CIT Sustains AFA China-wide Rate in China OCTG AD Investigation; Lies Impeached Credibility of Entire Record
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s decision to include plaintiffs Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube and Jiangsu Changbao Precision Tube as part of the China-wide entity, with an AD rate of 99.14 percent, in the antidumping investigation of oil country tubular goods from China (A-570-943). The ITA had found that misrepresentations by company officials during an on-site verification, as well as discrepancies in the company’s accounting programs, impeached the credibility of all statements made by Changbao officials and supported by Changbao’s accounting records. The ITA then disregarded all submissions by Changbao during the investigation, including the company’s separate rate application, resulting in the China-wide rate.
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.
During the investigation, amid questions on the composition of the inputs used in Changbao’s oil country tubular goods, the ITA conducted an on-site verification. Changbao officials told the ITA that it only used alloy billets, and provided several mill test certificates, as well as company records contained in Changbao’s computerized accounting system, to back up its claims. Following verification, however, the petitioners and later CBP provided evidence that the company in fact used non-alloy billets in some of the merchandise it exported. Changbao then admitted it had misrepresented this fact during the verification. The ITA, now doubting the credibility of any claims made by Changbao, decided to disregard all evidence the company had submitted on the record of the investigation, and through the application of adverse facts available (AFA) assigned the company to the China-wide entity.
CIT found that the ITA’s decisions at every step during the proceeding were supported by substantial evidence, including its determination that the misstatements impeached the credibility of Changbao’s officials and any statements those officials made. The ITA had could not attempt to verify again Changbao’s record evidence because of the late state in the proceeding at which the misstatements were uncovered.
Regarding the ITA’s decision to throw out Changbao’s separate rate application, CIT noted that “the court has repeatedly held … that an NME respondent’s separate rate application may not be disregarded in favor of the presumption of government control in the absence of specific evidentiary findings to support the conclusion that such an application presents no reliable evidence.” But in this case, CIT found, the ITA adequately justified its claims by finding that the statements made by Changbao officials in support of the separate rate were unreliable, as well as the evidence from the company’s accounting program to support those statements.
(Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 12-135, dated 11/14/12, public version 12/18/12, Judge Pogue)
(Attorneys: William Silverman of Drinker Biddle for plaintiffs Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Changbao Precision Tube Co., Ltd.; Misha Preheim for defendant U.S. government; Roger Schagrin of Schagrin Associates for defendant intervenors TMK IPSCO, V&M Star, Wheatland Tube Corporation, Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, and United Steel Workers; Robert Lightthizer of Akadden Arms for defendant-intervenor U.S. Steel; Alan Price of Wiley Rein for defendant-intervenor Maverick Tube.)