US Defends Use of AFA Against Greek Exporter for Failing to Submit Reconciliation Info

Greek exporter Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry had "multiple opportunities" to submit the proper reconciliation information in an antidumping duty review "but refused to do so," justifying the Commerce Department's decision to impose adverse facts available, the U.S. government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week (Corinth Pipeworks Pipe Industry v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2094).

The U.S. called Corinth's data "too incomplete to serve as a reliable basis for reaching a dumping determination."

Corinth originally was hit with a 41.04% AFA rate in an antidumping review on large diameter welded pipe from Greece for failing to submit reconciliation information in the form requested by Commerce. The company objected to the AFA rate at the Federal Circuit, saying Commerce never gave it a chance to comment on the agency's analysis (see 2310030032).

The U.S. disagreed, saying in a Dec. 13 reply brief that Commerce wasn't required to give Corinth a chance to comment on the findings under 19 U.S.C. Section 1677m(g) since the agency didn't add any new information to the record. Instead, Commerce only "used what was available from Corinth’s confusing and unclear reconciliation submissions," the brief said.

The petitioner of the large diameter welded pipe AD order, the American Line Pipe Producers Association Trade Committee, echoed that argument in its own brief, saying Corinth gave "unexplained, incomprehensible and unreliable cost data" despite "multiple requests by Commerce and agency warnings that its data could not be interpreted." The committee called that data "among the most fundamental pieces of information that a respondent must provide to the agency in an antidumping duty review."

The government also said it doesn't matter that it's possible for Commerce to reconcile its data now since Corinth "never provided the information Commerce requested," and argued that Corinth also failed to exhaust claims that it submitted its cost reconciliation in the form and manner requested.