
where Commerce inadvertently converted Korean Won values to U.S. dollars twice in
its margin calculation program. 	Def-Intervenors’ Br. at 9 (citation omitted). 	The
parties 	do 	not 	contest 	Tenaris 	USA’s 	request. 	Since 	the 	court 	is 	sustaining
Commerce’s remand redetermination with respect to its calculation of SeAH’s
dumping margin, the court also sustains Commerce’s ministerial correction.
13 	In disputing the proper classification of G&A expenses under the statute more
generally, SeAH appears to misapprehend Commerce’s inquiry and construction of
the statute. 	See SeAH’s Br. at 14–16. 	Here, Commerce seeks to determine how to
classify PPA’s G&A expenses as they relate to SeAH’s operations in the United
States. See Remand Results at 17–21, 38–41.
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 30 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 31
PUBLIC VERSION
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that Commerce’s reliance on SeAH’s third country sales into
Canada to determine the normal value of its subject merchandise is sustained; and it
is further
ORDERED that Commerce’s decision to reverse its PMS determination is
sustained; and it is further
ORDERED that Commerce’s decision to use SeAH’s third country sales to
calculate NEXTEEL’s CV profit and selling expenses is sustained; and it is further
ORDERED 	that 	Commerce’s 	reclassification 	of 	NEXTEEL’s 	suspended
production losses is sustained; and it is further
ORDERED that Commerce’s reliance on SeAH’s annual weighted-average
costs is sustained; and it is further
ORDERED that Commerce’s treatment of PPA’s G&A expenses for purposes
of calculating SeAH’s constructed export price is sustained; and it is further
ORDERED 	that 	Commerce’s 	ministerial 	correction 	to 	its 	calculation 	of
SeAH’s dumping margin is sustained; and it is further
ORDERED that Commerce’s decision to adjust NEXTEEL’s prime and non-
prime costs is remanded for further explanation or reconsideration consistent with
this opinion; and it is further
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 31 of 32

Consol. Court No. 19-00112 	Page 32
PUBLIC VERSION
ORDERED that Commerce shall file its remand redetermination with the
court within 90 days of this date; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall have 30 days thereafter to file comments on
the remand redetermination; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall have 30 days to file their replies to
comments on the remand redetermination; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall have 14 days thereafter to file the Joint
Appendix; and it is further
ORDERED that Commerce shall file the administrative record within 14 days
of the date of filing of its remand redetermination.
/s/ Claire R. Kelly
Claire R. Kelly, Judge
Dated: 	June 7, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:19-cv-00112-CRK Document 111 Filed 06/15/21 Page 32 of 32