Summary
This Federal Circuit opinion affirms the Court of International Trade's decision upholding the Department of Commerce's final antidumping duty determination on utility scale wind towers imported from Korea. The court addresses the appellant's challenges regarding Commerce's adjustment of reported steel plate input costs and its selection of surrogate financial data to calculate constructed value profit and selling expenses. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court concludes that Commerce's methodologies were supported by the record and consistent with the Tariff Act of 1930.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Commerce’s adjustment of DKSC’s reported steel‑plate costs was supported by substantial evidence.
- Whether Commerce’s selection of SSHC’s consolidated financial statements as surrogate data was a reasonable method under 19 U.S.C. §1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii).
Holdings
- The adjustment was supported by substantial evidence; the Court affirms the CIT’s decision.
- The selection was a reasonable method supported by substantial evidence; the Court affirms the CIT’s decision.
Key quotations
“Commerce concluded that “the overwhelming factor that caused the differences in the steel plate costs [for the final CONNUMs] was the timing of the steel plate purchases.”” (13)
““Commerce’s choice of SSHC’s twelve‑month financial statement, almost entirely reflective of non‑steel, non‑Korean sales, is the better proxy than SeHC’s four‑month financial statement, reflective of only steel sales in Korea.”” (16)
Factual background
Dongkuk S&C Co., Ltd. is a Korean producer of utility‑scale wind towers. Commerce investigated imports of those towers, found them sold at less than fair value, and issued a final antidumping duty order based on constructed value calculations that adjusted steel‑plate costs and used consolidated financial statements of SeAH Steel Holdings Corp. (SSHC) as surrogate data.
Procedural history
The CIT affirmed Commerce’s final determination that Dongkuk S&C Co. (DKSC) sold wind towers at less than fair value and imposed an antidumping duty. DKSC appealed, arguing Commerce erred in adjusting steel‑plate costs and in selecting surrogate financial data. The Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s decision for substantial‑evidence compliance.