Turkish Exporter Challenges Commerce's Cross-Owned Input Supplier Finding in CVD Review

The Commerce Department violated the law in finding that Nur Gemicilik is a cross-owned input supplier of Turkish exporter and mandatory countervailing duty review respondent Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret, Kaptan argued in a May 12 complaint at the Court of International Trade. While Nur provided Kaptan with scrap generated from its shipbuilding enterprise, the amount was "extremely miniscule," precluding Nur from being a cross-owned input supplier, the complaint said (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #22-00149).

The case stems from the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey in which Kaptan and Colakoglu Metalurji served as mandatory respondents. In the review, Commerce said Nur was a cross-owned input supplier of Kaptan's and entered into a lease and investment agreement with the local government, allowing it to use land rent-free in exchange for meeting various investment and employment criteria. The result of the review was a 1.75% CVD rate for Kaptan.

In its complaint to CIT, Kaptan said Commerce's finding that Nur was a cross-owned input supplier of Kaptan's was unsupported by evidence and contrary to the law. The respondent also challenged the legality of Commerce's decision to calculate the benefit for Nur's rent-free land as a good for less than adequate remuneration, as opposed to forgone revenue. The four-count complaint also tackled Commerce's industrial rent benchmark for the land rent program and the agency's decision to countervail the program on the Exemptions from Bank and Insurance Transactions Tax (BITT) on Foreign Exchange Transactions.