CIT Upholds Commerce's Second Remand in Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products CVD Case
The Court of International Trade on April 29 sustained the Commerce Department's second remand results in a countervailing duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from India. Upholding the agency's application of adverse facts available to Indian steel producer Uttam Galva Steels in Commerce's 2016 review, Judge Leo Gordon found that Commerce adequately explained its decision to apply full AFA to Uttam Galva and not to the other mandatory respondent in the case, JSW, because Uttam Galva failed to provide information about its affiliation with Lloyds Steel Industry Ltd. (LSIL).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
In the review, Commerce had hit Uttam Galva with AFA rates totaling 588.42% and settled on a lower, partial AFA rate for JSW. Arguing that the different AFA rates were justified, Commerce pointed to multiple disparities between Uttam Galva and JSW in the CVD investigation. While JSW also had an affiliate that it did not initially report, it offered information on the company voluntarily, and the affiliate was in operation only two months of the review period. Uttam Galva conceded the existence of its affiliate LSIL only after prompting from Commerce and, even after doing so, mischaracterized its acquisition of the company, Commerce said. LSIL was also affiliated with Uttam Galva for the entire period of review in the CVD investigation.
"We emphasized that the particular facts of that case -- e.g., where an unreported affiliate was operational for only a portion of the period of investigation/review, or where the respondent attempted to self-correct its response unprompted by Commence -- may not, when viewed alone, render total AFA inappropriate," Commerce said. "Rather, we emphasized that those facts, taken together, guided our approach to selecting a (partial) AFA rate for JSW.” Gordon agreed with this rationale.
"Commerce ... emphasized that the affiliation only became apparent after placing affiliation/cross-ownership information on the record upon discovering an unreported relationship between Uttam Galva and LSIL and soliciting additional information from Uttam Galva on this issue. This combined with the fact that LSIL was operational during the entirety of the [period of review] as compared to JSW’s affiliate that was operational for only the last two months of the investigation provides a reasonable basis for Commerce’s determination," Gordon said
(Uttam Galva Steels Limited v. U.S., CIT # 19-00044, Judge Gordon. Attorneys: John Marshall Gurley of Arent Fox for plaintiff Uttam Galva Steels Limited; Mollie Finnan for defendant U.S. government; Roger Brian Schagrin of Schagrin Associates for defendant-intervenors California Steel Industries, Inc. and Steel Dynamics, Inc.)