AD Respondent Swaps Counsel in CIT Case Over On-Site Verification
Antidumping duty respondent and defendant-intervenor in a case at the Court of International Trade, Shakti Forge Industries, has switched its representation. Filing a notice of substitution of attorney, Shakti parted with its counsel at Barnes Richardson to employ Robert Gosselink and Aqmar Rahman at Trade Pacific. The case concerns the AD investigation on forged steel fittings from India (Bonney Forge v. U.S., CIT #20-03837).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, Commerce said it couldn't conduct on-site verification in the investigation. The agency issued supplemental questionnaires instead, took Shakti at its word and then used "facts available," resulting in a zero percent dumping margin for the respondent. A group of U.S. producers, led by Bonney Forge, filed suit at CIT, arguing Commerce can't shirk its responsibility to conduct verification (see 2107090055). The court sent the issue back to Commerce, which stuck by its decision to issue a questionnaire instead of conducting on-site verification (see 2207050070).