US, Turkish Exporter Disagree on Impact of CIT Decision on Input Supplier Analysis
Parties in a case on the 2020 countervailing duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey disagreed on the impact of the Court of International Trade's ruling in a separate suit concerning the 2018 review of the same CVD order. Filing a joint status report to the trade court on Jan. 8, the U.S. and exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret said no consensus has been reached and "none of the parties have changed their position," though Kaptan said the court's decision "dictates the outcome of this proceeding given virtually identical facts" (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 22-00149).
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 the case on the 2018 review, CIT sustained Commerce's decision to find that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of Kaptan's, is not Kaptan's cross-owned input supplier (see 2311270059). Kaptan also is challenging Commerce's cross-owned input supplier analysis in the 2020 review (see 2311080074).
In the joint status report, Kaptan also said it doesn't believe oral argument is necessary, given the court's recent opinion, while the U.S. and the petitioners deferred to the court "on whether oral argument is necessary." Kaptan added that while "there is one additional issue Plaintiff raised in this proceeding unrelated to, or affected by, the cross-ownership issue (i.e., exemptions from taxes on foreign trade transactions), Plaintiff agrees to rely solely on briefing and believes oral argument is unnecessary for this issue alone."