CIT Orders Parties to Show Cause on Why Court Shouldn't Remand Decision to Grant CEP Offset
The Court of International Trade ordered that the parties in an antidumping duty case show cause that the court not remand the Commerce Department's decision to grant a constructed export price offset to the mandatory respondents in the 2019-20 administrative review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. Judge Timothy Reif said "it appears there may be interest" in a remand in light of Commerce's obligations under 19 U.S.C. Section 1677m(d) to promptly inform a respondent to a request for information of the nature of any deficiency in the response and give that respondent a chance to remedy the deficiency (Wheatland Tube v. United States, CIT # 22-00160).
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.
Husteel Co. and Hyundai Steel Co. served as mandatory respondents in the review and submitted information on the marketing stages involved in making their home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed for each channel of distribution. In their responses, Husteel and Hyundai requested a CEP offset, which the agency granted preliminarily. Petitioner Wheatland Tube took to the trade court to contest the move. During litigation, the government said its practice in granting CEP offsets has evolved since the review (see 2212050070).
Reif gave the parties until July 10 to show cause on the matter of the court not remanding the case.