Commerce Properly Accepted Surrogate Value Data as BCI, US Tells Trade Court
The Commerce Department didn't violate the law by accepting information submitted by antidumping duty respondent Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. even though the data was labeled as business proprietary, the government said in a reply brief at the Court of International Trade. In the AD investigation on mobile access equipment and subassemblies from China, the U.S. said the information could only have been submitted as business proprietary information, and that the data was merely "supporting documentation for information already on the record" (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. U.S., CIT # 22-00152).
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 proceeding, Dingli pointed out certain steel grades as made of "non-alloy" material, later providing the Harmonized Tariff Schedule headings and surrogate values it thought to be the best match. The petitioner, the Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment, challenged Dingli's claim that certain steel grades are in fact non-alloy steel grade. Dingli submitted a rebuttal, placing mill test steel certificates on the record to back its argument that certain inputs were made from non-alloy materials, the U.S. said.
Commerce said it appropriately accepted this submission as timely "because it was submitted within the 10-day deadline for a response." The agency added that while Dingli claimed BP treatment for the certificates, "Commerce recognized that the only manner in which Dingli could rebut, clarify, or correct the Coalition’s claim that certain steel grades Dingli used were non-alloy steel grade was to place the mill test steel certificates on the record."
Dingli also put price quotes on the record that were challenged by the coalition for being improperly accepted. Commerce said these quotes "are publicly available pricing data intended to rebut the Coalition’s suggestion of certain HTS numbers that provide average unit values that are substantially higher than the HTS number suggested by Dingli." The agency added that there was "no prejudice" stemming from the acceptance of this information since it was already on the record and the petitioner could use the information in the certificates to make its claims.
Elsewhere in the brief, the U.S. defended Commerce's surrogate value picks for freight costs, 18 inputs categorized as "minor fabricated steel" parts and drive motors. The government said the Descartes, Freightos and Drewry data used to value the SV freight costs "satisfied all of Commerce’s surrogate value criteria for contemporaneity, public availability, product specificity, broad market average representation, and tax exclusivity."