Exporter Calls for Stay in CIT Case Given Commerce's Flipped Position on Cross-Owned Supplier Analysis

The Commerce Department's cross-owned input supplier analysis in a case on the 2018 countervailing duty review of steel concrete reinforcing bar from Turkey "has a direct and precedential bearing" on the Court of International Trade's decision in the case on the 2020 review of the same order, exporter Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret told the trade court (Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret v. United States, CIT # 22-00149).

Filing a supplemental brief on Nov. 7, Kaptan said that as a result of Commerce's remand determination in the separate case, the court "should pause this proceeding until it has rendered its decision on the remand results." The exporter said the cases involve the same claims, and in the case on the 2018 review, Commerce reversed its decision finding that ship building company Nur Gemicilik ve Tic, an affiliate of Kaptan, is not a cross-owned input supplier of goods primarily dedicated to the production of downstream products (see 2307250051).

In the remand results, Commerce discussed the factors it considered when finding if Nur is a cross-owned input supplier of goods primarily dedicated to the production of downstream products. Looking at its listed factors, along with case-specific facts from Kaptan, the agency said the record does not support a finding that the steel scrap made by Nur is primarily dedicated to Kaptan's downstream production.

Given this finding, the case on the 2020 review of the CVD order should be paused since the "facts upon which the Nur cross-ownership issue is based in each proceeding are substantially similar," the brief said. "Thus, were this case to proceed without a voluntary remand by the Government or a change in position, the Government would be arguing the exact opposite position that it took in the [2018 review case] and, more importantly, be arguing for a cross-ownership analysis that it so clearly abandoned in [the 2018 case]."