Protest no. 2704-20-126918; steel coils; A-580-878-001; C-580-879-000

H313855 July 21, 2025 OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H313855 MY CATEGORY: ENTRY Center Director Base Metals 610 S. Canal Street Room 300 Chicago, IL 60607 Attn.: Craig A. Callies RE: Protest no. 2704-20-126918; steel coils; A-580-878-001; C-580-879-000 Dear Center Director, This is in response to the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of protest no. 2704- 20-126918, received by our office on September 23, 2020. Dong Chuel America, Inc. (“Dong Chuel”) protests your office’s assessment of antidumping duties for entry no. xxxxxxxx454 at the country-wide rate applicable to certain corrosion-resistant steel products from the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) under case number A-580-878-001. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 Fed. Reg. 48,390 (July 25, 2016). Dong Chuel asserts that its entry of electrolytic galvanized steel coils from Korea is instead subject to the company-specific rate accorded to articles produced by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. Ltd (“Dongkuk”). We have considered the points raised by your office and the protestant. Our decision is set forth below. FACTS: On December 29, 2016, Dong Chuel entered a shipment of electrolytic galvanized steel coils from Korea. Steel coils from Korea were subject to antidumping and countervailing duty orders (collectively, “the AD/CVD Orders”) on certain corrosion-resistant steel products. See Id.; Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 81 Fed. Reg. 48,387 (July 25, 2016). The entry was a type “03,” applicable to formally entered goods which are subject to AD/CVD. The entry summary identified Dong Chuel as the importer of record, and the commercial invoice listed Dong Chuel as both the buyer and consignee. For the single line item of steel coils in entry no. xxxxxxxx454, Dong Chuel reported a Manufacturer Identification Code (“MID”) that corresponds to Dongkuk. The steel import license provided with the entry identified Dong Chuel as the importer and “Dongkuk Steel” as the manufacturer. Dong Chuel indicated the entry was subject to Dongkuk’s company-specific AD rate and the country-wide CVD rate. On January 17, 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) suspended the entry pursuant to the CVD Order. On August 10, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) rescinded its administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant steel products subject to the CVD Order. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, Rescission of Review, in Part, and Intent To Rescind, in Part; 2015-16, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,671 (Aug. 10, 2018). As part of its rescission determination, Commerce stated that “Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. and Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd. are not subject to the CVD order.” Id. On September 20, 2018, Commerce issued Message No. 8263301, instructing CBP to liquidate all entries of steel products from Korea occurring between November 6, 2015, through December 31, 2016, for which Dongkuk was the producer and/or exporter, without assessment of CVD. At this time, despite the lifting of suspension for steel articles produced and/or exported by Dongkuk that were not subject to the CVD Order, the AD Order for such articles remained in effect. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 84 Fed. Reg. 10,784 (March 22, 2019) (“ Commerce postponed the final results of this review . . . to March 18, 2019.”). On March 22, 2019, Commerce published its final review of certain corrosion-resistant steel products subject to the AD Order, to include entries of products from Korea occurring between January 4, 2016, and June 30, 2017, for which Dongkuk was the producer and/or exporter. Id. On April 11, 2019, Commerce issued Message No. 9101301, instructing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of such steel products from Korea produced and exported by Dongkuk pursuant to an injunction issued by the Court of International Trade (“CIT”). Commerce stressed for any entries which remained unliquidated as of April 10, 2019, the effective date for the injunction, “liquidation must be unset immediately” and CBP must continue to suspend liquidation until liquidation instructions are issued. On May 15, 2019, Commerce issued two messages announcing that the injunction referenced in Message No. 9101301 had dissolved. Commerce Message No. 9135301 was publicly issued, and stated that [l]iquidation instructions for entries that are no longer subject to the injunction [] will be issued separately.” Commerce Message No. 9135304 was non-publicly issued, and provided specific liquidation instructions to CBP. In this non-public message, Commerce instructed CBP to liquidate all entries of merchandise described in paragraphs 2 and 4 due to the injunction referenced in Message No. 9101301 for entries steel products “produced and/or exported by Dongkuk” dissolving. Paragraph 2 identified company-specific rates for Dongkuk as an “[i]mporter or customer.” Eligibility for a company-specific rate was contingent on the steel products having been “imported by or sold to [Dongkuk] (as indicated on the commercial invoice or Customs documentation).” Paragraph 4 specified that for all entries “not covered by paragraph 2, [CBP must] assess antidumping duties at the all-others rate in effect on the date of entry.” Accordingly, for entries of steel products produced by Dongkuk, for which Donkuk was not the importer or customer, CBP was required to liquidate at the all-others or country-wide rate. On November 15, 2019, entry no. xxxxxxxx454 deemed liquidated. At initial deemed liquidation, the entry was subject to AD/CVD at the rates indicated on the entry summary. A 2 week later, on November 22, 2019, CBP reliquidated the entry. At reliquidation, CBP determined the entry was not subject to CVD, but was subject to AD – specifically, the country- wide AD rate in lieu of the company-specific rate for Dongkuk. On May 13, 2020, Dong Chuel filed protest on the basis that CBP “mistakenly misapplied the official liquidation instructions” steel coils subject to the AD Order. Dong Chuel asserts that CBP concluded Dongkuk was not manufacturer or producer of the steel coils at issue, such that CBP assessed the country-wide rate because it erroneously assumed Dong Chuel was not entitled to claim Dongkuk’s company- specific rate. Dong Chuel’s assertion is an assumed explanation for CBP’s assessment of the country-wide rate, because CBP provided “no explanation [as to] why the increase [in duties] had occurred.” On July 14, 2025, CBP met with Dong Chuel’s counsel to explain why AD were assessed at the country-wide rate. ISSUE: Whether CBP properly assessed antidumping duties on Dong Chuel’s entry of steel coils. LAW AND ANALYSIS: As an initial matter, we find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3)(A), this protest was timely filed on May 13, 2020, within 180 days after the November 22, 2019, reliquidation date. We also find that, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a), a protestable issue was raised by challenging CBP’s decision regarding the assessment of antidumping duties. Finally, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b), we find that further review of this protest is warranted because it involves a question of fact which has not previously been ruled upon, specifically whether a company-specific or country-wide rate applied to entry no. xxxxxxxx454. CBP has a “statutory responsibility to fix the amount of duty owed on imported goods. As part of that responsibility, C[BP] is both empowered and obligated to determine . . . whether goods are subject to existing antidumping or countervailing duty orders.” Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 946 F.3d 1300, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). As part of fulfilling this obligation, CBP assumes a ministerial role in liquidating entries subject to instructions received from Commerce. See Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc. v. United States, 44 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Once Commerce instructs CBP to liquidate entries, “Customs merely follows Commerce’s instructions in assessing and collecting duties.” Id. CBP cannot “modify Commerce’s determinations, their underlying facts, or their enforcement.” Id. (citation omitted). At issue in this protest are the liquidation instructions for certain corrosion-resistant steel products subject to the AD Order that were produced by Dongkuk. Dong Chuel maintains that its entry of steel coils is subject to Dongkuk’s company-specific rate, as identified on its entry summary, instead of the country-wide rate assessed by CBP. Dong Chuel asserts that Dongkuk is, based on the evidentiary record for the protest, the manufacturer or producer of the steel coils in entry no. xxxxxxxx454 and thus entitled to claim Dongkuk’s company-specific rate. However, CBP did not and does not dispute that Dongkuk produced the steel coils entered by Dong Chuel. Instead, CBP disputes that steel products produced by Dongkuk were entitled to a company- specific rate at liquidation. 3 In Commerce Message No. 9135304, non-publicly issued on May 15, 2019, CBP was instructed to liquidate all entries of steel products “produced and/or exported by Dongkuk” that were described in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the message. Paragraph 2 instructed CBP to liquidate such entries pursuant to a company-specific rate if Dongkuk was the “[i]mporter or customer” for the steel products in addition to being the producer and/or exporter. To substantiate eligibility for this company-specific rate, the steel products must have been “imported by or sold to [Dongkuk] (as indicated on the commercial invoice or Customs documentation).” Paragraph 4 instructed CBP to liquidate such entries pursuant to the country-wide rate if they were “not covered by paragraph 2,” meaning Dongkuk was not the “importer or customer” for the steel products despite being the producer and/or exporter. In applying Commerce Message No. 9135304 to entry no. xxxxxxxx454, it is clear from the evidentiary record of the protest that Dongkuk was not the “[i]mpoter or customer” for the steel coils imported by Dong Chuel. The entry summary lists Dong Chuel as the importer of record, and Dongkuk as the manufacturer based on the MID for the line item of steel coils. The associated commercial invoice lists Dong Chuel as both the buyer and consignee for the steel coils. The steel import license provided with the entry lists Dong Chuel as the importer and Dongkuk as the manufacturer. The evidentiary record for the protest thus evidences that Dongkuk is not the “[i]mporter or customer” the steel coils in addition to being the producer and/or exporter. Consequently, the steel coils were not products described in paragraph 2 of the message. We thus find that CBP properly assessed the country-wide rate to steel coils “not covered by paragraph 2” in accordance with Commerce’s liquidation instructions in paragraph 4. Commerce issued non-public Message No. 9135304 along with public Message No. 9135301 on May 15, 2019, to announce that that the CIT injunction precluding liquidation of entry no. xxxxxxxx454 had dissolved. Once suspension of an entry is removed, either by court order or instructions from Commerce, the entry is deemed liquidated if CBP fails to liquidate “within 6 months after receiving notice of the removal.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). Such “notice of the removal” must be unambiguous and public. See Aspects Furniture Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 510 F. Supp. 3d 1353, 1361 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2021) (“Aspects Furniture”); Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). In Aspects Furniture, the CIT determined that a public message issued by Commerce provides “notice of the lifting of suspension . . . [for] entries [formerly] covered by the statutory injunction.” Id. at 1362. The CIT noted that if the date on which such public notice “differs from the date of [a] non-public transmission from Commerce to CBP (and there is no earlier date on which notice was transmitted), then” the operative date which lifted suspension would need to be decided. Id. at 1364. However, such a decision is unnecessary if the date of issuance for the public, and nonpublic notice is the same. Id. Here, the public and non-public message announcing the dissolution of the CIT injunction applicable to entry no. xxxxxxxx454 was announced on the same day: May 15, 2019. Accordingly, CBP had 6 months from this date, until November 15, 2019, to liquidate before the entry deemed “liquidated at the rate of duty, value, quantity, and amount of duty asserted by the importer of record.” 19 U.S.C. § 1504(d). We thus find that CBP properly determined entry no. xxxxxxxx454 deemed liquidated on November 15, 2019. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1501, any liquidation or deemed liquidation “may be reliquidated in any respect by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, notwithstanding the filing of a protest, 4 within ninety days from the date of the original liquidation.” CBP therefore has 90 days from the date of a deemed liquidation to voluntarily reliquidate the entry. Id.; Aspects Furniture at 1370. Here, CBP reliquidated entry no. xxxxxxxx454 on November 22, 2019, within a week of its deemed liquidation. Consequently, CBP timely reliquidated the entry to assess antidumping duties utilizing the country-wide rate for steel products produced and/or exported by Dongkuk in accordance with Commerce Message No. 9135304. HOLDING: CBP properly assessed antidumping duties on entry no. xxxxxxxx454. Therefore, this protest should be DENIED in full. You are instructed to notify the Protestant of this decision no later than 60 days from the date of this decision. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to this notification. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel and the public on the Customs Rulings Online Search System (“CROSS”) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/, or other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Yuliya A. Gulis, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division 5