Commerce Reconsiders Partial AFA, Prime and Non-Prime COP and More in AD Case Remand

The Commerce Department came back with remand results in a case on its antidumping duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Germany, relying on total cost of production for prime and non-prime merchandise in respondent AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke's books as facts otherwise available and revising the major input rule adjustment for Dillinger's coke inputs to reflect a contemporaneous comparison of coke consumption values and freight costs (AG der Dillinger Huttenwerke v. United States, CIT Consol. #17-00158). Commerce also revised its adjustments to Dillinger's COP for inputs and services rendered to affiliates and gave a further explanation for its use of partial adverse facts available to respondent Salzgitter. The result was a 4.98% dumping rate for Dillinger, a 22.90% rate for Salzgitter and a 20.99% all-others rate, if the remand results are sustained.

Dillinger and Salzgitter had challenged Commerce's COP determination for Dillinger's prime and non-prime plates. The agency found that Dillinger uses internal "factory results reports" to value the non-prime products at their "likely selling prices," using this value as an offset to the production of prime goods. CIT remanded Commerce's reliance on the price offset, finding that Commerce must use a respondent's actual cost data as opposed to its likely selling price in line with U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent (see 2108180046). CIT told the agency to recalculate the respondent's margins according to the methodology established in a different case. The court said the use of partial AFA in the two cases appeared undistinguishable, but, in its remand, Commerce said that the scope of Salzgitter's failure to cooperate is "substantially different" than the scope of the related case.

"The difference between Salzgitter’s, Dillinger’s, and Dillinger France’s missing information warrants the application of different partial AFA methodologies," the remand results said. Using the partial AFA methodology established in Dillinger France v. U.S. would've resulted in a zero percent margin for Salzgitter and thus "did not support Commerce's goals in applying partial AFA," Commerce said. "... Here, Commerce considered the extent to which Salzgitter may benefit from its own lack of cooperation. In selecting a partial AFA methodology, Commerce seeks to adopt a methodology that would induce future cooperation and ensure that necessary information is placed on the record. If respondents find there is no benefit to their cooperation, they may conclude that withholding information or providing only certain information, rather than providing a fulsome response, is more advantageous."