OT:RR:CTF:EPDR H313855 MY
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(“Commerce”) rescinded its administrative review of certain corrosion-resistant steel products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