Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikalari T.A.Ş. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n

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$ဨဨ )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 RHTXHVWRQ1RYHPEHUSee 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. (&)1R0RWWR,QWHUYHQH-DQ(&)1R. The court granted each motion. See Order, Jan. 12, 2023(&)1R20; Order, Jan. 24, 2023, (&)1R5; Order, Jan. 25, (&)1R2UGHU-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(&)1Rthe 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. <DQNHH1XFOHDU3RZHU&RUSY1DW5HV'HI&RXQFLO,QF, 435 U.S. 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 <DQNHH, 435 U.S. at 546) (iQWHUQDO TXRWDWLRQ PDUNV 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%UDWErdemir 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. Longworth86 (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&RPPLVVLRQSURFHHGLQJEHORZZLWKRXWIDFWRULQJLQ &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)GQ )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<RUN1HZ<RUN