Commerce Erred in AD Rate Calculation, Turkish Steelmakers Say in CIT Complaint

Commerce erred when it treated Section 232 duties as "U.S. import duties" instead of "special" tariffs in its antidumping duty calculation in an antidumping duty review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey, said Kaptan and Colakoglu, respondents in the review, in an April 10 complaint. Kaptan and Colakoglu also said Commerce incorrectly relied on invoice dates as the dates of U.S. sale rather than contract dates (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi Ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT # 23-00059).

Commerce inappropriately relied on previous investigations for evidence instead of treating each review as "a separate segment," Kaptan and Colakoglu said. They submitted a joint case brief to Commerce, which they say provided "ample record evidence and precedent" showing that the 2020-2021 review was different from prior reviews and that the correct dates for U.S. sales was the contract date for Kaptan and the order date for Colakoglu. "Commerce should have relied on contract date as the date of U.S. sales because that was the date on which material terms of U.S. sales were fixed," the respondents said.

Commerce also treated Section 232 duties as “United States import duties,” which resulted in the deduction of those duties from the calculated U.S. price. Section 232 tariffs are “special” tariffs imposed via specific congressional mandates, the respondents said. The duties fall outside of the meaning of the antidumping statute because they are "remedial" and "temporary," the respondents argued. The Section 232 duties should be treated differently than normal customs duties because their deduction from the U.S. price created a "double-remedy," contrary to the statute, the complaint said.