Exporter Contests US Request for More Time to File Remand Results in AD Case at Trade Court
No good cause exists for the Court of International Trade to grant the Commerce Department another 30 days to file its remand results in an antidumping duty case on wind towers from Spain, exporter Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy said in a reply brief. Commerce filed its motion to extend one day before the parties' comments on the draft remand results were due, claiming that more time is needed for parties to comment and for the agency to analyze the comments (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT # 21-00449).
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.
"In reality, defendant submitted its motion to extend a single day before the deadline for parties to comment on the Draft Remand Results," Siemens said. "Commerce did not engage with or explain its apparent intention to provide additional time to submit comments to Siemens prior to filing its motion for an extension of time. Indeed, in its communications with Siemens, defendant represented that it would simply request a 30-day extension."
Siemens claimed that this therefore puts the parties in a "difficult position." Given Commerce's tight deadlines, Siemens prepared its comments, removing the agency's concern. "At this point, the deadline for parties to submit comments has passed and Commerce appears to have finalized its investigation into Siemens," the brief said. "Therefore, the defendant’s apparent desire to provide additional time for the parties to comment, which appears [to] be defendant’s only argument that good cause exist to grant the extension request, is moot."
In the case, the trade court said Commerce improperly picked only one mandatory respondent (see 2302170028), citing a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that held Commerce may not use just one respondent where multiple exporters have requested a review. The court also sent back the agency's respondent selection decision, and also ruled against Commerce's use of an adverse facts available rate, taken from the petitioner after the one respondent backed out of the investigation, for the non-individually selected respondents and the all-others rate.