Commerce Begins AD Investigation After BPI Restricted to Employees, Not Company Name
The Commerce Department is beginning an investigation based on a petition that initially redacted the name of one of the companies that filed it, though the petitioners have since publicly disclosed the company’s name in an amended petition. The identities of several employees of the petitioners in the complaint, however, remain confidential.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Commerce announced the beginning of its AD duty investigation on superabsorbent polymers from South Korea in a notice released Nov. 29. Filed by the Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers, the petition as first filed Nov. 2 only disclosed the names of two of three coalition members, Evonik and BASF (see 2111040064). An amendment filed the next day disclosed the third member as Nippon Shokubai America Industries, Inc.
The amended petition still kept confidential the contact names and phone numbers of each of the three members of the coalition. Commerce asked about this in a supplemental questionnaire issued Nov. 4, citing the amended petition’s purported lack of detailed explanation as to why the employee names should remain confidential.
The identity and contact information of the individual employees is information that would cause substantial harm to the petitioners, meriting business proprietary treatment, the coalition said in its supplemental questionnaire response. “Petitioner is concerned that disclosing specific information for company personnel would permit reprisals within the SAP market with respect to these individual company employees in the context of customer relationships, market participation, and professional opportunities, undermining the competitiveness of the coalition members and their ability to seek relief in this investigation,” the response said.
Commerce has previously granted confidential treatment for individual employees in the recent investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China, the response noted. And the identity of the employees is not for the benefit of respondents in the case or the general public, but rather so that Commerce and the International Trade Commission can communicate with the petitioners during the investigation, the petitioners said.
Commerce recently denied confidential treatment to a coalition of companies requesting an anti-circumvention inquiry on solar cells, on the basis that keeping the company names secret would interfere with respondents' ability to defend themselves in the case (see 2111100082).