Commerce Fixes Liquidation Instructions for AD Review, Dispute Lingers on Importer of Record
The Commerce Department fixed an error in its liquidation instructions related to an antidumping duty review in its Oct. 15 remand results at the Court of International Trade. The remand was voluntarily requested by Commerce after it identified the error in the liquidation restrictions (Optima Steel International, LLC, et al. v. U.S., CIT #21-00327).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Commerce filed for the voluntary remand on Oct. 1 in a case involving the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled steel flat products from Japan in which Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., one of the plaintiffs, served as a mandatory respondent (see 2110010038). The other plaintiff, Optima Steel International, was the importer of record. Tokyo Steel received its own individual rate during the review, resulting in Commerce issuing instructions telling CBP to liquidate Tokyo Steel's entries at this rate.
But in the instructions, Commerce used the nickname of an unaffiliated Japanese trading company. In the remand motion, Commerce admitted the mistake and sought a redo to fix it, leading to the remand results that are accompanied by confidential liquidation instructions fixing the error. In comments on the draft remand results submitted to the litigants, Optima and Tokyo Steel said that Optima is clearly the actual importer of record for all of Tokyo Steel's U.S. sales, so Commerce should change the liquidation instructions to reflect this reality.
"However, we disagree with Optima and Tokyo Steel on their other comments," Commerce said. "The assessment rates calculated for Tokyo Steel, the respondent in the administrative review, were based on data provided by Tokyo Steel on all of its sales to the U.S. during that period of review. ... We cannot conclude from the sales trace at Exhibit A-9 that the importer is the same for all of Tokyo Steel’s sales reported in the database. Thus, the assessment rates and liquidation instructions are specific to the individual sales provided by Tokyo Steel and limited by the information on the review record."