Commerce Defends Use of Total AFA Based on Mexican Rebar Exporter's Submission Deficiencies
DOJ defended the Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available on exporter Grupo Simec in an antidumping duty review due to Simec's failure to timely submit all of the information requested. In a June 26 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that even though it granted several extensions to Simec so the company could file its initial and supplemental questionnaires, the exporter failed to timely submit the information in the 2019-20 administrative review of the AD order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT Consol. # 22-00202).
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.
DOJ added that Commerce properly denied Simec's bid for a two-week extension the night before the supplemental questionnaire was due, since the company even went beyond its own requested two-week extension when it tried to file the response 40 days after the deadline.
Simec had told the trade court that the "vast majority" of its information was reliable and usable. The U.S. pointed to a Commerce deficiencies memo that detailed the flaws with the company's submissions, including missing home market, U.S. and downstream sales data.
The company said that if its responses were inadequate, it's Commerce's fault since the agency didn't issue additional supplemental questionnaires. But DOJ said Simec "received two supplemental questionnaires, which satisfies Commerce's obligation to provide respondents" with a chance to explain deficiencies in their initial responses.
Simec claimed that Commerce inconsistently applied its standards, given that the agency let the other mandatory respondent submit a response to its second supplemental questionnaire while rejecting Simec's filing on the same date. "Commerce exercises its discretion when assigning deadlines and considers the particular facts attributable to each respondent," DOJ said.
Simec also claimed that Commerce would have only withstood a "minimal burden by accepting" the proposed filing. DOJ said the company failed to respond to multiple questions in the questionnaires and gave incomplete answers to many others. "Given the extent of the information still outstanding from Simec’s submissions, the October 18 Filing would have imposed a significant burden on Commerce and disrupted the agency’s timetable, the enforcement of which is governed by Commerce’s reasoned discretion," the brief said.
The "pervasiveness of the deficiencies throughout Simec's responses supports" the use of total AFA and the 66.70% dumping rate, DOJ added. In all, DOJ counted 11 different data categories in Simec's submissions that were insufficient, detailing how each one fell short in the reply brief.