Questionnaire Can't Substitute for Verification in CVD Case, Exporter Contends
An in lieu of verification (ILV) questionnaire cannot substitute for an actual verification of information submitted as part of a countervailing duty proceeding, Turkish exporter Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi said in a June 24 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Challenging the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a CVD investigation of common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, Teknik said that Commerce did not provide adequate notice that the exporter's filings were deficient as is required (Teknik Aluminyum Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT 21-00251).
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.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Commerce issued an ILV questionnaire to Teknik, to which the company said it responded with a 918-page, 14-Excel spreadsheet submission. Commerce, nevertheless, found that Teknik "withheld information, failed to provide requested necessary information in the form and manner requested by Commerce, or failed to provide verifiable information for the following programs: Deduction of Taxable Income for Exports; Foreign Market Research and Market Entry Grants Program; Foreign Fair Support Program; Exemption from Property Tax Program," the complaint said. The agency said Teknik did not submit the requested information in the manner in which it requested it, which included a request to send screenshots from its accounting ledgers.
Teknik, in its complaint, said that on-site verifications -- which the ILV questionnaire took the place of -- are "on-going and live processes with active participation by the Department and respondents." As such, the ILV questionnaire cannot take the place of an actual verification, and Commerce is required to tell the respondent when there's a filing deficiency, the complaint said. Since this did not happen, the use of AFA was not in accordance with the law, the exporter said.
Commerce also misrepresented the administrative record, Tekinik said. The agency claimed that Teknik failed to submit "the requested screen shots from its accounting system relating to the Exemption from Property Tax Program and Teknik's Deduction of Taxable Income for Exports." This is false, the exporter said, as Teknik did submit these screen shots in its Verification Questionnaire Response for the "domestic sales reconciliation and export sales reconciliation."