Petitioners, Respondent Challenge Malaysian Ferrosilicon AD/CVD Investigations
In a July 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade, domestic antidumping duty petitioners CC Metals and Alloys and Ferroglobe USA, Inc. alleged a Malaysian ferrosilicon investigation’s mandatory respondent should have been hit with an adverse facts available rate. The respondent, meanwhile, challenged the AFA rate it did receive in the Commerce Department’s countervailing duty investigation determination in its own complaint (CC Metals and Alloys v. United States, CIT # 25-00131).
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 two petitioners said in their complaint that the respondent, Malaysian exporter OM Materials Sarawak, provided Commerce new control numbers information at verification that “resulted in a fundamental misalignment between [OM Materials’] reported costs and sales.” The department was wrong to find that this was a minor issue, they said; it had a “large” impact on the exporter’s final AD margin. And “because verification is not the place for fundamental methodological changes to be introduced,” Commerce should have applied either total or partial AFA, they said.
CC Metals and Ferroglobe also argued the respondent’s U.S. sales should have been treated as constructed export sales, not merely as export sales.
In turn, OM Materials challenged the CVD investigation results in its own complaint filed the same day.
OM Materials said Commerce countervailed Malaysia’s Industrial Building Allowance program after wrongly finding it, based on AFA, to be de facto specific to the exporter. And the department “either disregarded or misinterpreted evidence placed on the record by the Government of Malaysia,” it said.
It also challenged Commerce’s decision to countervail Malaysia’s land tax program, which it said the department wrongly interpreted as a rental program rather than a tax.