ITC Says It Properly Ignored 'Overinclusive' HTS Data in Injury Determination
The International Trade Commission told the Court of International Trade on July 3 that it fully responded to the court's instructions when it reconsidered the data it relied on when measuring in-scope imports from Germany and Mexico, despite claims to the contrary from Russian pipe exporter PAO TMK (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT # 21-00532).
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.
The ITC initially found in an injury proceeding that U.S. pipe imports from Russia weren't negligible using inaccurate comparison data from two other countries, Germany and Mexico. The commission concluded Germany and Mexico each had only one importer of the goods in question, but that CBP import data indicated the existence of more in the applicable Harmonized Tariff Schedule categories.
On remand, the ITC explained that the "scope of the investigations does not align precisely with the HTS numbers," and that there truly is only one importer from both Germany and Mexico of the subject merchandise. While TMK "continues to point to all companies and all imports from the overinclusive Customs data for all of 2019 that are listed as importing under the HTS numbers from Germany and Mexico," the ITC said this doesn't affect its finding that there were only two known importers of in-scope goods from Germany and Mexico.
TMK filed its own brief on July 3, arguing that the trade court specifically told the commission to "reconsider its calculation of in-scope imports from Germany and Mexico" by addressing the CBP data from the two countries and evidence from TMK that shows an unnamed importer entered in-scope German goods, contrary to the position that only one company brought in-scope goods in from Germany. The commission relied upon the same data and "relied upon the same reasoning it relied upon in the underlying proceeding," TMK said.