Commerce Correctly Declined to Apply Adverse Facts, Thai Exporter Argues
The Commerce Department correctly used neutral facts available instead of adverse facts available against Prinx Chengshan Tire (Thailand), and the company cooperated to the best of its ability to provide all information requested, the Thai exporter said in its response brief filed on Feb. 6 with the Court of International Trade in opposition to the United Steelworkers’ motion for judgment (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. United States, CIT # 25-00004).
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.
United Steelworkers filed their motion on Oct. 3, claiming Prinx didn't provide information to the best of its ability because the exporter “was ‘twice asked to report its interest expense and twice provided an expense calculated using the financial statements of nonmarket economy (‘NME’) entities, despite Commerce’s explicit instructions not to do so.’”
However, the exporter argued, “Commerce’s initial Section D Questionnaire did not ‘explicitly’ state that Prinx was required to use the financial statements of a market economy ('ME') entity” for calculating its net interest expense ratio. As a result, Prinx argued its “initial calculation based on its parent company’s financial statements in its initial response reasonably complied with Commerce’s instructions.”
According to the response brief, Commerce verified Prinx’s financial data and determined that it was accurate. Additionally, the U.S. defended Commerce's refusal to use adverse facts available against Prinx in its Dec. 23 response to United Steelworkers' motion for judgment (see 2512240046).
Yet, United Steelworkers argued, “Prinx attempted a ‘gambit’ and that its conduct was ‘egregious,’” and it “knowingly flouted Commerce’[s] instructions.”
Prinx said the “petitioner’s repeated use of strong language does not overcome its weak position” and maintained that it “hid nothing.” The exporter requested CIT “affirm Commerce’s decision to rely on Prinx Thailand’s own financial statements to calculate Prinx Thailand’s financial expense ratio, and to reject Petitioner’s argument that Commerce should rely on partial AFA in its calculation.”