Slip Op. 24
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
(5(ö/,'(0,59(d(/,. )$%5,.$/$5,7$ù,
Plaintiff,
Y
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL 75$'(&200,66,21, Before: *DU\6.DW]PDQQ, Judge Defendant, Court No22-00351 and
UNITED STATES STEEL C25325$7,21&/(9(/$1' CLIFFS ,1&67((/'<1$0,&6,1&66$% ENTERPRISES, LLC, and NUCOR CORPORATION,
Defendant-Intervenors
OPINION
[ The court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. ]
Dated: June 20, 2024
David L. Simon, Law Office of David L. Simon, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., argued for Plaintiff (UH÷OL'HPLUYHdHOLN)DEULNDODUL7$ù :LWKKLPRQWKHEULHIZDV0DUN%/HKQDUGW.
Spencer -7RXELD, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. International Trade Commission, of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant the United States International Trade Commission. With him RQWKHEULHI were 'RPLQLF/%LDQFKL, General Counsel, and Andrea C. Casson, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation.
Jeffrey D. Gerrish, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant-Intervenors United States Steel Corporation, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., Steel Dynamics, Inc., 66$%(QWHUSULVHV LLC, and Nucor Corporation. :LWKKLPRQWKHEULHIZHUH5RJHU%6FKDJULQ and Nicholas Phillips. Court No. 22-00351 Page 2
7KRPDV0%HOLQH and Sarah E. Shulman, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor United States Steel Corporation.
Alan H. Price, ChristopheU % :HOG, and 7KHRGRUH 3 %UDFNHP\UH, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Nucor Corporation.
Stephen P. Vaughn, Neal Reynolds, and %DUEDUD0HGUDGR, King & Spalding LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Katzmann, Judge: This case requires the court to peer into a NDOHLGRVFRSHRI administrative
determinations related to the issuance of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports
of hot-UROOHGVWHHOIURP7XUNH\.
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) determined that hot-rolled steel
flat products imported IURP7XUNH\ZHUHEHLQJVROG in the United States at less than fair value.
See Certain Hot-Rolled SteHO)ODW3URGXFWV)URPWKH5HSXEOLFRI7XUNH\ )LQDO'HWHUPLQDWLRQRI
6DOHV DW /HVV 7KDQ )DLU 9DOXH )HG 5HJ 'HS¶W &RP $XJ ³Original
Antidumping Determination”). The U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”), after
conducting its own investigation, determined that these less-than-fair-value (“dumped”) import
sales inflicted material injury on a U.S. industry. Certain Hot-5ROOHG6WHHO)ODW3URGXFWV IURP
$XVWUDOLD%UD]LO-DSDQ.RUHDWKH1HWKHUODQGV7XUNH\, and the United Kingdom)HG5HJ
66996 (ITC Sept. 29, 2016) (“Original Determination”). Commerce then issued an antidumping
duty order. See Certain Hot-5ROOHG6WHHO)ODW3URGXFWV)URP$XVWUDOLD%UD]LO-DSDQWKH5HSXEOLF
of Korea, the Netherlands WKH 5HSXEOLF RI 7XUNH\ DQG WKH 8QLWHG .LQJGRP $PHQGHG )LQDO
$IILUPDWLYH$QWLGXPSLQJ'HWHUPLQDWLRQVIRU$XVWUDOLDWKH5HSXEOLFRI.RUHDDQGWKH5HSXEOLF
RI 7XUNH\ DQG $QWLGXPSLQJ 'XW\ 2UGHUV, )HG 5HJ 'HS¶W &RP 2FW
(“Antidumping Duty Order”). Court No. 22-00351 Page 3
Three and a half years later, Commerce determined that one EXWQRWDOO RIWKH7XUNLVK
importers of hot-rolled steel that the Commission had investigated was not in fact dumping
merchandise. See Certain Hot-5ROOHG6WHHO)ODW3URGXFWV)URP7XUNH\ 1RWLFHRI&RXUW'HFLVLRQ
1RW LQ +DUPRQ\ :LWK WKH $PHQGHG )LQDO 'HWHUPLQDWLRQ LQ WKH /HVV-Than-)DLU-Value
,QYHVWLJDWLRQ 1RWLFH RI $PHQGHG )LQDO 'HWHUPLQDWLRQ $PHQGHG $QWLGXPSLQJ 'XW\ 2UGHU
Notice of Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order in Part; anG'LVFRQWLQXDWLRQRIWKH–18 and
2018–19 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, in Part)HG5HJ 'HS¶W&RP
May 15, 2020) (“Amended Antidumping Determination”). The Commission then revisited its
original material-injury determination in a five-year “sunset” review. See Hot-5ROOHG6WHHO)URP
$XVWUDOLD%UD]LO-DSDQ1HWKHUODQGV5XVVLD6RXWK.RUHD7XUNH\DQGWKH8QLWHG.LQJGRP
)HG5HJ ,7&'HF 35 ³)LYH-Year Determination”). The Commission
GHWHUPLQHGWKDWUHYRNLQg the DQWLGXPSLQJRUGHUZDVOLNHO\WROHDGWRFRQWLQXDWLRQRUUHFXUUHQFHRI
dumping and material injury. See id.; see also 19 U.S.C. § (c)(1).
In this case, Plaintiff Eregli 'HPLUYH&HOLN)DEULNDODUWL7$6 ³(UGHPLU´ , 1 D7XUNLVK
producer of hot-rolled steel, argues in a Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record that the
Commission’s )LYH-Year Determination XQODZIXOO\IDLOVWRWDNHSURSHUDFFRXQWRI&RPPHUFH¶V
Amended Antidumping Determination. See Compl., Dec. 26, 2022, (&)1R
1 To ensure internal consistency and WR UHGXFH WKH ULVN RI WUDQVFULSWLRQ HUURUV LQ HOHFWURQLF SXEOLFDWLRQIRUPDWVWKHFRXUWLQWKLVRSLQLRQ DSDUWIURPWKLVGHPRQVWUDWLYHIRRWQRWH UHSUHVHQWV 7XUNLVK SURSHU QDPHV ZLWKRXW GLDFULWLFV See Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. United States, 48 CIT __, __ n.1, Slip Op. 24-44, at 2 n.1 (Apr. 11, 2024). Thus, for example, (UH÷OL 'HPLU YH dHOLN )DEULNDODUÕ 7$ù´ EHFRPHV ³(UHJOL 'HPLU YH &HOLN )DEULNDODUWL 7$6´ and ³dRODNR÷OX'LV7LFDUHW$ù´EHFRPHV³&RODNRJOX'LV7LFDUHW$6´ Court No. 22-00351 Page 4
The court concludes that the challenged elements of the )LYH-Year Determination are
VXSSRUWHG E\ VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH and in accordance with law. The court accordingly enters
Judgment on the Agency Record for Defendant (the Commission) and Defendant-Intervenors.
%$&.*5281'
I. Legal and Regulatory Framework
A. Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, requires Commerce to order the imposition of
countervailing duties on imported merchandise upon finding that “the government of a country or
DQ\ SXEOLF HQWLW\ ZLWKLQ WKH WHUULWRU\ RI D FRXQWU\ LV SURYLGLQJ GLUHFWO\ RU LQGLUHFWO\ D
FRXQWHUYDLODEOH VXEVLG\ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH PDQXIDFWXUH SURGXFWLRQ RU H[SRUW RI” that
merchandise. 19 U.S.C. § 1(a)(1); see also id. § HCommerce is also required to order
the imposition of antidumping duties on imported merchandise WKDW³LVEHLQJRULVOLNHO\WREH
sold in the United States at less than its fair value.” Id. § ; see also id. § H. The amount
of an antidumping duty WKDW &RPPHUFH DVVHVVHV LV EDVHG RQ &RPPHUFH’s calculation of a
³GXPSLQJPDUJLQ´ZKLFKLV³WKHDPRXQWE\ZKLFKWKHQRUPDOYDOXHH[FHHGVWKHH[SRUWSULFHRU
FRQVWUXFWHGH[SRUWSULFHRIWKHVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVe.” Id. § $
Commerce cannot impose either type of duty, however, unless the Commission separately
determines (as relevant here) that “an industry in the United States (i) is materially injured, or (ii)
is threatened with material injury . . . E\UHDVRQRILPSRUWVRIWKDWPHUFKDQGLVHRUE\UHDVRQRI
VDOHV RUWKHOLNHOLKRRGRIVDOHV RI >WKHVXEMHFW@PHUFKDQGLVHIRULPSRUWDWLRQ.” Id. §§ D
Court No. 22-00351 Page 5
B. The Commission’s Five-Year Review
(YHU\ILYH\HDUVDIWHUWKHSXEOLFDWLRQRIDQDQWLGXPSLQJRUFRXQWHUYDLOLQJGXW\RUGHUWKH
Commission is required to conduct a “sunset” review of that order. Id. § F Nucor Corp.
v. United States, 32 CIT 1380, 1385, 594 ) Supp. 2d 1320, 1333 (2008), aff’d)G
)HG &LU The Commission¶V WDVN in conducting this review is to determine whether
“revocation of [the] order . . . ZRXOGEHOLNHO\WROHDGWRDFRQWLQXDWLRQRUUHFXUUHQFHRIPDWHULDO
injury within a reasonaEO\ IRUHVHHDEOH WLPH.” 19 U.S.C. § D D ). In doing so, the
Commission is to consider the “lLNHO\YROXPHSULFHHIIHFWDQGLPSDFWRILPSRUWVRIWKHVXEMHFW
PHUFKDQGLVHRQWKHLQGXVWU\LIWKHRUGHULVUHYRNHGRUWKHVXVSHQGHGLQYHVWLJDWLRQLVWHrminated.”
Id. If the Commission determines thaW UHYRFDWLRQ ZRXOG OLNHO\ OHDG WR FRQWLQXHG RU UHFXUUHQW
material injury, Commerce FDQQRWUHYRNHWKHRUGHUId. § G % . %XWLf the Commission
concludes that revocation would not have this effect&RPPHUFHPXVWUHYRNHWKHVXEMHFWRUGHULI
Commerce does not separately determine “WKDWGXPSLQJRUDFRXQWHUYDLODEOHVXEVLG\DVWKHFDVH
PD\ EH ZRXOG EH OLNHO\ WR FRQWLQXH RU UHFXU . . . .” Id. § G $ The Commission’s
material-injury analysis is thus a critical determinant of whether an antidumping or countervailing
duty order will remain in effect after the five-year sunset review.
C. Cumulation in the Five-Year Review Context
In conducting its OLNHO\-material-injury analysis, the Commission “may cumulatively
assess the volume and effect of imports” from multiple source countries if those imports satisfy
certain threshold criteria. 19 U.S.C. § D D . The imports must EH(1) “OLNHO\WRFRPSHWH
ZLWKHDFKRWKHUDQGZLWKGRPHVWLFOLNHSURGXFWVLQWKHUnited States PDUNHW” and (2) QRWEH³OLNHO\
WRKDYHQRGLVFHUQLEOHDGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHGRPHVWLFLQGXVWU\” Id. If these criteria are satisfied, Court No. 22-00351 Page 6
the Commission “may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports RI WKH VXEMHFW
merchandise from all countries” VXEMHFW WR UHYLHZ Id. %XW Ds the word “may” indicates, the
Commission retains discretion not WRPDNH D FXPXODWLYHDVVHVVPHQW (that is, “cumulate”) even
where the statutory criteria are satisfied. Id. § D D ; Nucor )G DW If the
Commission declines to cumulate imports from a source countryLWSURFHHGVWRDOLNHO\-material-
injury analysis for the decumulated imports on an independent, country-specific EDVLV See
19 U.S.C. § D D
6HFWLRQ D GRHV QRW GHOLQHDWH DQ\ factors that the Commission must consider in
determining whether to cumulate imports from a given country. See Nucor, 601 )Gat 1295;
1HHQDK)RXQGU\&RY8QLWHG6Wates&,7 ) Supp. 2d . The
Commission accordingly enjoys “wide latitude” in identifying relevant factors for cumulation in
sunset reviews. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 30 CIT 1995, ) Supp. 2d
1380 (2006). At the same time, however, the Commission’s discretion must ³EHSUHGLFDWHG
upon a judgment anchored in the language and spirit of the relevant statutes and regulations.”
)UHHSRUWMins. Co. v. United States)G )HG&LU
D. De Minimis Margins and Negligibility
When calculating an antidumping duty, Commerce “shall disregard any weighted average
dumping margin that is de minimis . . .” 19 U.S.C. § G D ³>$@ZHLJKWHGDYHUDJHGXPSLQJ
margin is de minimis if it is less than 2 percent ad valorem or the equivalent specific rate for the
VXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVH´Id. § E E As Commerce can apply different weighted average
dumping margins to different respondents in an investigation, id. § %), a de minimis
finding for one respondent does not necessarily compel the termination of an antidumping order
with respect to all respondents. Court No. 22-00351 Page
When calculating a countervailing duty, Commerce is to disregard as de minimis any
FRXQWHUYDLODEOHVXEVLG\ZKHUH “WKHDJJUHJDWHRIWKHQHWFRXQWHUYDLODEOHVXEVLGLHVLVOHVVWKDQ
SHUFHQW DG YDORUHP RU WKH HTXLYDOHQW VSHFLILF UDWH IRU WKH VXEMHFW PHUFKDQGLVH” Id.
§ E E (A); see also id. § G(a)(3).
As these provisions indicate, Commerce’s calculation of a de minimis margin for dumping
or a FRXQWHUYDLODEOHVXEVLG\UHIOHFWVDORZGHJUHHRIGXPSLQJRUVXEVLGL]DWLRQ The Commission’s
QHJOLJLELOLW\DQDO\VLVE\FRQWUDVWLQYROYHVa straightforward comparison of the volume of dumped
RUVXEVLGL]HGLPSRUWVIURPDFRXQWU\DJDLQVWWKHYROXPHRIDOOLPSRUWVRIWKHVDPHPHUFKDQGLVH
from all countries. “[I]PSRUWVIURPD FRXQWU\RI PHUFKDQGLVH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR D GRPHVWLFOLNH
SURGXFW LGHQWLILHG E\ WKH Commission are ‘QHJOLJLEOH’ if such imports account for less than 3
percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States . . . .” Id.
§ 24)(A)(i). In an original (non-sunset) material injury investigation, the Commission is
GLUHFWHGWRWHUPLQDWHWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQXSRQGHWHUPLQLQJQHJOLJLELOLW\Id. § G E % 7KH
five-year review provision, however, does not expressly provide such a requirement. See id.
§ D.
II. History of Relevant Administrative Proceedings
,Q6HSWHPEHUthe Commission determined that the U.S. hot-rolled steel industry was
materially injured or WKUHDWHQHGZLWKPDWHULDOLQMXU\E\less-than-fair-value (that is, “dumped”)
imports of hot-rolled steel from 7XUNH\. See &HUWDLQ +RWဨ5ROOHG 6WHHO )ODW 3URGXFWV IURP
$XVWUDOLD%UD]LO-DSDQ.RUHDWKH1HWKHUODQGV7XUNH\DQGWKH8QLWHG.LQJGRP,QY1RVဨ
7$ဨဨ DQG ဨ7$ဨ ဨ )LQDO 86,7& 3XE , (Sep. 2016) (“Original
Determination Views”); see also Original Determination. Court No. 22-00351 Page 8
$W WKH VDPH WLPH WKH &RPPLVVLRQ WHUPLQDWHG LWV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI PDWHULDO LQMXU\ E\
7XUNLVK LPSRUWV RI KRW-UROOHG VWHHO WKDW UHFHLYHG FRXQWHUYDLODEOH VXEVLGLHV See Original
Determination Views at 14. The Commission explained that Commerce had earlier determined
WKDW 7XUNLVK KRW-rolled steel producer &RODNRJOX 0HWDOXUML $6 and its affiliates (collectively,
³&RODNoglu”) received a de minimis FRXQWHUYDLODEOH VXEVLG\ PDUJLQ Id. at 13 (citing
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-5ROOHG6WHHO)ODW3URGXFWV)URPWKH5HSXEOLF
RI7XUNH\ )LQDO$IILUPDWLYH'HWHUPLQDWLRQ)HG5HJ 'HS¶W&RP$XJ .
7KLVPHDQWWKDWIRUWKHUHPDLQLQJ7XUNLVKSURGXFHUVVXEMHFWWR&RPPHUce’s countervailing duty
order, including Erdemir, ³WKHUHLVQRWDSRWHQWLDOWKDWVXEVLGL]HGVXEMHFWLPSRUWVIURP7XUNH\ZLOO
imminently exceed three percent [that is, the non-QHJOLJLELOLW\WKUHVKROGprovided E\ U.S.C.
§ $ L @RIWRWDOLPSorts.” Id. at 14. %XWEHFDXVH &RODNogOXDWWKHWLPHUHPDLQHGVXEMHFW
to Commerce’s Antidumping OrderWKH&RPPLVVLRQGLGQRWPDNHDVLPLODUQHJOLJLELOLW\ILQGLQJ
with respect to dumped imports of hot-UROOHGVWHHOIURP7XUNH\See id. at 13 & n.52.
Pursuant to the Original Determination, as well as the results of its own investigation, see
Original Antidumping Determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on 7XUNLVK
imports of hot-rolled steel LQ2FWREHUSee Antidumping Duty Order. Commerce calculated
dumping margins DERYH WKH de minimis level for ERWK Erdemir DQG &RODNRJOX Original
Antidumping Determination at 53429.
/DWHU LQ 2FWREHU (UGHPLU DQG &RODNoglu challenged the Original Antidumping
Determination in consolidated actions EHIRUHWKis court. See Eregli Demir ve &HOLN)DEULNDODUL
T.A.S. v. United States, 44 CIT __, __, 435 ) Supp. 3d And after three Court No. 22-00351 Page 9
remands in that case, see id., Commerce amended the Antidumping Duty Order. See Amended
Antidumping Determination.
In the Amended Antidumping Determination, Commerce calculated &RODNRJOX¶VGXPSLQJ
margin as zero and excluded &RODNRJOX¶VLPSRUWVIURPWKHDQWLGXPSLQJGXW\RUGHU See Amended
Antidumping Determination DW %XW&RPPHUFHFODrified that “[t]his exclusion does not
DSSO\ WR PHUFKDQGLVH WKDW LV QRW ERWK SURGXFHG DQG H[SRUWHG E\ &RODNRJOX´ Id. Commerce
calculated aQDERYHde minimis dumping margin of for Erdemir and accordingly left the
antidumping order in place with respect to Erdemir’s imports of dumped merchandise. See id.;
see also 19 U.S.C. § E E .
On May 18, 2020, Erdemir requested that the Commission reconsider its Original
Determination RQDFFRXQWRI&RPPHUFH¶VH[FOXVLRQRI&RODNRJOXIURPWKHantidumping order in
the Amended Antidumping Determination. See Letter from Erdemir to ITC, re: Request for
Reconsideration (May 18, 2020), P.R. 1 (“Reconsideration Request”).
One year later, following, WKH 86 &RXUW RI $SSHDOV IRU WKH )HGHUDO &LUFXLW ³)HGHUDO
Circuit”) dismissed an appeal from this court’s decision sustaining Commerce’s Amended
Antidumping Determination. See (UHJOL'HPLUYH&HOLN)DEULNDODUL7$6Y8QLWHG6WDWHV, No.
20- )HG&LUGLVPLVVHG-XQH 35; see also Eregli Demir, 435 ) Supp. 3d .
Erdemir then requested that the Commission initiate a Changed Circumstances Review of its
Original Determination on account of the finality of the Amended Antidumping Determination.
See Letter from Erdemir to ITC, re: Changed Circumstances Review Request (Sept. 10, 2021),
P.R. 18 (“CCR Request”) 7KH &RPPLVVLRQGHQLHGERWKWKH5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQ5HTXHVWDQG WKH
CCR RHTXHVWRQ1RYHPEHU See Denial of Request TR,QVWLWXWHD6HFWLRQ E 5HYLHZ Court No. 22-00351 Page 10
'HQLDO RI 5HTXHVW 7R ,QVWLWXWH D 6HFWLRQ E 5HYLHZ RU 5HFRQVLGHUDWLRQ 3URFHHGLQJ
Concerning the Commission’V $IILUPDWLYH 'HWHUPLQDWLRQ LQ ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ 1R -TA-1296
)LQDO +RW-5ROOHG6WHHO)ODW3URGXFWV)URP7XUNH\)HG5HJ ,7&1RY
P.R. 356.
Meanwhile, the Commission conducted a five-year sunset review of the Original
Determination. (UGHPLUVXEPLWWHGDSUH-KHDULQJDGPLQLVWUDWLYHEULHIRQ6HSWHPEHUSee
Pre-+HDULQJ%U6HSW35&57KH&RPPLVVLRQKHOGDSXEOLFKHDULQJRQ
6HSWHPEHUsee Hr’g 7U6HSW35DQG(UGHPLUVXEPLWWHGD post-hearing
DGPLQLVWUDWLYH EULHI VKRUWO\ DIWHUZDUG See Post-Hr’J %U 6HSW 35 &5
(“Erdemir’s Post-+U¶J%U´ .
7KH &RPPLVVLRQ SXEOLVKHG WKH UHVXOWV RI its sunset review in the )HGHUDO 5HJLVWHU on
'HFHPEHU. See )LYH-Year Determination. The Commission determined that UHYRNLQJWKH
antidumping duty order on 7XUNLVK LPSRUWV RI hot-rolled steel “ZRXOG EH OLNHO\ WR OHDG WR
FRQWLQXDWLRQRUUHFXUUHQFHRIPDWHULDOLQMXU\WRDQLQGXVWU\LQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVZLWKLQDUHDVRQDEO\
foreVHHDEOHWLPH” Id. at .
The Commission explained its reasoning at greater length in a separate Commission-issued
SXEOLFDWLRQ See Hot-5ROOHG 6WHHO IURP $XVWUDOLD %UD]LO -DSDQ 1HWKHUODQGV 5XVVLD 6RXWK
.RUHD7XUNH\DQGWKH8QLWHG.LQJGRP86,7& 3XE1R,QY1RV-TA-545-546 and
-TA-1291- 5HYLHZ DQG-TA- )RXUWK5HYLHZ 1RY 35 (“3XEOLF Court No. 22-00351 Page 11
Views”), C.R. 336 (“Confidential Views”). 2 The Commission explained that in reaching 3 its
determination, it cumulatively assessed (“cumulated”) less-than-fair-value LPSRUWV RI VXEMHFW
PHUFKDQGLVHIURP7XUNH\ZLWKWKRVHIURP$XVWUDOLD-DSDQWKH1HWKHUODQGV6RXWK.RUHD5XVVLD
and the United KLQJGRP EXWQRW%UD]LOWKHUHPDLQLQJVXEMHFWFRXQWU\ See 3XEOLF9LHZVDW
Confidential Views at 96–
III. Procedural History
Erdemir filed a complaint against the Commission EHIRUH the U.S. Court of International
Trade (“CIT”) RQ'HFHPEHU. See Compl. )LYHU.S. producers of hot-rolled steel (United
States Steel Corporation, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., 6WHHO'\QDPLFV,QF66$%(QWHUSULVHV//&DQG
Nucor Corporation) then moved to intervene as Defendant-Intervenors. See Mot. to Intervene,
Jan. 12, 2023(&)1R9; Mot. to Intervene., Jan. 24, 2023(&)1R21; Mot to Intervene, Jan.
(&)1R 0RWWR,QWHUYHQH-DQ(&)1R. The court granted each
motion. See Order, Jan. 12, 2023(&)1R20; Order, Jan. 24, 2023, (&)1R5; Order, Jan. 25,
(&)1R 2UGHU-DQ(&)1R.
2 The CommisVLRQSXEOLVKHGERWKSXEOLFDQGFRQILGHQWLDOYHUVLRQVRIWKLVGRFXPHQW$VWKHVH YHUVLRQVDUHSDJLQDWHGGLIIHUHQWO\FLWDWLRQVLQWKLVRSLQLRQUHIHUWRERWKYHUVLRQV 3 ³7KH &RPPLVVLRQ PDNHV LWV GHWHUPLQDWLRQV E\ WDOO\LQJ WKH YRWHV RI WKH VL[ LQGLYLGXDO coPPLVVLRQHUV HDFK RI ZKRP LV REOLJDWHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU SDUWLFXODU LPSRUWV FDXVH RU threaten to cause the requisite harm.” U.S. Steel Grp. v. United States )G )HG &LU 2QO\ILYHFRPPLVVLRQHUVWRRNSDUWLQLVVXLQJWKH)LYH-Year Determination: David S. Johanson, Rhonda K. Schmidtlein, Jason E. Kearns, Randolph J. Stayin, and Amy A. Karpel. While Commissioners Schmidtlein and Stayin dissented as to the majority’s decision not to cumulatively assess %UD]LOLDQLPSRUWVRIKRW-rolled steel, the commissioners were unanimous as to the aspects of the )LYH-Year Determination WKDWDUHVXEMHFWWRFKDOOHQJHLQWKLVFDVHSee 3XEOLF Views at 108; Confidential Views at 156. Court No. 22-00351 Page 12
On July 14, 2023, Erdemir filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record
under USCIT Rule 56.2. See 3O¶V0RWIRU-RQWKH$JHQF\5-XO\(&)1R “Pl.’s
%U´ After filing a motion for an extension of time, see Def.’s Mot. for Extension of Time, Sept.
(&)1RZKLFKZDVJUDQWHGsee 2UGHU6HSW(&)1R the Government
filed a response. See Def.’s Mem. in Opp’n. to Pl.’ Mot. for J. on the Agency R., Nov. 16, 2023,
(&)1R52. Defendant-Intervenors also filed a response, see Resp. of Def.-Inters. in Opp’n to
Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Agency R., Nov. 16(&)1R54, and Erdemir filed a reply. See
Pl.’s Reply, Dec. 21(&)1R (“Pl.’s Reply”). After the court scheduled oral argument
for April 10, 2024, see Order, Mar. 1, 2024(&)1R62, (UGHPLUPRYHGWRELIXUFDWHWKDWDUJXPHQW
LQWRSXEOLFDQGFORVHGVHVVLRQV. See 3O¶V0RWWR%LIXUFDWH2UDO $UJ0DUFK (&)1R
The court denied that motion, see 2UGHU$SU(&)1RDQGLVVXHGDOLVWRITXHVWLRQV
to the parties on to the parties later that day. See Letter re: Qs. for Oral Arg., Apr. 2, 2024(&)
No. 65. The parties timely filed written responses to those questions. See Pl.’s Resp. to Ct.’s Qs.
for Oral Arg., Apr. 8, 2024(&)1R; Def.’s Resp. to Ct.’s Qs. for Oral Arg., Apr. 8, 2024,
(&)1R; Def.-Inters.’ Resp. to Ct.’s Qs. for Oral Arg., Apr. 8, 2024(&)1R8.
At oral argument, which ZDVKHOGDVDVLQJOHSXEOLFVHVVLRQ the court invited the parties to
file additional written VXEPLVVLRQV. The parties did so. See Pl.’s Post-2UDO$UJ6XEPApril 22,
2024 ³3O¶V6XSS%U´ (&)1R; Def.-Inters.’ Post-2UDO$UJ6XEPApr. 22, 2024(&)1R
4; Def.’s Post-2UDO$UJ6XEPApr. 22, 2024(&)1R5.
-85,6',&7,21$1'67$1'$5'2)5(9,(:
Jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The standard of review in this action is set
forth in 19 U.S.C. § D E % L ZKLFK VWDWHV WKDW ³>W@KH FRXUW VKDOO KROG XQODZIXO DQ\ Court No. 22-00351 Page 13
GHWHUPLQDWLRQILQGLQJRUFRQFOXVLRQIRXQGWREHXQVXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHRQWKH
record, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .”
³>$@ SDUW\ FKDOOHQJLQJ WKH &RPPLVVLRQ¶V GHWHUPLQDWLRQ XQGHU WKH VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH
VWDQGDUGKDVFKRVHQDFRXUVHZLWKDKLJKEDUULHUWRUHYHUVDO´Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,
)G )HG&LU LQWHUQDOTXRWDWLRQPDUNVDQGFLWDWLRQRPLWWHG 6XEVWDQWLDO
evidence LV³VXFKUHOHYDQWHYLGHQFHDVDUHDVRQDEOHPLQGPLJKWDFFHSWDVDGHTXDWHWRVXSSRUWD
conclusion.” %URDGFRP&RUSY,QW’l Trade Comm’n)WK )HG&LU (internal
TXRWDWLRQPDUNVDQGFLWDWLRQRPLWWHG 7REHVXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHa determination
must account for “whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight,” including “contradictory
evidence or evidence from which conflicting inferences FRXOG EH GUDZQ´ Suramerica de
Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States)G )HG&LU TXRWLQJUniversal
Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.%.86–88 (1951)).
DISCUSSION
Erdemir presents two main arguments: that (1) the )LYH-Year Determination is not in
accordance with law EHFDXVHLWGRHVQRWUHVWRQDSUHGLFDWHPDWHULDOLQMXU\DVUHTXLUHGE\19 U.S.C.
§ D(a)(1)(A), DQGWKDW LWLVXQVXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFH EHcause the Commission
improperly considered imports of non-VXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVH. Neither argument is availing.
I. The Five-Year Determination is in Accordance With Law
Erdemir first argues that the Commission could not have lawfully determined (as it did)
thaWUHYRNLQJWKHAntidumping Order “ZRXOGEH OLNHO\WROHDGWRFRQWLQXDWLRQRUUHFXUUHQFHRI
material injury.” 3O¶V %U DW TXRWLQJ 19 U.S.C. § D D ). This, Erdemir asserts, is
EHFDXVH WKH Amended Antidumping Determination¶V QHJOLJLELOLW\ ILQGLQJ ZLWK UHVSHFW WR Court No. 22-00351 Page 14
&RODNoglu rendered the Commission’s Original Determination inoperative as a means of
HVWDEOLVKLQJDPDWHULDOLQMXU\ E\DQ\7XUNLVKSURGXFHURIVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVH—and that without
an underlying material injury, there can EH QR ³FRQWLQXDWLRQ RU UHFXUUHQFH´ RI WKDW LQMXU\ as a
matter of law. See 19 U.S.C. § D(a)(1)(A). In a nutshell: “The Commission cannot find that
PDWHULDO LQMXU\ LV OLNHO\ WR FRQWLQXH RU UHFXU EHFDXVH RI VXEMHFW 7XUNLVK LPSRUWV—which were
QHJOLJLEOHGXULQJWKH[Period of Investigation]—did not previously cause material injury.” Pl.’s
%U at 23.
This argument falters EHFDXVHWKHCommission’s Original Determination remains a final
DQG ELQGLQJ DJHQF\ DFWLRQ. (UGHPLU GLG QRW FKDOOHQJH LW E\ WKH DSSHDO GHDGOLQH DQG VHSDUDWH
litigation related to Erdemir’s petitions for reconsideration and a changed circumstances review of
the Original Determination LVFXUUHQWO\SHQGLQJ EHIRUHDQRWKHUMXGJHRI WKLVFRXUW. See Eregli
'HPLUYH&HOLN)DEULNDODUL7$6Y8QLWHG6WDWHV,QW’l Trade Comm’n, Court No. 22-349 (CIT
filed Dec. 26, 2022); see also (UHJOL'HPLUYH&HOLN)DEULNDODUL7$6Y8QLWHG6WDWHV,QW’l Trade
Comm’n, Court No. 22-350 (CIT filed Dec. 26, 2022). (Oral argument in those cases WRRNSODFH
on June 13, 2024). Accordingly, despite possiEOH tension with Commerce’s Amended
Antidumping Determination, 4 the Original Determination remains a current statement of the
Commission’s determination that “DQLQGXVWU\LQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLVPDWHULDOO\LQMXUHGE\UHDVRQ
RIVXEMHFWLPSRUWV´RIGXPSHGhot-rolled steel IURP7XUNH\Original Determination at 52. The
Original Determination HVWDEOLVKes a predicate material injury—a “condition precedent,” as
Erdemir styles it 3O¶V %U DW —from which the Commission may lawfully find that a
4 The court need not, and does not, reach the issue of whether the Amended Antidumping Determination is ultimately UHFRQFLODEOHZLWKWKHOriginal Determination. Court No. 22-00351 Page 15
“continuation or recurrence” will “OLNHO\” ensue. 5
The court declines Erdemir’s suggestion that it treat elements of the Original Determination
as KDYLQJEHHQ “nullifie[d]” E\ Commerce¶VVXEVHTXHQWAmended Antidumping Determination.
3O¶V%UDWDoing so would deprive all interested parties, including Erdemir, of WKHDELOLW\WR
ascertain the present legal effect of the Commission’s Original Determination E\ reference to its
SXEOLVKHGWH[W7KLVLQWXUQZRXOGupset the EDVLFSULQFLSOHVRIILQDOLW\DQGFHUWDLQW\ that underlie
administrative law. See Vt.
519, 554– quoting Interstate Com. Comm’n v. Jersey City, 322 U.S. 503, 514–15
(1944)); see also ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States)G
)HG &LU (“Parties to a proceeding have an interest in relying on final decisions of
DGMXGLFDWRU\ERGLHV”).
Preserving the legal effect of final and XQUHYRNHG administrative determinations is
particularly important in the trade context, where special complexities heighten the need for
EHDFRQV RI certainty. The administration of U.S. trade remedy laws involves the coordinated
EHKDYLRURIVHYHUDODJHQFLHV7KLVEHKDYLRULViterated, and not synchronously: Commerce may
5 All parties rest aspects of their arguments on the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. I, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 (“SAA”). Erdemir asserts that the SAA “carries authoritative weight.” Pl.’s Reply at 10 n.3 (quoting AK Steel Corp. v. United States)G )HG&LU 2000)). The statutory provision to which this quoted language refers, however, does not elevate the SAA to the status of a statute. See 19 U.S.C. § 3512(d). It limits the authority of the SAA to “judicial proceeding[s] in which a question arises concerning . . . interpretation or application” of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Id. And no argument in this caseDVEULHIHGE\WKHSDUWLHV turns on such a question of interpretation or application. Cf. AK Steel, )GDW LQYRNLQJ the SAA to analyze, through close statutory interpretation, the effect of Congress’s revision of a statute). Accordingly, the court does not consider the SAA in reaching its decision in this case. Nor would such consideration EHnecessary to the court’s disposition. Court No. 22-00351 Page 16
conduct annual administrative reviews of its determinations, and the Commission conducts five-
year sunset reviews OLNH WKH one Erdemir challenges in this case. Judicial review complicates
matters even further, as do court-ordered remand redeterminations—ZKLFKWDNHWLPHWRSUHSDUH
DQG PD\ WKHPVHOYHV EH UHPDQGHG. See, e.g., *UHHQ )DUPV 6HDIRRG -RLQW 6WRFN &R Y 8QLWHG
States, 48 CIT __, __, Slip Op. 24-46, at 1 ($SU2024) (remanding, in a case involving two
consolidated challenges, Commerce’s determination in the seventeenth administrative review of
an antidumping order that was originally issued in 2003). The result is that tracing the
determinations underlying a given antidumping or countervailing duty order—each of which
represents a “consummation of the administrative process,” Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman
S. S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948), FDQEHDperplexing endeavor. $SDUW\VHHNLQJWRXQGHUVWDQG
its REOLJDWLRQV and preserve its rights must NHHS WUDFN RI D KRVW RI DGPLQLVWUDWLYH and judicial
developments. See, e.g., *RRGOXFN,QGLD/WGY8QLWHG6WDWHV, &,7BBBB) Supp. 3d
–80 (2023).
,WLVWKDQNVWRDGPLQLVWUDWLYHILQDOLW\WKDWWKLVWDVNLVmerely difficult DQGQRWLPSRVVLEOH.
When Commerce or the Commission LVVXHVRUUHYRNHVDGHWHUPLQDWLRQLWmust GHVFULEHthe nature
and grounds of its decision. See 19 U.S.C. §§ I, G(d). This means that even though a
particular duty order may rest D FRPSOH[ QHWZRUN RI agency actions, the QHWZRUN remains
VXVFHSWLEOHWRDQDO\VLVDVD VHWRIGLVFUHWHLQGH[HGDQGRXWZDUGO\OHJLEOHFRPSRQHQWV—each of
which, unless further modified or superseded FDQ EH VDIHO\ UHOLHG RQ DV DQ RUGHU IURP ZKLFK
“ULJKWVRUREOLJDWLRQVKDYHEHHQGHWHUPLQHGRUOHJDOFRQVHTXHQFHVZLOOIORZ´3RUWRI%RV0DUine
7HUPLQDO$VV¶QY5HGHULDNWLHERODJHW7UDQVDWODQWLF86 . Court No. 22-00351 Page
The approach Erdemir urges the court to adopt would leave navigators of the trade law
ODE\ULQWKZLWKRXWthis crucial navigational thread. An interested SDUW\FRXOGQRWVLPSO\ORRNWR a
Commission material injury determination as a controlling statement of the legal effects that
flowed at the time of issuance. Instead, those effects would EHVXEMHFWWRretroactive, undefined
revisions and nullifications E\ VXEVHTXHQW non-Commission determinations—ZKLFK OLNH WKH
Amended Antidumping Determination, do not purport to automatically execute a change in the
Commission’s material injury determination.
Treating the Amended Antidumping Determination as a de facto amendment to the
Original Determination would also frustrate the administrative scheme that Commerce and the
Commission are jointly charged with administering. As the court recognized early on, “[t]he very
strict controls on administrative review of prior determinations . . . are [a] good indication that
Congress did not want these determinations to remain in a state of flux”. 5R\DO%XV0DFKLQHV
Inc. v. United States, &,7Q) Supp. n.18 (1980), aff’d )G
(C.C.P.A. 1982). Pursuing ³ZKDWWKHFRXUWSHUFHLYHVWREHWKHEHVWRUFRUUHFWUHVXOWZRXOGUHQGHU
MXGLFLDO UHYLHZWRWDOO\XQSUHGLFWDEOH” PSC VSMPO-Avisma Corp. v. United States )G
)HG &LU (quoting 9W
omitted).
If Commerce determinations could impliedly divest Commission determinations of their
legal effect, SDUWLHV DQGWKHFRXUW ZRXOGEHOHIWWRJXHVVas to whether a divestment has occurred—
and, if it has occurred, what its ERundaries are. 6RSKLVWLFDWHG DFWRUV FDQ PDNH VRSKLVWLFDWHG
guesses Eut at the level of complexity typical of trade remedy–related determinations there is
simply no way to deduce the totality of downstream legal consequences. Ascertaining those Court No. 22-00351 Page 18
consequences is the province of litigation, not divination: if a party wants to cut off the legal effect
of a past determination that LWDOOHJHVLVLUUHFRQFLODEOHZLWKVXEVHTXHQWGHWHUPLQDWLRQVLW can sue
for that remedy. Otherwise, the past determination remains in force.
Consider the nuances of the OHJDO HIIHFW WKDW (UGHPLU DWWULEXWHV WR WKH Amended
Antidumping Determination. It is not a “straightforward mathematical adjustment.” 171%HDULQJ
Corp. v. United States)G )HG&LU . Erdemir argues that if Commerce
calculates a de minimis GXPSLQJ PDUJLQ IRU &RODNoglu, the Commission should consider all
UHPDLQLQJHQWULHVGXPSHGE\RWKHU7XUNLVKLPSRUWHUVWREHQHJOLJLEOH Pl.¶V%UDW Erdemir
further insists WKDWLIWKH&RPPLVVLRQPDNHVDQHJOLJLELOLW\GHWHUPLQDWLRQIRUDOO7XUNLVKLPSRUWHUV
RQWKHEDVLVRI&RPPHUFH¶VILQGLQJWKDW&RODNRJOX¶VFRXQWHUYDLODEOHVXEVLGLHVDUHde minimis, the
&RPPLVVLRQPXVWDOVRPDNHDSDUDOOHOQHJOLJLELOLW\GHWHUPLQDWLRQIRUDOO7XUNLVKLPSRUWHUVXSRQ
&RPPHUFH¶VDPHQGHGILQGLQJWKDW&RODNoglu’s dumping margin is de minimis. Id. Along the
way, Erdemir implies that a de minimis dumping margin DVGHILQHGE\ 19 U.S.C. § E E )
necessarily compels the &RPPLVVLRQ¶V ILQGLQJ RI QHJOLJLELOLW\ DV SURYLGHG LQ U.S.C.
§ G E %
This is a non-REYLRXV line of reasoning: erroneous or not, it is at the very least unclear
without the aid of VXEVWDQWLDOexplanation. And Erdemir effectively 6 DVNVWKHFRXUWWRUHWURDFWLYHO\
6 Erdemir argues that “[t]he Commission, in declining to initiate the [changed circumstance review] on grounds of duplicativeness, essentially wrote into the sunset review the mandate to consider the impact of the changed circumstances, i.e., the CRODNRglu exclusion, and then proceeded to ignore its own mandate.´3O¶V6XSS%UDW:KHWKHUWKLVLVDYDOLGLPSXWDWLRQRU not, such “writing-LQ´LVEH\RQGWKH&RPPLVVLRQ¶VSRZHU The Commission FDQQRWUHSODFHE\ declaration the parameters of a review that Congress has imposed through legislation. See Civ. $HURQDXWLFV %G Y 'HOWD $LU /LQHV ,QF 86 4 (1961) (“[W]H WKLQN WKDW ERWK DGPLQLVWUDWLYHDQGMXGLFLDOIHHOLQJVKDYHEHHQRSSRVHGWRWKHSURSRVLWLRQWKDWWKHDJHQFLHVPD\ expand their powers of reconsideration without a solid foundation in the language of the statute.”). Court No. 22-00351 Page 19
incorporate its conclusions into the Original Determination ZLWKRXW DQ\ NLQG RI DGPLQLVWUDWLYH
proceeding or notice. This of course is an action that the Commission itself is not even authorized
E\VWDWXWHWRperform, and the court declines to treat it as completed. If Erdemir wishes to sap the
Original Determination RIWKHIRUFHWKDWHVWDEOLVKHVD³FRQGLWLRQSUHFHGHQW´PDWHULDOLQMXU\LWPXVW
challenge (or have challenged) the Original Determination itself. That course of action would give
the Commission a chance to consider Erdemir’s QHJOLJLELOLW\arguments in the first instance.
7KH FRXUW REVHUYHV WKDW Erdemir has separately petitioned the Commission for
reconsideration of the Original Determination and for the initiation of a changed circumstance
review. Although tKH&RPPLVVLRQGHQLHGERWKSHWLWLRQV(UGHPLU KDVFKDOOHQJHGERWKGHQLDOVin
separate actions EHIRUHWKe CIT. See Eregli Demir, Court No. 22-349; Eregli Demir, Court No.
22-350. The court in this case expresses no view as to the potential disposition of those actions,
which DVQRWHGDERYH DUHEHIRUH a different judge7KHFRXUWPHUHO\REVHUYHVWKDWif Erdemir
hopes to arrest the continuing legal effects of an Original Determination that it asserts is out of
GDWHWKHUHH[LVWPRUHVXLWDEOHFKDQQHOVIRUWKDWHQGHDYRU than the one it has chosen here.
This is accordingly not a circumstance where “equity will, for the purposes of justice, treat
WKDWWRKDYHEHHQGRQHZKLFKRXJKWWRKDYHEHHQGRQH.” Taylor v. Longworth 86
(1840) (Story, J.).
II. The Five-Year Determination is Supported by Substantial Evidence
Erdemir also challenges the Commission’s exercise of discretion to cumulatively assess
,WPD\EH DOWKRXJKWKHFRXUWGRHVQRWHQWHUWDLQWKHTXHVWLRQKHUH WKDWWKH&RPPLVVLRQHUURQHRXVO\ declined to initiate a changed circumstance review. See Eregli Demir, Court No. 22-350. (UURQHRXVRUQRWKRZHYHUWKDWGHFLVLRQGRHVQRWEURDGHQWKHVWDWXWRU\VFRSHRIWKH&RPPLVVLRQ¶V sunset review. Court No. 22-00351 Page 20
(that is, ³FXPXODWH´ LPSRUWV RI VXEMHFW PHUFKDQGLVH DORQJVLGH LPSRUWV IURP RWKHU FRXQWULHV.
Erdemir argues that the cumulation determination is XQVXSSRUWHG E\ VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH DQG
VKRXOG DFFRUGLQJO\ EH held unlawful pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § D E l) % L . This, Erdemir
alleges, is EHFDXVH WKH &RPPLVVLRQ LPSURSHUO\ FRQVLGHUHG &RODNRJOX¶V QRQ-VXEMHFW LPSRUWV LQ
finding that 7XUNLVKLPSRUWV RIVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVHZRXOGQRWEH³OLNHO\WRKDYHQRGLVFHUQLEOH
adverse impact on the domestic industry.” See Pl.’V%UDW; 19 U.S.C. § D D . According
to Erdemir, “[a]ny analysis including CRODNRglu’s non-VXEMHFW LPSRUWV LV LQ HUURU DQG FDQQRW
provide record support for the Commission’s findings or conclusions.” Pl.¶V%UDW
This argument is without merit EHFDXVH WKH&RPPLVVLRQGLGQRWFRQVLGHU&RODNRglu’s
non-VXEMHFWLPSRUWVas support for its GLVFHUQLEOH-adverse-impact finding and (2) the Commission
UHDVRQDEO\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW OLNHO\ LPSRUWV RI VXEMHFW PHUFKDQGLVH IURP 7XUNH\—even without
&RODNoglu’s sales—would clear the ORZWKUHVKROGIRUGLVFHUQLELOLW\.
A. The Commission did not Consider Colakoglu’s Data in its Cumulation Analysis
Although Erdemir¶VEULHIUHIHUVgenerally to a “cumulation analysis,” the Commission’s
determination to cumulate actually rests on two separate statutorily mandated inquiries. 19 U.S.C.
§ D D %HIRUHH[HUFLVLQJLWVGLVFUHWLRQWRFXPXODWLYHO\DVVHVVLPSRUWVWKH&RPPLVVLRQ
must assess (1) whether the imports to EHFXPXODWHGare ³OLNHO\WRFRPSHWHZLWKHDFKRWKHUDQG
$VQRWHGDERYHWKH&RPPLVVLRQ¶VWDVNLQD)LYH-Year review of a duty order is to determine whether “revocation of [the] order . . . would EHOLNHO\WROHDGWRDFRQWLQXDWLRQRUUHFXUUHQFHRI PDWHULDOLQMXU\ZLWKLQDUHDVRQDEO\IRUHVHHDEOHWLPH´ 86&D D Court No. 22-00351 Page 21
ZLWKGRPHVWLFOLNHSURGXFWVLQWKHUnited States PDUNHW,” 8 and (2) whether the imports are ³OLNHO\
WRKDYHQRGLVFHUQLEOHDGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHGRPHVWLFLQGXVWU\´ Id. The statute’s text confirms
that these are independent prerequisites. 9
In the SURFHHGLQJEHIRUHWKH&RPPLVVLRQ, Erdemir asserted that the second ³QRGLVFHUQLEOH
impact” prerequisite was not satisfied. See (UGHPLU¶V3RVWKHDULQJ%UDWThe Commission
summarized this challenge and responded to it as follows:
Regarding Erdemir’s argument that, since imports of hot-rolled steel from &RODNRJOX DUH QRW VXEMHFW PHUFKDQGLVH LQ WKHVH UHYLHZV VXEMHFW LPSRUWV IURP 7XUNH\ZLOOQRWKDYHDGLVFHUQLEOHDGYHUVHLPSDFWZHGLVDJUHH*iven the relative DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RI WKH 86 PDUNHWDQG WKH 7XUNLVK LQGXVWU\¶VH[FHVVFDSDFLW\ZH ILQG WKDW LW LV QRW OLNHO\ WKDW WKHUH ZLOO EH QR GLVFHUQLEOH DGYHUVH LPSDFW LI WKH antidumping duty order on hot-UROOHGVWHHOIURP7XUNH\LVUHYRNHGHYHQLIexports IURP&RODNRJOXDUHQRORQJHUVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVH
3XEOLF 9LHZV DW Q Confidential Views at 68 n.298. The Commission supported its
reference to the DWWUDFWLYHQHVVRIWKH86PDUNHWwith a discussion of four points: the average unit
value oIVKLSPHQWVIURP7XUNH\WRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKHDFNQRZOHGJPHQWRIDUHVSRQGHQWLQLWV
)RUHLJQ3URGXFHU4XHVWLRQQDLUH5HVSRQVHWKDWWKH86¶VPDUNHWRIIHUVKLJKHUSULFHVWKDQRWKHU
8 7KH&RPPLVVLRQ¶VSUDFWLFHLQFDUU\LQJRXWWKLVVWDWXWRU\PDQGDWHLVWRXQGHUWDNHZKDWLWWHUPVD “conditions-of-competition” analysis. See Nucor Corp. v. United States )G )HG&LU . 9 86&D D provides as follows:
[T]he Commission may cumulatively assess the volume and effect of imports of WKHVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVHIURPDOOFRXQWULHVZLWKUHVSHFWWRZKLFKUHYLHZV. . . were LQLWLDWHGRQWKHVDPHGD\LIVXFKLPSRUWVZRXOGEHOLNHO\WRFRPSHWHZLWKHDFK other and with domHVWLFOLNHSURGXFWVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVPDUNHW7KH&RPPLVVLRQ VKDOO QRW FXPXODWLYHO\ DVVHVV WKH YROXPH DQG HIIHFWV RI LPSRUWV RI WKH VXEMHFW PHUFKDQGLVHLQDFDVHLQZKLFKLWGHWHUPLQHVWKDWVXFKLPSRUWVDUHOLNHO\WRKDYH QRGLVFHUQLEOHDGYHUVHLPSDFWRn the domestic industry.
Id. Court No. 22-00351 Page 22
FRXQWULHV¶PDUNHWVWKHWUHQGLQ(UGHPLU¶VH[SRUWYROXPHGXULQJWKHLQYHVtigation underlying the
Original Determination DQG WKH IDFW WKDW 7XUNLVK LPSRUWV RI hot-rolled steel DUH VXEMHFW WR an
antidumping order in the European Union. See 3XEOLF9LHZVDW–48; Confidential Views at 68.
7KH &RPPLVVLRQ VXSSRUWHG LWV UHIHUHQFH WR WKH 7XUNLVK LQGXVWU\¶V H[FHVV FDSDFLW\ ZLWK D
GLVFXVVLRQ RI 7XUNLVK SURGXFHUV¶ UHSRUWHG H[FHVV FDSDFLW\ LQ DQG an individual non-
&RODNRJOX UHVSRQGHQW’s plan to expand capacity for 2023. See 3XEOLF 9Lews at 46–
Confidential Views DW–68.
None of these factors LQYROYHG&RODNRJOX¶VU.S. sales of non-VXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVH:KLOH
the Commission did reference data collected during the original investigation—WKDW LV EHIRUH
&RODNRJOX¶V LPSRUWV ORVW WKHLU VWDWXV DV VXEMHFW LPSRUWV IROORZLQJ WKH Amended Antidumping
Determination—the Commission generally employed those references either as EDFNJURXQG 10 or
as D PHDQV RI HVWDEOLVKLQJ DQ LOOXVWUDWLYH FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK GDWD FROOHFWHG GXULQJ WKH UHYLHZ
underlying the )LYH-Year Determination. See id. DWIn the one instance where the Commission
did apparently directly rely on Original Determination data, that data pertained to a trend in the
commercial activity of Erdemir alone. See id. at 68. At no point did the Commission directly rely
on a data set that includes &RODNoglu’s pre-exclusion imports DV D EDVLV IRU LWV QHJDWLYH ³QR
GLVFHUQLEOHDGYHUVHLPSDFW´ILQGLQJSee id. at 64–68. $VWKH&RPPLVVLRQVWDWHG³&RODNRJOXLV
QRORQJHUDSURGXFHURIVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVHDQGGDWDIRULWLVQRWLQFOXGHGLQWKHGDWDIRUVXEMHFW
10 Erdemir asserts that “[i]n the very first sentence of the Commission’s cumulation analysis for 7XUNH\>WKH&RPPLVVLRQ@LQFOXGHG&RODNRJOX¶VQRQ-VXEMHFWLPSRUWVLQDUHYLHZRIVXEMHFWLPSRUW YROXPH IURP 7XUNH\´ Pl.¶V %U DW 25. %XW WKH IDFW WKDW WKH &RPPLVVLRQ UHIHUHQFHG WKLV information early on—E\ZD\RIEDFNJURXQGDVFRQWH[Wlater clarifies—does not mean that the Commission relied on &RODNRJOX¶V GDWD IURP WKH Original Determination in reaching its GLVFHUQLEOH-adverse-impact finding for the )LYH-Year Determination. Court No. 22-00351 Page 23
LPSRUWVIURP7XUNH\GXULQJWKHFXUUHQWUHYLHZ´Id. DWQ
B. The Commission Reasonably Concluded that Turkish Hot-Rolled Steel Imports Would Not Have No Discernible Adverse Impact on Domestic Industry
Erdemir argues WKDW ZLWKRXW WKH³WDLQW´RI&RODNRJOX¶VGDWDWKH&RPPLVVLRQFRXOG QRW
have lawfully GHWHUPLQHG WKDW 7XUNLVK hot-rolled steel imports would not have QR GLVFHUQLEOH
adverse impact on U.S. industry. See Pl.’s Reply at 20. 7KLV(UGHPLUVXJJHVWVLVEHFDXVHthe
collective value of non-&RODNRJOX imports during the review period underlying the )LYH-Year
Determination was too low to effect D GLVFHUQLEOH LPpact. See id.; see also 3O¶V%U DW 29–30.
(UGHPLUUDLVHGWKHVDPHDUJXPHQWGXULQJWKH&RPPLVVLRQSURFHHGLQJEHORZ ZLWKRXWIDFWRULQJLQ
&RODNRJOX¶V LPSRUWV (UGHPLU DUJXHG ³>+RW-UROOHG VWHHO@ LPSRUWV IURP 7XUNH\ KDYH UHPDLQHG
limited . . . with no expHFWDWLRQRILQFUHDVHGLPSRUWVIURPVXEMHFW7XUNLVKSURGXFHUV´(UGHPLU¶V
Post-+U¶J%UDW–15.
DLVFHUQLELOLW\, however, LVDORZEDU. ³>6@DWLVI\LQJ WKH µQR GLVFHUQLEOH DGYHUVH LPSDFW¶
element of the cumulation determination merely requires a finding that a set of imports clears a
EDVHOLQHGLVFHUQDELOLW\WKUHVKROGIRUDGYHUVHLPSDFW´Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. v. United States, 48
CIT __, __, Slip Op. 24-34, at 21–22 (Mar. 20, 2024) (citing Nippon Steel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade
Comm’n )G Q )HG&LU An impact need not even inflict material
injury—that is, “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant,” 19 U.S.C.
§ —WREHGLVFHUQLEOHSee Usinor v. United States&,7) Supp. 2d
1281–82 (2004). Accordingly, as the court ³PD\QRWUHZHLJKWKHHYLGHQFHRUVXEVWLWXWHLWVRZQ
judgment for that of the agency,” id. at 1111, the court concludes that the Commission cited “such
UHOHYDQWHYLGHQFHDVDUHDVRQDEOHPLQGPLJKWDFFHSWDVDGHTXDWHWRVXSSRUWDFRQFOXVLRQ” when it Court No. 22-00351 Page 24
rejected Erdemir’s preferred weighting. %URDGFRP)WKDW LQWHUQDOTXRWDWLRQPDUNVand
citation omitted).
C. The Commission’s Determination to Cumulate Turkish Imports Is Reconcilable With its Determination not to Cumulate Brazilian Imports
In the )LYH-Year Determination, the Commission declined to cumulate imports of hot-
rolled steel from %UD]LO. Erdemir argues that this presents an inconsistency: “[t]he Commission’s
IDLOXUHWRH[FOXGH&RODNRJOX¶VQRQ-VXEMHFWLPSRUWVIURPLWVEDVHOLQHDQDO\VLVRILQYHVWLJDWLRQGDWD
WDLQWHGWKHFXPXODWLRQDQDO\VLVVXFKWKDWLWFDQQRWEHUHFRQFLOHGZLWKWKH Commission’s decision
QRWWRFXPXODWHVXEMHFWLPSRUWVIURP%UD]LO´3O¶V%UDW
Even assuming the validity of Erdemir’s predicate assertion that the Commission’s analysis
ZDV³WDLQWHG´ DQDVVHUWLRQZKLFKDVH[SODLQHGDERYHWKHFRXUWfinds unpersuasive), Erdemir’s
argument is misplaced. Here, Erdemir challenges only the Commission’s finding WKDW VXEMHFW
LPSRUWV IURP 7XUNH\ ZRXOG QRW LQIOLFW QR GLVFHUQLEOH LPSDFW RQ 86 LQGXVWU\ %XW ZKHQ WKH
Commission conducted the same GLVFHUQLEOH-impact inquiry regarding LPSRUWVIURP%UD]LO WKH
Commission DOVRIRXQGGLVFHUQLELOLW\. See 3XEOLF9LHZVDW&RQILGHQWLDO9LHZVDWThese
findings are not just UHFRQFLODEOH—they are the same. The Commission declined to cumulate
%UD]LOLDQLPSRUWVIRUWKHHQWLUHO\GLVWLQFWUHDVRQWKDW³VXEMHFWLPSRUWVIURP%UD]LOZRXOGQRWEH
OLNHO\WRFRPSHWHXQGHUVLPLODUFRQGLWLRQVRIFRPSHWLWLRQZLWKVXEMHFWLPSRUWVIURPRWKHUVXEMHFW
countries . . . .´3XEOLF9LHZVDW &RQILGHQWLDO9LHZVDW
Erdemir claims that “[t]he Commission’s GLYLVLRQRIWKHFXPXODWLRQDQDO\VLVEHWZHHQµQR
GLVFHUQLEOHDGYHUVHLPSDFW¶DQGµFRQGLWLRQVRIFRPSHWLWLRQ¶LVHIIHFWLYHO\PHDQLQJOHVVJLYHQWKH
VLPLODULW\ RI DQDO\VLV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR” Pl.¶V %U DW That is not so. )RU RQH WKLQJ the
Commission does not divide its cumulation analysis on its own initiative. 6HFWLRQD D Court No. 22-00351 Page 25
requires separate and independent inquiries. ,WLVSRVVLEOHIor example, that imports that do not
³FRPSHWH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU DQG ZLWK GRPHVWLF OLNH SURGXFWV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV PDUNHW” could
nevertheless inflict a ³GLVFHUQLEOH DGYHUVH LPSDFW RQ WKH GRPHVWLF LQGXVWU\.” Id.; see, e.g.,
Allegheny Ludlum, 30 CIT at 2000.
The two inquiries also involve different metrics. In a conditions-of-competition inquiry,
WKH&RPPLVVLRQDVVHVVHVWKHGHJUHHRIVLPLODULW\DPRQJPDUNHWVWKDWH[SRUWVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVH
See id. at 19–20; see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States&,7– 856
) Supp. 2d 1318, 1324, aff’d)$SS’[ )HG&LU (noting that the Commission
“thoroughly examined and identified potential differences in conditions of competition relating to
H[SRUWRULHQWDWLRQKLVWRULFYROXPHWUHQGVH[SRUWPDUNHWIRFXVDQGKLVWRULFSULFLQJSDWWHUQV´ In
WKH GLVFHUQLELOLW\ DQDO\VLV WKH &RPPLVVLRQ ORRNV QRW WR GLIIHUHQFH EXW whether the imports in
question clear a low threshold RIGLVFHUQLELOLW\. See Nippon Steel, )Gat n.6; Allegheny
Ludlum, 30 CIT at 2000 (“,QLWVGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIZKHWKHULPSRUWVDUHOLNHO\WRKDYHQR GLVFHUQLEOH
DGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHGRPHVWLFLQGXVWU\WKH&RPPLVVLRQJHQHUDOO\FRQVLGHUVWKHOLNHO\YROXPH
RIVXEMHFWLPSRUWV . . . .”). Even though the Commission’s analyses of these metrics may rest on
overlapping data, see 3O¶V%UDWLWGRHVQRWfollow that data which cuts against a finding of
similar FRQGLWLRQVRIFRPSHWLWLRQPXVWDOVRFXWDJDLQVWDILQGLQJRIGLVFHUQLELOLW\ Import volume
is only one of the many axes along which conditions of competition can differ.
)RU WKLV UHDVRQ WKH FRXUW Foncludes that the Commission’s cumulation of imports from
7XUNH\LVQRWLUUHFRQFLODEOHZLWKLWVGHWHUPLQDWLRQQRWWRFXPXODWHLPSRUWVIURP%UD]LO. Court No. 22-00351 Page 26
CONCLUSION
The aspects of the Commission’s )LYH-Year Determination that Erdemir challenges are in
DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ DQG VXSSRUWHG E\ VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH The court concludes that (1)
Commerce’s Amended Antidumping Determination did not foreclose an affirmative material
LQMXU\ GHWHUPLQDWLRQ DV WR 7XUNH\ LQ WKH &RPPLVVion’s sunset review and that (2) the
&RPPLVVLRQ¶VGHWHUPLQDWLRQWRFXPXODWLYHO\DVVHVVVXEMHFW7XUNLVKLPSRUWVRIKRW-rolled steel is
VXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFH
The Commission’s )LYH-Year Determination is sustained. Judgment on the agency record
will enter accordingly for Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gary S. Katzmann Gary S. Katzmann, Judge
Dated: June 20, 2024 1HZ