Husteel Co. v. United States

77 F.Supp.3d 1286

HUSTEEL COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff

v. UNITED STATES, DefendantandWheatland Tube Company, and United States Steel Corporation, Defendant-intervenors.

Slip Op. 15–66.

Court No. 13–00243.

United States Court of International Trade.

June 23, 2015.

Donald B. Cameron and Brady W. Mills, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff and consolidated defendant-intervenor Husteel Co., Ltd. With them on the brief were Julie C. Mendoza, R. Will Planert, Mary S. Hodgins, and Sarah S. Sprinkle.

Daniel L. Schneiderman, King & Spalding LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-intervenor and consolidated plaintiff Wheatland Tube Co. With him on the brief were Gilbert B. Kaplan and Joshua M. Snead.

Robert E. Lighthizer and Jeffrey D. Gerrish, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor and consolidated plaintiff-intervenor United States Steel Corp.

L. Misha Preheim, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant United States. With him on the briefs were Claudia Burke, Assistant Director, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General. Of counsel on the briefs were David W. Richardson, Senior Counsel, and Daniel J. Calhoun, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

OPINION

STANCEU, Chief Judge:

This consolidated action arose from a final determination (the “Final Results”) that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the “Department”) issued in June 2013 to conclude the nineteenth periodic administrative review of an antidumping duty (“AD”) order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (“subject merchandise”) from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”).¹ Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010–2011, 78 Fed.Reg. 35,248 (Int'l Trade Admin. June 12, 2013) (“Final Results ”). The nineteenth review affected entries of subject merchandise made between November 1, 2010 and October 31, 2011 (“period of review” or “POR”). Id.

Before the court are two motions for judgment on the agency record pursuant to USCIT Rule 56.2. Plaintiff Husteel Co., Ltd. (“Husteel”), a Korean producer and exporter of subject merchandise, claims the Final Results are affected by errors that were present in a version of the database of its home market sales that Husteel submitted to Commerce. Mot. of Pl. Husteel Co., Ltd. for J. upon the Agency R. (Dec. 23, 2013), ECF No. 36 (“Husteel's Mot.”). According to Husteel, Commerce was required, but refused, to issue amended final results based on a corrected version of the home-market-sales database that Husteel had submitted during the review, despite Husteel's bringing the errors to the Department's attention in “ministerial error comments” submitted after publication of the Final Results in accordance with the Department's regulations. Consolidated plaintiff Wheatland Tube Co. (“Wheatland”), a domestic steel pipe producer, claims that Commerce unlawfully failed to respond to a notice of supplemental authority Wheatland filed with Commerce during the administrative review that pertained to the Department's decision not to apply a “targeted dumping” analysis to Husteel during the review. Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (Dec. 23, 2013), ECF No. 38 (“Wheatland's Mot.”). Wheatland also claims that Commerce, when calculating Husteel's margin, failed to correct erroneous weight conversion factors affecting the comparison between Husteel's home market and U.S. sales.

For the reasons discussed in this Opinion, the court denies relief on the claims brought by Husteel and Wheatland in this action and affirms the Final Results.

I. Background

A. The Administrative Proceeding before Commerce

On December 30, 2011, Commerce initiated the nineteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 Fed.Reg. 82,268 (Int'l Trade Admin. Dec. 30, 2011). Commerce selected for individual examination as “mandatory respondents” two Korean exporter/producers of subject merchandise, Husteel and Hyundai HYSCO (“HYSCO”).² Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010–2011, 77 Fed.Reg. 73,015, 73,015 (Int'l Trade Admin. Dec. 7, 2012) (“Prelim. Results ”); Resp't Selection Mem. 1 (Jan. 31, 2012) (Public Admin.R.Doc. No. 22) (Resp't Selection Mem. ).

Commerce issued the preliminary results of the review (“Preliminary Results”) on December 7, 2012, preliminarily assigning dumping margins of 6.54% to Husteel and zero to HYSCO. Prelim. Results, 77 Fed.Reg. at 73,016 ; Prelim. Decision Mem. for the Admin. Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, A–580–809, ARP 10–11, at 2 (Dec. 3, 2012) (Public Admin.R.Doc. No. 135), available at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/KOREA–SOUTH/2012–29635–1.pdf (last visited June 17, 2015) (“Prelim. Decision Mem. ”).

In the Final Results, published on June 12, 2013, Commerce assigned margins of 3.99% to Husteel and 0.80% to HYSCO. Final Results, 78 Fed.Reg. at 35,249. On the same day, Husteel filed its ministerial error comments, alleging that Commerce erroneously failed to use a revised database on Husteel's home market sales that Husteel had submitted as an attachment to its Third Supplemental Questionnaire Response. Certain Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Ministerial Error Comments (June 12, 2013), ECF No. 41–19 (Public Admin.R.Doc. No. 189) (“Husteel's Ministerial Error Comments ”). U.S. Steel Corp. filed rebuttal comments, arguing that Commerce should not amend the Final Results. U.S. Steel Corp. Rebuttal Ministerial Error Comments (June 17, 2013) (Public Admin.R.Doc. No. 205). Commerce issued a response to Husteel's ministerial error comments on June 26, 2013, concluding that no amendment to the Final Results was warranted. Antidumping Duty Admin. Review of Circular Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Ministerial Error Comments Regarding Husteel Co., Ltd. (June 26, 2013) (Public Admin.R.Doc. No. 207) (“Dep't's Ministerial Error Resp. ”).

B. Procedural History before the Court

Husteel initiated this action challenging the Final Results by filing a summons and a complaint on July 8, 2013. Summons, ECF No. 1; Compl., ECF No. 6. Wheatland, a petitioner in the administrative review, initiated a separate action challenging the Final Results by filing a summons on July 11, 2013 and a complaint on August 7, 2013. Summons, ECF No. 1 (Ct. No. 13–00249); Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, ECF No. 10 (Ct. No. 13–00249); Resp't Selection Mem. 1.

On August 22, 2013, the court granted a consent motion by United States Steel Corp. (“U.S. Steel Corp.”), a domestic steel pipe producer and petitioner in the administrative review, to intervene as a plaintiff in Wheatland's action. Consent Mot. to Intervene as of Right as Pl.-Intervenor ¶ 2, ECF No. 15 (Court No. 13–00249); Order, ECF No. 21 (Court No. 13–00249) (granting motion); Resp't Selection Mem. 1. The court granted consent motions by Wheatland and U.S. Steel Corp. to intervene as defendants in Husteel's action. Order (July 12, 2013), ECF No. 18; Order (Aug. 6, 2013), ECF No. 24. The court also granted a consent motion by Husteel to intervene as a defendant in Wheatland's action. Order (Aug. 22, 2013), ECF No. 20 (Ct. No. 13–00249).

Husteel and Wheatland filed their motions for judgment on the agency record on December 23, 2013. Husteel's Mot. 1; Br. of Pl. Husteel Co., Ltd. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. upon the Agency R., ECF No. 36–1 (“Husteel's Br.”); Wheatland's Mot. 1; Rule 56.2 Br. of Wheatland Tube Co. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 38–1 (“Wheatland's Br.”). Husteel and Wheatland filed responses opposing each other's motions. Resp. Br. of Pl. Husteel Co., Ltd. in Opp'n to Def.-Intervenor Wheatland Tube Co.'s Mot. for J. upon the Agency R. (Apr. 29, 2014), ECF No. 50; Resp. Br. of Wheatland Tube Co. in Opp'n to Husteel Co., Ltd.'s Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (Apr. 29, 2014), ECF No. 54. Defendant United States opposed both motions. Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' R. 56.2 Mots. for J. (Apr. 29, 2014), ECF No. 52. Husteel and Wheatland each filed a reply. Reply Br. of Pl. Husteel Co., Ltd. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. upon the Agency R. (June 24, 2014), ECF No. 63; Reply Br. of Wheatland Tube Co. in Supp. of its Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (June 24, 2014), ECF No. 64. Since intervening in this action, U.S. Steel Corp. has filed no motions or replies.

II. Discussion

A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The court exercises jurisdiction according to section 201 of the Customs Court Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), under which the U.S. Court of International Trade is granted exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Tariff Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 1516a.³ In reviewing the Department's decisions in antidumping reviews, the court will hold unlawful determinations that are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B). In deciding whether Commerce has acted lawfully, the court must examine the whole of the record and evaluate “whether the evidence and reasonable inferences from the record support” the Department's findings. Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. United States, 6 F.3d 1511, 1520 (Fed.Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

B. Husteel's Challenge to the Rejection of the Ministerial Error Comments

Husteel's claim, in essence, is that: (1) the Final Results erroneously overstated Husteel's antidumping duty margin because Commerce...