Commerce Has 'Broad Discretion' to Preserve Finality of AD Reviews, AD Petitioner Tells CIT

The Commerce Department's refusal to reopen the record after an antidumping review was complete to correct ministerial errors "was a reasonable exercise of its discretion to preserve the finality of its decision," AD petitioner GEO Specialty Chemicals argued in a July 21 brief at the Court of International Trade. GEO said that Commerce's discretion to not amend the final results is "broad," and that the error was not discovered until "well after" the five-day window after the release of the final calculations to file ministerial errors (Nagase & Co. v. United States, CIT #21-00574).

The case contests the final results in the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from Japan. Nagase & Co., along with its affiliated producer Yuki Gosei Kogyo Co., served as one mandatory respondent in the review. Nagase challenged Commerce's final determination in the review that the exporter dumped glycine into the U.S. market at a rate of 27.71%. The respondent argued, among other things, that Commerce inadvertently duplicated and reported the incorrect U.S. duty amounts for Nagase's constructed export price sales, resulting in a "grossly inflated" assessment rate (see 2203040053).

In its reply, GEO argued that it was Nagase's obligation to give Commerce accurate information. "Even if this value is truly an error -- which Commerce did not have the opportunity to review and verify -- Plaintiff cannot expect Commerce to correct YGK/Nagase's own submissions and guarantee their accuracy," the brief said. "... Contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the error was not apparent on the record."

The petitioner further argued that Commerce has "broad discretion" to not change its final results to preserve the finality of its decision. Since the issue was raised after the appropriate time to bring up such ministerial errors, the agency has an interest in finality that it can choose how to uphold, the brief said. "Commerce's refusal to re-open the record after 'this administrative review is complete' was a reasonable exercise of its discretion to preserve the finality of its decision," the brief said. "This Court should reject Plaintiff's claim."