Exporter Challenges Determination in CVD Investigation on Ferrosilicon From Kazakhstan
Kazakhstani ferrosilicon exporter TNC Kazchrome JSC joined a Malaysian exporter in challenging the final determinations of the Commerce Department’s antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations on its products (see 2507220068). It also challenged the International Trade Commission’s final injury determination (TNC Kazchrome JSC v. United States, CIT # 25-00127, -00128, -00129).
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.
Regarding the CVD investigation, Kazchrome said it was unlawfully hit with an adverse facts available rate of 265.52%. But the exporter, a mandatory respondent, called itself “fully cooperative” throughout the investigation, saying it submitted “thousands of pages of evidence and data” and underwent “four full on-site days of verification.”
The department investigated 25 government programs during its CVD investigation on the products from Kazakhstan, Kazchrome said, and preliminarily calculated a 2.71% rate for the respondent after determining only one program was countervailable. But in its final determination, it “pivot[ed],” claiming to have learned that Kazakhstan’s government owned a 40% interest in the respondent’s “ultimate parent company,” the Luxembourg-based Eurasian Resources Group.
First, Kazchrome said, this “pivot” was uncalled for because, “[s]imply put, this information was not withheld.” Second, Commerce is forbidden by its own regulations from countervailing subsidies provided by “a government of a country other than the country in which the recipient firm is located,” it claimed.
The exporter also challenged Commerce’s decision, starting with its preliminary determination, to countervail a tax incentive program provided by Kazakhstan’s government.
Regarding the antidumping investigation, Kazchrome said Commerce chose the wrong sales date for its U.S. sales. It said the department should have looked to its sales’ final invoice dates, not their shipment dates.
It explained that it makes all of its sales to one U.S. customer, TELF. It had established a process with that customer by which it first issues provisional invoices for sales that include a price estimate “used to calculate an initial payment for purposes of shipment.” It said this figure acts “effectively as a deposit for the sale” and is revised according to a separate pricing schedule by the final invoice.
But, although it explained this to the department “in detail,” Commerce found that it couldn’t determine the actual dates of title transfer for the ferrosilicon and instead defaulted to the earlier of the products’ shipment or invoice dates -- which resulted in it using shipment dates, Kazchrome said.
This resulted in the department “inflating a zero dumping margin to more than 6%,” it said.
Finally, the exporter attacked the ITC’s final injury determination, saying the commission actually ignored “the overwhelming overselling by ferrosilicon imports” from Brazil, Kazakhstan and Malaysia. The ITC also used the wrong evidence for its import volume and market share calculations, it claimed, and further ignored “extensive record evidence” indicating that the domestic ferrosilicon industry wasn’t being harmed by imports.
All antidumping duty and countervailing duty investigations conducted on ferrosilicon from Brazil, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Russia concluded April 17 (see 2505200030). TNC Kazchrome joins Malaysian exporter OM Materials Sarawak and petitioners CC Metals and Alloys and Ferroglobe USA in challenging the investigations’ determinations.