CIT Approves Fixing Clerical Errors in China Graphite Electrodes AD Review
Chinese producer/exporters argued that the International Trade Administration made six ministerial errors in the first AD administrative review of small diameter graphite electrodes from China, covering the period August 21, 2008 through January 31, 2010. The ITA agreed in part and sought court leave to correct three of the alleged errors, as well as one other ministerial error it had discovered (the agency had intended to publish amended final results before the Chinese producers filed suit).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In a consolidated case, the Court of International Trade heard the Chinese producers' claims and the ITA's request for court leave to correct: 1) a selling, general, and administrative expenses ratio; (2) a profit ratio; (3) a freight value, for which it had applied per-ton expenses to per-kilo production amounts; and 4) the misspelling of one company's name in the margin results list.
Domestic producers opposed the ITA's request to voluntarily amend the errors, arguing in part that the agency's policy of issuing liquidation instructions within 15-days of final results of review prevented them from determining whether such errors were in fact merely ministerial.
Noting that that the domestic parties had initially not objected to most of the Chinese producers' ministerial error allegations, and reasoning that courts typically grant the ITA leave to publish amended final results correcting such errors, the court ruled that the errors the ITA proposed to fix were “clearly ministerial,” and held that allowing the ITA to rectify them and publish amended final results would not result in prejudice or unfairness to any party.
(Slip Op. 12-23, dated 02/22/12, Judge Ridgeway)