US Asks for Voluntary Remand to Reconsider Rejection of Prior Agency Decisions on Collapsing Analysis
The U.S. asked for a voluntary remand at the Court of International Trade in a suit on the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical tubing of carbon and alloy steel from Italy to reconsider the "single-entity treatment" of exporters Dalmine and Silcotub (ArcelorMittal Tubular Products v. United States, CIT # 24-00039).
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.
The suit was brought by petitioners, led by ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, to claim that Dalmine and Silcotub should be treated as one entity, submitting five memos from the Commerce Department from recent cases in which the agency collapsed entities "under analogous facts." The agency initially accepted submission of these memos, though it changed course following a later submission from the petitioners.
Commerce said the memos were factual information not previously placed on the record of the review. The petitioners challenged the move administratively, arguing that the "case citations had been on the record for over six months" and that, legally, prior agency memos aren't "factual information."
At the trade court, the government now asks for a voluntary remand to "respond to plaintiffs' request for reconsideration" of the rejection of the memos, "reconsider the agency's position with respect to its rejection of materials in which plaintiffs cited prior administrative proceedings" and "revise that position with respect to the admissibility of plaintiffs' submissions."
The U.S. added that if the submissions are put on the record, "Commerce will need to consider plaintiffs’ accompanying arguments for purposes of the agency’s single-entity determination with respect to Dalmine and Silcotub." The petitioners and Dalmine said they wouldn't oppose the motion.