Steel Rack Exporter Says Commerce Should Have Picked It as Mandatory Respondent Despite Filing Mishap

Exporter Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. told the Court of International Trade in a June 6 complaint that the Commerce Department abused its discretion when it rejected the company's separate rate certification as untimely in the 2021-22 review of the antidumping duty order on steel racks from China (Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00085).

In the review, Commerce extended the deadline "for numerous parties" to file their separate rate applications and certifications, from Dec. 5, 2022, to Dec. 12, 2022. Believing it was covered by the extension, Dongsheng filed its separate rate certification on Dec. 12. Much to the company's chagrin, the agency said the extension only applied to those that "explicitly requested the extension" and not for all parties. The exporter's separate rate certification was rejected as untimely.

As a result, Donghseng went from likely being tapped as a mandatory respondent in the review, due to its status as one of the two largest Chinese steel rack exporters, to receiving the China-wide 144.5% adverse facts available dumping rate. The exporter noted that Commerce picked Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co. and Suntop (Xiamen) Display System as the two mandatory respondents despite the fact that they submitted their separate rate certifications "on the same day as Dongsheng."

In its complaint, Dongsheng said Commerce "failed to consider the particular facts of the out of time filing, weighing interests of accuracy and fairness against the burden on the Department and interests in finality." The agency also failed to look at the "other times it had accepted late filings and its own failure to timely meet deadlines," the brief said.

Commerce has a statutory duty to pick the largest exporters of subject merchandise as mandatory respondents -- a directive it neglected, Dongsheng said. The agency should have picked the exporter as a mandatory respondent before the separate rate certification deadline "based on the CBP data." If it had done so, Commerce could have relied on Dongsheng's timely submitted "Section A response."

The exporter also said the use of AFA was invalid since Dongsheng didn't impede the proceeding "because it filed its SRC on the same deadline as other parties." It also said its questionnaire responses were timely, leaving Commerce with enough information to calculate a separate rate for the exporter.