Description: South Korean steel producers' challenges to the U.S. Department of Commerce's determination that allocation of 100% of credits to the producers in South Korea’s cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions provided a “countervailable subsidy."
-
Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 12/18/2023 Opinion Download Court granted plaintiffs’ motions for judgment on the agency record in part and remanded to the Department of Commerce. Court of International Trade Remanded Determination that Imposed Duties on South Korean Steel Producers Who Received Free Emission Credits. In cases brought by two South Korean steel producers, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) remanded the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (Commerce’s) determination that the allocation of 100% of credits to the producers in South Korea’s cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions provided a “countervailable subsidy” to the steel producers that resulted in imposition of a countervailing duty order. The South Korean cap-and-trade system provides that certain business that meet “high international trade intensity” or “high production cost” criteria receive 100% of the “allowance units” assigned to the business, while other sectors that do not meet the criteria receive 97% of the assigned units. CIT found that substantial evidence supported Commerce’s determinations that the South Korean government had forgone revenue that it otherwise would have received and that provision of the free units conferred a benefit on the producers since their compliance burdens were reduced even if the overall cap-and-trade system imposed a burden on them. CIT further found, however, that Commerce did not adequately support its conclusion that the subsidy provided by the South Korean program was “specific” to a particular sector or industry, as required by the statutory definition of “countervailable subsidy.”