Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

sustaineddumping

statutesustainedrespondent

Related Cases

Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 518 F.Supp.3d 1309

Facts

Hyundai Steel, a Korean producer and exporter, and U.S. Steel, a domestic producer, filed suits against the Department of Commerce's final results from the first administrative review of an antidumping duty order on cold-rolled steel flat products from Korea. Hyundai contended that Commerce's use of adverse facts available was unjustified, arguing it had complied with requests for information. U.S. Steel challenged the assignment of an all-others rate to Hyundai's affiliated freight company, Company A, which it argued was unlawful as Company A was neither a producer nor an exporter of the subject merchandise.

Hyundai, a Korean producer and exporter of subject merchandise, and a mandatory respondent in the review, contends that Commerce's use of adverse facts available in the Final Results cannot be sustained. See Hyundai's Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 31-2 (“Hyundai's Br.”); Hyundai's Reply Br., ECF No. 42; see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) – (b) .

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the Department of Commerce's use of adverse facts available was justified and whether the assignment of the all-others rate to Company A was lawful.

The court finds that Department's use of facts available, under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) based on Hyundai's alleged “withholding” of requested information, cannot be sustained because Commerce failed to comply with its obligation, under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d) , to notify Hyundai of the nature of the alleged deficiency(ies) in Hyundai's questionnaire responses and provide the company an opportunity to remediate.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) regarding the use of facts available and the requirements for notifying parties of deficiencies in their submissions under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d).

The statute provides that, if “necessary information is not available on the record, or … an interested party or any other person … withholds information that has been requested by [Commerce]” or “significantly impedes a proceeding,” Commerce shall use “facts otherwise available” in reaching a determination.

Analysis

The court found that Commerce's use of adverse facts available was not supported by substantial evidence because it failed to notify Hyundai of the specific deficiencies in its reporting and did not provide an opportunity to remedy them. The court also noted that the assignment of the all-others rate to Company A was inappropriate since Company A did not meet the statutory requirements for such a designation.

Conclusion

The court sustained in part and remanded in part, directing Commerce to reconsider its use of facts available and the assignment of rates, while upholding the denial of U.S. Steel's request to rescind the review regarding Company A.

The court sustains Commerce's finding that U.S. Steel's request to rescind the review with respect to Company A was untimely, and its decision not to collapse Company A.

Who won?

Hyundai Steel prevailed in part as the court found that the use of adverse facts available was not justified, while U.S. Steel's request to rescind the review regarding Company A was denied.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Generra Sportswear Co. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 10 C.I.T. 794, 1986 WL 14557, 8 ITRD 1689

Florsheim Shoe Co. v. U.S., 19 C.I.T. 295, 880 F.Supp. 848, 17 ITRD 1289

Cherokee Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Civil Rights Enforcement Agency of City of St. Louis, 662 S.W.2d 919, 61 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1807

Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. U.S., 21 C.I.T. 166, 957 F.Supp. 281, 19 ITRD 1216

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199, 3 Dall. 199, 1796 WL 882, 1 L.Ed. 568