Commerce Didn't Notify About Deficiencies in Double Remedies Reporting, Exporter Says
Aluminum foil exporters led by mandatory respondent Jiangsu Dinsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. on Feb. 2 again challenged the Commerce Department’s finding in a countervailing duty review that Dingsheng wasn’t entitled to a double remedies adjustment, saying the finding was based on “supposed deficiencies” in Dingsheng’s reporting for which the exporter hadn’t received proper notice (Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00264).
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.
The Court of International Trade remanded the results of Commerce's administrative review of the CVD order on Chinese-origin aluminum foil in December. In her ruling, CIT Judge Claire Kelly explained that Commerce was mistaken in its approach to determining a double remedies adjustment should be considered (see 2512160078).
On remand, Commerce concluded that double remedies could have existed with regard to Dingsheng and moved on to the next stage of its analysis. The agency still denied the adjustment because it found Dingsheng hadn’t provided enough support for its claim that its input costs were impacted by a countervailable subsidy -- in other words, that there was a “subsidy-to-cost” link. Nor had it shown that those lower costs drove Dingsheng to drop its U.S. price to prove a “cost-to-price” link (see 2512160078).
In denying double remedies, Commerce “relied extensively on these supposed deficiencies” in Dingsheng’s reporting, the exporter said. But the agency never notified Dingsheng about these deficiencies, “despite being able to do so,” it said.
It said Commerce hadn’t claimed any of those deficiencies existed in its initial final results.
Further, Commerce had a number of opportunities to seek more information from Dingsheng regarding the connection between the countervailable subsidy in question and Dingsheng’s prices, the exporter said. For example, it said, Dingsheng requested a supplemental double remedies questionnaire before the remand results were due.
The exporter also said the agency had “misconstrue[d]” relevant data from Dingsheng and acted inconsistently between the countervailing duty and antidumping duty reviews.
Dingsheng said it had submitted records extracts showing that its procurement costs for primary aluminum, aluminum sheet and strip and electricity -- inputs the agency had found were made cheaper by subsidies in the CVD review -- were included in its accounting for its finished goods’ cost of manufacture. That served to support a “subsidy-to-cost” link, it said.
And Dingsheng had shown that it raised its U.S. sales price when, at a certain point in the review period, those inputs increased in cost, it said. That demonstrated a “cost-to-price” link, it claimed.