US Opposes AD Respondent's Bid to Intervene in Case at Trade Court
The Court of International Trade should deny exporter Dong-A Steel Co.'s bid to intervene in an antidumping duty case, the U.S. argued in a July 28 brief at the trade court. DOJ argued that Dong-A cannot show that it will suffer injury over the Commerce Department's finding over plaintiff HiSteel Co.'s dumping margin since Dong-A got its own individual dumping margin for its exports that would be unaffected by any decision in HiSteel's case (HiSteel Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00142).
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.
HiSteel launched its case to contest Commerce's final results in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from South Korea. In the review, to detect masked dumping, Commerce used the Cohne's d test as part of its differential pricing analysis. The agency found that masked dumping was occurring, then decided to use the average-to-transaction method to calculate the dumping margin. HiSteel took to the trade court to argue this was illegal (see 2206080062). Dong-A, a respondent in the review, then sought to intervene in the matter.
The U.S. opposed the matter, arguing that Dong-A cannot meet the standard to intervene in the case. The use of the differential pricing analysis and decision whether to use the average-to-transaction method to calculate HiSteel's dumping margin had no effect on Dong-A's margin, the brief said. Dong-A has failed to show that it would be adversely affected by a decision pending at the trade court since it only claimed it could be adversely affected in future proceedings by a ruling against HiSteel.
"Perhaps most importantly, [Dong-A's] vague and speculative assertion that it may be adversely affected, not in this proceeding, but in future proceedings makes intervention wholly inappropriate now because it invites a purely advisory opinion," the brief said. "[Dong-A] will have the ability to challenge Commerce’s determinations if it is adversely affected in future proceedings. By claiming intervention as of right, the requirements of which [Dong-A] does not meet, [Dong-A] should not be allowed to inject itself as an active participant in this litigation that has no effect on [Dong-A's] dumping margin or assessment rate. Thus, [Dong-A] fails to establish that it could be adversely affected or aggrieved by the Court’s decision in this litigation."