Commerce Continues to Find Affiliation Between AD Respondent and US Buyer in Remand Results

The Commerce Department on Aug. 2 continued to find affiliation between the lone respondent in an antidumping duty investigation and one of its U.S. customers after voluntarily remanding the case to consider comments from the respondent. After clearing this procedural hurdle, Commerce maintained this determination in its remand results, accounting for the finding in the duty margin calculation using neutral facts available (OCTAL, Inc. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-03697).

The remand results stem from a Court of International Trade case over an antidumping duty investigation into polyethylene terephthalate sheet from Oman in which OCTAL, Inc., was the only respondent. OCTAL launched its challenge claiming that it didn't get the chance to comment on Commerce's determination that the exporter was affiliated with its U.S. customer. Commerce agreed, moving to voluntarily remand the case. OCTAL, however, wanted a longer remand period so that Commerce could reopen the record so that additional facts could be added to the investigation as to the nature, or lack thereof, of the affiliation (see 2104230028).

Commerce opposed this and said it only sought to remand the case because not enough time for comments to be made was allotted. Things unfolded this way since Commerce's understanding of the relationship between OCTAL and its buyer evolved over time, leading to a late finding of affiliation. Because OCTAL withheld information that would have led to this determination earlier, the affiliation finding was only published in the investigation's final determination, Commerce said.

After reviewing comments, Commerce maintained that OCTAL was able to influence the buyer's production, pricing and costs through "(1) the nature of the supply relationship between OCTAL and Customer A; (2) the arrangement through which OCTAL’s U.S. affiliate purchases back PET flake/scrap from Customer A; (3) loans from OCTAL to Customer A and their terms; and (4) contractual restrictions on Customer A’s business activities," the remand results said.