Petitioner Supports 9.2% AD Rate for Two Exporters Collapsed Into One Respondent

The Commerce Department was right to collapse two Mexican exporters in a recent review on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico, a petitioner said in a Jan. 8 brief (Maquilacero v. U.S., CIT # 23-00091) .

Defendant-intervenor Nucor Tubular Products was responding to motions for summary judgment filed by consolidated plaintiff Perfiles L. and plaintiffs Maquilacero and Tecnicas de Fluidos, who say Commerce shouldn't have collapsed Maquilacero with Tecnicas de Fluidos in its 2020-2021 administrative review (see 2310050041).

Prior to collapsing the two companies, Commerce in its preliminary determination assigned mandatory respondent Maquilacero a 3.11% antidumping duty; in its final determination, it assigned both a 9.2% rate.

Commerce’s calculation of the respondent’s AD was correct, Nucor said in its brief.

The petitioner contested Maquilacero and Tecnicas’ argument that Commerce didn't undertake a full analysis before choosing to collapse the two companies. Commerce didn't have to undertake such an analysis “when no new material facts exist concerning the relevant collapsing factors,” it said, and the exporter itself had agreed nothing important had changed since Commerce’s prior decision to collapse the companies in its 2018-2019 review.

“Commerce explicitly asked Plaintiffs for any information during this POR that would justify Commerce revisiting its prior collapsing determination,” Nucor said. “Maquilacero provided no material new evidence.”

Nucor also took issue with the two companies’ argument that Commerce didn't have substantial evidence to back up its collapsing decision, disagreeing that a lack of similarity between the two companies’ products or facilities was relevant. It called those arguments “distractions from the basic fact that both companies produce in-scope products” and added that those claims had already been rejected.

It also said that the two companies failed to address Commerce’s point that they could easily conspire to manipulate price and production of their product because they were highly affiliated; Commerce had previously found managerial overlap between them and determined that their operations were intertwined, Nucor said.

Nucor further argued Technicas’ finished downstream products sold to automotive equipment manufacturers were within the scope of the AD order, contrary to the exporter’s claims.

“Essentially, Plaintiffs' overarching argument is that the extent of further manufacturing and the distinct end-use for TEFLU's products are dispositive to a finding that TEFLU's products are not within the scope of the Order,” it said.

However, the products were described by the order, and the order neither was ambiguous nor contained language excluding processed products, Nucor said. Therefore, legally, “Commerce need not consider the end-use of the product,” it said.

Finally, Nucor supported other aspects of Commerce’s AD determination, including its rejection of the merchandise’s manufacturer codes and FURPROCESSH/U variables in its product comparison methodology, saying, “identifying the manufacturer is not a physical characteristic.”

Nucor also supported Commerce’s choice to treat Technica’s sales made through the IMMEX program as home market sales because, it said, the exporters didn't know when they sold their products through IMMEX that those products were also destined to be exported, and agreed with the department’s determination to rely on the Cohen’s d test in conducting its differential pricing analysis.