Court Opinion

ID: 9409970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 21:02:01.809322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.526470
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 23-104

         UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

NUCOR TUBULAR PRODUCTS
INC.,

       Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES,
                                          Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
       Defendant,
                                          Court No. 21-00543
and

PRODUCTOS LAMINADOS DE
MONTERREY S.A. DE C.V.,
PROLAMSA, INC., AND
MAQUILACERO S.A. DE C.V.,

       Defendant-Intervenors.

                           OPINION AND ORDER

[Sustaining the remand determination of the administrative review by the U.S.
Department of Commerce in the antidumping duty investigation of heavy walled
rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico.]

                                                             Dated: July 19, 2023

Alan H. Price, Robert E. DeFrancesco, III, and Jake R. Frischknecht, Wiley Rein
LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Nucor Tubular Products, Inc.

Claudia Burke, Assistant Director, and Kara M. Westercamp, Trial Attorney,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Court No. 21-00543                                                           Page 2

Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With them on the brief were
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M.
McCarthy, Director. Of Counsel on the brief was Ayat Mujais, Attorney,
International Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce.

David E. Bond, Allison J.G. Kepkay, and C. Alex Dilley, White & Case, LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenors Productos Laminados de Monterrey
S.A. de C.V. and Prolamsa, Inc.

Diana Dimitriuc Quaia, John M. Gurley, and Yun Gao, ArentFox Schiff LLP, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.

      Choe-Groves, Judge: This action concerns the import of heavy walled

rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Mexico, subject to the final

affirmative determination in an antidumping duty investigation by the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded

Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Mexico (“Final Results”), 86 Fed. Reg. 41,448

(Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 2, 2021) (final results of antidumping duty

administrative review; 2018–2019), and accompanying Issues and Decision Mem.

(“Final IDM”), ECF No. 26-2.

      Before the Court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Order (“Remand Redetermination”), ECF No. 52-1, which the Court ordered in

Nucor Tubular Products Inc. v. United States (“Nucor I”), 47 CIT __, 619 F. Supp.

3d 1279, 1287 (2023). Defendant-Intervenor Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.

(“Maquilacero”) filed Defendant-Intervenor Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.’s
Court No. 21-00543                                                                 Page 3

Comments in Opposition to Remand Redetermination. Def.-Interv.’s Cmts. Opp’n

Remand Redetermination (“Maquilacero’s Cmts. Opp’n”), ECF No. 54.

Defendant United States (“Defendant”) filed Defendant’s Response to Comments

on Remand Redetermination. Def.’s Resp. Cmts. Remand Redetermination

(“Def.’s Resp. Cmts.”), ECF No. 55. Plaintiff Nucor Tubular Products Inc.

(“Nucor”) filed Plaintiff Nucor Tubular Product Inc.’s Comments in Support of

Remand Redetermination. Pl.’s Cmts. Supp. Remand Redetermination (“Nucor’s

Cmts. Supp.”), ECF No. 56. Defendant-Intervenors Productos Laminados de

Monterrey S.A. de C.V. and Prolamsa, Inc. (collectively, “Prolamsa”) did not file

comments in response to the Remand Redetermination. For the reasons discussed

below, the Court sustains the Remand Redetermination.

                                  BACKGROUND

      The Court presumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

history of this case and recites the facts relevant to the Court’s review of the

Remand Redetermination. See Nucor I, 47 CIT at __, 619 F. Supp. 3d at 1282–83.

      Commerce published its final determination in the antidumping duty

investigation of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

from Mexico. Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

From Mexico, 81 Fed. Reg. 47,352 (Dep’t of Commerce July 21, 2016) (final

determination of sales at less than fair value). Commerce published its
Court No. 21-00543                                                            Page 4

antidumping duty order in the Federal Register. Heavy Walled Rectangular

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

the Republic of Turkey, 81 Fed. Reg. 62,865 (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 13, 2016)

(antidumping duty orders).

      After receiving requests to conduct administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order, Commerce initiated an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order covering heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Mexico. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Administrative Reviews, 84 Fed. Reg. 61,011 (Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 12,

2019). Commerce selected Maquilacero and Prolamsa as mandatory respondents.

See Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from

Mexico (“Preliminary Results”), 86 Fed. Reg. 7067, 7067 (Dep’t of Commerce

Jan. 26, 2021) (preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review;

2018–2019) and accompanying Prelim. Decision Mem. (“Prelim. DM”), PR 191;

see also Commerce’s Mem. Re: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Mexico: 2018–2019 Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Resp. Selection Mem. (Dec. 19, 2019) at 1, PR 21.1 Commerce published

the preliminary results and supporting calculations. Preliminary Results, 86 Fed.

1
  Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PR”) and public
remand record (“PRR”) document numbers filed in this case, ECF Nos. 45, 58.
Court No. 21-00543                                                            Page 5

Reg. 7067; see also Commerce’s Mem. Re: Preliminary Results Margin

Calculation for Maquilacero S.A. de. C.V. (Jan. 15, 2021), PR 192. Commerce

published its Final Results and supporting calculations. Final Results, 86 Fed.

Reg. 41,448; Final IDM.

      Nucor submitted ministerial error comments addressing the margin

calculations for both Prolamsa and Maquilacero. Pl.’s Ministerial Error Cmts.

(Aug. 2, 2021) (“Ministerial Error Comments”), PR 253. Commerce issued its

ministerial error determination. See Commerce’s Mem. Re: Ministerial Error

Allegations in the Final Results of the 2018–2019 Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review on Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes

and Tubes from Mexico (“Ministerial Error Mem.”) (Aug. 20, 2021), PR 259.

Nucor challenged Commerce’s determinations in the Final Results regarding

Prolamsa and Maquilacero. Pl.’s R. 56.2 Mot. J. Agency R., ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34.

      In Nucor I, the Court concluded that Commerce’s use of zeros in its cost

calculation regarding Maquilacero was ministerial in nature and that Nucor’s

comments challenging Commerce’s ministerial error were timely. Nucor I, 47 CIT

at __, 619 F. Supp. 3d at 1286. The Court granted Defendant’s request for remand

regarding the alleged double-conversion error for Prolamsa. Id. at 1286–87.

      In the Remand Redetermination, Commerce determined that the Ministerial

Error Comments submitted by Nucor were timely. Remand Redetermination at 1–
Court No. 21-00543                                                              Page 6

2. Commerce reviewed its calculations with respect to both Maquilacero and

Prolamsa and adjusted each company’s dumping margins. Id. at 2–3. On remand,

Commerce determined that the revised weighted-average dumping margin for

Prolamsa is 2.11% and the weighted-average dumping margin for Maquilacero is

3.48%. Id. at 3. Commerce determined that the revised rate for the non-selected

companies is 2.51%. Id. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Court

sustains Commerce’s Remand Determination.

               JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

      The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction under 19 U.S.C.

§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court authority to

review actions contesting the final results of an administrative review of an

antidumping duty order. The Court shall hold unlawful any determination found to

be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in

accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The Court reviews

determinations made on remand for compliance with the Court’s remand order.

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38 CIT 727, 730, 992 F.

Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Court No. 21-00543                                                            Page 7

                                  DISCUSSION

      I.     Maquilacero’s Quarterly Cost Methodology

      Maquilacero challenges Commerce’s Remand Redetermination, arguing:

(1) the error that Nucor alleged regarding Commerce’s determination of normal

value in Maquilacero’s dumping margin calculation was not ministerial in nature;

(2) the error that Nucor alleged regarding Commerce’s determination of normal

value in Maquilacero’s dumping margin calculation was discoverable after

publication of the Preliminary Results; and (3) Commerce was not required to

correct the error that Nucor alleged regarding Commerce’s normal value

determination in Maquilacero’s dumping margin calculation. Maquilacero’s Cmts.

Opp’n at 1. Maquilacero contends that Commerce departed from its established

practice and applied a relaxed standard, contrary to 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(c)(1),

when Commerce “correct[ed] a ministerial error that existed in the Preliminary

Results but was only raised by Nucor for the first time after the Final Results were

issued.” Id. at 2. Maquilacero asserts that Commerce was not required to

recalculate the dumping margin with respect to Maquilacero, but only needed to

“provide adequate consideration to Nucor’s allegation.” Id.

      Defendant disagrees with Maquilacero that Commerce’s recalculation of

Maquilacero’s dumping margin was inappropriate, and argues that Nucor’s
Court No. 21-00543                                                              Page 8

ministerial error allegation was timely and in line with the Court’s remand order.

Def.’s Resp. Cmts. at 8.

      The Court notes that Maquilacero reiterates arguments that the Court

resolved in Nucor I. See generally Maquilacero’s Cmts. Opp’n; see also Nucor I,

47 CIT __, 619 F. Supp. 3d 1279. First, regarding Maquilacero’s contention that

the errors were not ministerial in nature, this Court in Nucor I addressed ministerial

errors and held that the errors alleged by Nucor were ministerial in nature. Nucor

I, 47 CIT at __, 619 F. Supp. 3d at 1285–86. Second, regarding Maquilacero’s

contention that the errors were discoverable after the Preliminary Results, this

Court held that the errors alleged by Nucor were not discoverable until after the

publication of the Final Results. Id. at 1286. This Court held that “[b]ecause the

unintentional errors became apparent only in the Final Results, the Court concludes

that . . . Nucor was permitted to address new ministerial errors that arose after

Commerce completed its constructed cost calculations for normal value in the

Final Results.” Id. Because Maquilacero has not convinced the Court that

Commerce violated an established practice, and the Court previously held that

Nucor’s Ministerial Error Comments were timely submitted, the Court is not

persuaded by Maquilacero’s contention that Commerce applied a “relaxed standard

that conflicts with . . . [an established practice under] 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(c)(1).”

Maquilacero’s Cmts. Opp’n at 2. Third, Maquilacero contends that Commerce
Court No. 21-00543                                                                Page 9

was not required to correct the ministerial errors because “the Court’s remand

order did not expressly direct Commerce to recalculate Maquilacero’s margin.” Id.

at 6. This Court remanded the Final Results and instructed Commerce to

reconsider its calculations consistent with the Court’s opinion. Nucor I, 47 CIT at

__, 619 F. Supp. 3d at 1287. On remand, Commerce determined that the errors

alleged by Nucor were ministerial in nature and that Nucor’s ministerial error

allegations were timely submitted. Remand Redetermination at 1–2, 8–10, 13–17.

Commerce reconsidered the substance of Nucor’s ministerial error allegations and

recalculated Maquilacero’s margin. Id. at 13–17. Based on the foregoing, the

Court concludes that Commerce’s Remand Redetermination is in accordance with

the law.

      Maquilacero challenges Commerce’s Remand Redetermination as not

supported by substantial evidence. See Maquilacero’s Cmts. Opp’n at 4–5. In

calculating Maquilacero’s dumping margin, Commerce relied on Maquilacero’s

cost of production database submitted on September 10, 2020, in which

Maquilacero reported its hot-rolled coil cost for each quarter of the period of

review. Final IDM at 10; see also Commerce’s Mem. Re: Prelim. Results Margin

Calc. Maquilacero (“Maquilacero’s Prelim. Margin Calc. Mem.”) (Jan. 15, 2021)

at 1, PR 7; Commerce’s Mem. Re: Cost Prod. Constructed Value Calc.

Adjustments Prelim. Results Maquilacero (“Macuilacero’s Prelim. Cost Calc.
Court No. 21-00543                                                               Page 10

Mem.”) (Jan. 15, 2021) at 1–2, PR 9. However, Commerce initially used

sequential values (i.e., .1, .2, .3 . . .) rather than Maquilacero’s reported quarterly

hot-rolled coil price data. Final IDM at 10–11. Nucor contested the use of

sequential values, and Commerce subsequently removed the sequential values,

inadvertently replacing them with zeros for the quarter immediately before the

period of review (i.e., Q0). See Nucor I, 47 CIT __, 619 F. Supp. 3d at 1284; see

also Pl.’s Ministerial Error Cmts.; Ministerial Error Mem. On remand, Commerce

conceded that it “did not intend to include pre-[period of review] window period

sales in [Commerce’s] full [period of review] averaging calculation.” Remand

Redetermination at 9. Commerce thus adjusted the cost recovery benchmark (an

average of all period of review quarterly costs, designed to evaluate whether sales

determined to be “below cost” in a particular quarter were “above cost” when

compared to the period of review average) by revising the programming language

that the Court previously held was responsible for the ministerial error, and instead

limited the quarters under consideration to only those within the period of review

(i.e., Q1–Q4). Id. at 10. On remand, Commerce eliminated the ministerial error

that was present in the Final Results, analyzing only the relevant cost data from the

period of review.

      Pursuant to the Court’s remand order in Nucor I, Commerce was instructed

to reconsider the substance of Nucor’s timely submitted Ministerial Error
Court No. 21-00543                                                          Page 11

Comments. Commerce made certain adjustments to address the deficiencies that

Nucor highlighted in its timely submitted Ministerial Error Comments. Id. at 10,

13–17. Commerce recalculated Maquilacero’s dumping margin and arrived at a

more accurate determination, based upon record evidence including Maquilacero’s

cost of production database during the relevant period of review. Id. at 10, 17.

The Court observes that the record evidence from Maquilacero’s cost of production

database and Commerce’s established quarterly cost methodology support

Commerce’s determination that corrections needed to be made to the formulas that

Commerce used in calculating Maquilacero’s dumping margin. Id. at 10, 13–17.

Commerce revised Maquilacero’s dumping margin from 0.00% to the new rate of

3.48%. Id. at 17.

      Because Commerce corrected the ministerial errors present in the Final

Results by removing the inadvertent zeros within the calculation programming and

disregarding data from the period prior to the relevant period of review, the Court

concludes that Commerce’s Remand Redetermination with regard to Maquilacero

is supported by substantial evidence, in accordance with the law, and in

compliance with this Court’s remand order.

      II.    Prolamsa’s Currency Conversion

      The Court granted Commerce’s request for remand regarding Commerce’s

calculation of Prolamsa’s dumping margin in the Final Results. Nucor I, 47 CIT at
Court No. 21-00543                                                            Page 12

__, 619 F. Supp. 3d at 1286–87. On remand, Commerce determined that several

currency conversion mistakes occurred in Commerce’s calculation of the Final

Results. Remand Redetermination at 4–8. Commerce addressed each currency

conversion error by: (1) converting home market packing expenses and home

market inventory carrying costs to U.S. Dollars before calculating home market net

price; and (2) correcting the foreign unit dollar price equation to only convert the

level of trade adjustment and difference in merchandise adjustment variables into

U.S. Dollars. Id. at 7.

      Commerce addressed the comments provided by interested parties and

revised its calculation formula to account for any remaining double conversion

errors. Id. at 8. Commerce agreed with Prolamsa that Commerce made certain

errors in Prolamsa’s margin calculation in the Draft Results of Redetermination.

Id. at 12; see also Prolamsa’s Cmts. Draft Results Redetermination Pursuant Court

Order (“Prolamsa’s Comments on Draft Remand Redetermination”) (Mar. 8,

2023), PRR 6. Commerce changed the formulas that it used to calculate

Prolamsa’s home market net price and foreign unit dollar price to eliminate the

double conversion errors. Remand Redetermination at 12–13. Commerce revised

Prolamsa’s dumping margin from 0.00% to the new rate of 2.11%. Id. at 17.

Prolamsa did not submit comments in opposition to Commerce’s Remand

Redetermination.
Court No. 21-00543                                                         Page 13

      Because Commerce addressed the double conversion errors first highlighted

by Nucor’s Ministerial Error Comments, and subsequently corrected the remaining

errors highlighted by Prolamsa’s Comments on Draft Remand Redetermination,

the Court concludes that the results of Commerce’s Remand Redetermination with

regard to Prolamsa are supported by substantial evidence, in accordance with the

law, and comply with this Court’s remand order.

                                 CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains the Final Results, 86 Fed. Reg.

41,448, as amended by the Remand Redetermination, ECF No. 52-1. Judgment

will issue accordingly.

                                                       /s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
                                                    Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge

Dated:      July 19, 2023
         New York, New York