Steel Nails Exporter Opposes Values Constructed for It Using Auto Parts Company's Info
In an April 1 complaint contesting the final results of a 2021-2022 antidumping duty review, a Taiwanese exporter of steel nails said that the Commerce Department shouldn’t have used the financial records of an automotive parts exporter to calculate its own home market profit and selling expenses. The automotive parts exporter sold “entirely different types of products,” it said (Your Standing International Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00055).
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.
Steel nail exporter Your Standing International said it received a 26.28% AD rate after Commerce constructed its home market profits and selling costs using information from San Shing, a Taiwanese exporter that, it said, primarily sold components for vehicles. However, Your Standing added, San Shing sells fasteners as part of its business, and the department found that those fasteners were adequately similar to Your Standing’s nails for comparison in its final results.
Your Standing also argued that San Shing’s home market sales were only a “small fraction,” fewer than 15%, of its overall transactions. Most of its sales were made in the U.S. or other countries, it said.
To construct selling expenses and profit values for an exporter’s AD margin calculation, Commerce may look to that exporter’s home market sales of a similar product, average the relevant information of the review’s other respondents or use “any other reasonable method.” The department chose the third option for Your Standing’s calculation, the exporter said.
Commerce received multiple Taiwanese companies’ financial statements during its review from the review’s petitioner, Your Standing said. It said that the petitioner, however, urged the department to use San Shing’s, and the department acceded.
The exporter argued that Commerce’s choice of San Shing was unreasonable, unsupported by substantial evidence and not in accordance with law. It asked the court to remand the results to the department so that Commerce could reconstruct its selling expenses and profits using a different Taiwanese manufacturer’s information.