Commerce Adds Respondent on Wind Tower Remand but Keeps Rate
The Commerce Department complied with a remand order from the Court of International Trade by adding a respondent to its antidumping duty investigation on utility-scale wind towers from Spain, but did not alter its all-others rate, in remand results submitted to the trade court June 16 (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. U.S., CIT # 21-00449).
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.
In the remand results, Commerce found Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) was affiliated with Windar Renovables, another exporter of wind towers. Windar had received an individual, adverse facts available rate of 73% in the original investigation. Commerce found that, consistent with its practice, it was appropriate to apply that rate to the SGRE/Windar entity, which did not change the all-others rate. Commerce’s practice when collapsing two companies into a single entity, where one of the companies has an existing AFA rate, is to assign the existing rate to the combined entity. "Because there are no other rates on the record ... the 'all others' rate remains unchanged," Commerce said.
CIT had remanded Commerce’s decision not to individually examine SGRE, saying that it "must be remedied by an individual investigation” of SGRE. "In the guise of an actual antidumping duty investigation, Commerce merely took a rate advocated by the petitioner and applied it to all exporters and producers of the subject merchandise," Judge Timothy Stanceu said in his remand order (see 2302170028).
In the underlying investigation, Windar had failed to respond to Commerce’s questionnaire, resulting in the 73% AFA rate. That rate was never challenged in either the proceeding or at CIT, Commerce said.
SGRE/Windar claimed the CIT was "fully aware of SGRE’s relationship with Windar" and said that by collapsing them, Commerce failed the court's explicit directive to individually examine SGRE. Commerce argued that the extent of the relationship between SGRE and Windar was not yet established when the court ordered the remand and that collapsing the entities was not a foregone conclusion.
Commerce also defended its use of AFA on Windar, saying the rate was based on a finding that Windar had “withheld information requested by Commerce" and "significantly impeded the proceeding by failing to respond to our Q&V questionnaires.” The department noted it was "standard practice" to assign AFA-based margins to companies that failed to respond to questionnaires and that Commerce has done so regularly.
As for the all-others rate, Commerce said the governing statute allows Commerce to use "any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters" when weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely using AFA.