Trade Updates for Week of January 16, 2019

United States Court of International Trade

Remanded Decision in Part in Oil Country Tubular Goods Case

Before the Court in Nexteel Co. et. al. v. United States et. al., Slip Op. 19-01, Court No. 17-00091 (January 2, 2019) was the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the 2014–2015 administrative review of the antidumping duty order of oil country tubular goods from Korea. The case was the first time that the Commerce found the existence of a particular market situation in an administrative review under The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. The issue was just one of the numerous issues the court looked at in the case.

The 2015 Act allowed Commerce to find “the existence of a particular market situation 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.” Id. at 13-14. The Court said that Commerce failed “to substantiate its finding of one particular market situation with evidence on the record.” Id. at 15. The agency initially determined that no special market situation existed. Over the investigation, the agency “did not receive any new evidence regarding conditions in the Korean market.” Id. The Court held “Commerce did not explain adequately how the same record supported both its previous conclusion of no particular market situation and its subsequent finding of a single particular market situation.” Id. The Court remanded two additional issues for further consideration, including NEXTEEL’s input costs based a separate proceeding, and Commerce’s dumping margin calculation for non-examined companies. The remaining determinations by Commerce were found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Default Judgment Granted

Before the Court in United States v. Selecta Corp., LLC, Slip Op. 19-04, Court No. 11-00089 (January 11, 2019) was the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment in an action brought to recover a civil penalty.  The Government sought “$51,102, plus post-judgment interest and costs, stemming from administrative penalty procedures conducted by Customs against defendant “for misclassifying and undervaluing imported merchandise on 1295 entries” of medical scrubs and lab coats Id. at 2. The Court granted the motion because the defendant “failed to respond in any way since the issuance of the penalty claim and throughout the pendency of this litigation before the court.” Id. at 4.