CIT Ruling Against AFA Did Not Completely Reject Use of Any AFA, AD Petitioners Tell Trade Court
The defendant-intervenors in an antidumping duty case, Insteel Wire Products Co., Sumiden Wire Products Corp. and Wire Mesh Corp., signed off on the Commerce Department's remand results at the Court of International Trade applying partial adverse facts available. The remand results accepted certain of Turkish exporter Celik Halat's questionnaire responses that it originally denied due to being filed 21 minutes late. The result dropped Commerce's use of total AFA to partial AFA (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi v. United States, CIT #21-00045).
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 case, CIT ruled Commerce's decision to deny the sections B and C questionnaire responses as being untimely filed given that they were 21 minutes late an abuse of discretion (see 2202160021). On remand, Commerce accepted the submissions, resulting in an AD rate drop from 53.65% to 17.88% for Celik. However, the agency still applied partial AFA.
In comments on the draft remand results, Celik argued that it stands as a violation of the court's order to apply AFA. In response, the defendant-intervenors argued that the court did not eliminate Commerce's ability to resort to the use of AFA in appropriate circumstances.
"Halat’s apparent view that it had received a pass from the Court and could not be subject to the use of even partial facts available irrespective of what information it submitted or withheld from the agency, or whether that information was verifiable, is directly inconsistent with the statute," the brief said. Further, the defendant-intervenors argued that substantial evidence supports the use of partial AFA and that the defendant-intervenors should not be punished for Celik's failure to timely file questionnaire responses.
"Halat is not entitled to more deferential, less probing treatment because of the nature of the proceedings in this case," the brief said. "In the remand proceeding, pursuant to this Court’s order, the Department accepted Halat’s Sections B and C questionnaire responses for examination. That the Department examined those responses with 'fresh eyes' and in the same manner as it would have had the responses been accepted during the original investigation was appropriate and fair."