SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 13, 2015, Commerce published its Final Determination in the LTFV investigation of welded line pipe from Korea.^[1] Subsequently, on November 10, 2015, Commerce published its Amended Final Determination, correcting errors in the calculation of the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for one mandatory respondent, as well as the resulting estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters.^[2] On December 1, 2015, Commerce published the Order on welded line pipe from Korea.^[3]

Hyundai HYSCO Co. Ltd. (Hyundai HYSCO), SeAH, and the petitioners ^[4] appealed Commerce's Final ( printed page 61833) Determination, as amended by the Amended Final Determination. In Stupp I, CIT affirmed several aspects of Commerce's Amended Final Determination including Commerce's differential pricing analysis.^[5] The CIT remanded to Commerce issues related Hyundai HYSCO twice, and the CIT ultimately sustained Commerce's second final results of redetermination.^[6] On April 7, 2020, because Hyundai HYSCO's estimated weighted-average dumping margin changed as a result of the reclassification of certain of Hyundai HYSCO's local sales, Commerce issued a notice not in harmony with the Amended Final Determination in accordance with Timken,^[7] as clarified by Diamond Sawblades.^[8] Upon appeal by SeAH, in Stupp II the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed each part of Stupp I except for Commerce's use of the Cohen's d test as part of the differential pricing analysis, which the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded to Commerce for further explanation of whether the application of the Cohen's d test is reasonable.^[9] On October 8, 2021, the CIT remanded Stupp II to Commerce.

In its third final results of redetermination pursuant to Stupp II, Commerce explained how its application of the Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis is reasonable.^[10] In Stupp III, the CIT affirmed Commerce's explanation.^[11] Subsequently, on appeal, the Federal Circuit in Stupp IV held that Commerce failed to demonstrate that SeAH's U.S. pricing data satisfied certain statistical criteria identified by SeAH as necessary to permit a reasonable application of the Cohen's d test.^[12] Thus, the Federal Circuit directed Commerce to perform a differential pricing analysis consistent with the Federal Circuit's precedential opinion in Marmen.^[13]

In its fourth final results of redetermination, issued in March 2026, Commerce discontinued the use of Cohen's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis, adopted the “price difference test” to determine whether prices differ significantly, and also discontinued use of the mixed method as an alternative comparison methodology.^[14] The CIT has sustained Commerce's fourth final results of redetermination.^[15]

Amended Final Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty Order

Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its Amended Final Determination and its antidumping duty Order with respect to SeAH and all other producers and exporters. The revised estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Cash Deposit Requirements

Because SeAH has a superseding cash deposit rate, i.e., there have been final results published in a subsequent administrative review, this notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate for SeAH. However, because the rate for all other producers and exporters has changed, Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection regarding the cash deposit requirements for all other producers and exporters. These cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

91 FR 61832