Commerce Right on Remand in AD Review on Glycine From Japan, DOJ Says
The Commerce Department correctly reexamined the "compensation for payment" expense and correctly declined to recalculate the antidumping duty rate for exporter Nagase on remand, DOJ said. In its Sept. 25 remand comments at the Court of International Trade, DOJ said that the final results in an AD administrative review on glycine from Japan fully complied with the remand order and Nagase can't show that the redetermination was unlawful (Nagase & Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00574).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Pursuant to the remand order, Commerce reexamined evidence to determine whether the “compensation" was properly classified as a general and administrative expense. Commerce found that the compensation for payment was attributable solely to the production of non-subject merchandise and correctly excluded the expense from the calculation of the company’s general and administrative expense ratio.
The only issue in the remand order was the categorization of the “compensation for payment” expense, DOJ said in responding to Nagase's Sept. 9 remand comments (see 2309110023). Nagase alleged that Commerce incorrectly used constructed export price value sales it knew to be false. Commerce had declined an untimely request by Nagase to correct its assessment rate during the proceeding and the court had already ruled on the issue, DOJ said.
Commerce considered comments submitted by interested parties, including those made by Nagase during the review, DOJ said. Nagase didn't claim that it had submitted erroneous CEP entry data during the review nor did it avail itself of the procedure for correcting ministerial errors after the results were issued, DOJ said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected arguments that Commerce made a reversible error when it declined to make corrections to ministerial errors outside of the regulations' specified time period.