Plaintiff Hyundai Steel, a Korean steel maker, is subject to U.S. antidumping law which prohibits sales at less than fair value, which is defined as the price producer charges in its home market exceeds the price of the product in the United States. In addition to the information provided by the plaintiff, the U.S. Department of Commerce relied on outside information to determine that the plaintiff sold much of its products to its affiliates in non-arm's length transactions which distorted the home market price. Commerce further determined Hyundai did not cooperate fully because it failed to provide information regarding affiliate transactions.
The court found that once Commerce established Hyundai Steel and its affiliates were under common control of a single family, it had the duty to produce information regarding transactions with its affiliates. The court further found Commerce's determination was supported by sufficient evidence.
How about ushering in the new year with a complex administrative / trade law case? This is a fairly typical trade law case, where substantive determinations are based on the minute procedural fights.