United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-48

Before the Court in Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. United States, et. al., Court No. 19-00044, Slip Op. 21-48 (April 29, 2021) were the final results in a challenge to the 2016 administrative review conducted by Commerce of the countervailing duty order of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India (“Second Remand Results”). On remand pursuant to Court order, Commerce explained that the difference in its application of adverse inferences to Uttam Galva and JSW was reasonable “because the circumstances surrounding [the] AFA determinations for each company were different.” Id. at 8. Uttam Galva contended that “Commerce’s explanations in the Second Remand Redetermination are not satisfactory and do not offer sufficient reasons for treating similar situations differently.” Id. at 9. Commerce rejected Uttam Galva’s arguments that JSW and Uttam Galva were similarly situated meriting the same application of AFA. Uttam Galva also argued that “Commerce was better positioned to investigate and collect information as to Uttam Galva’s affiliation with LSIL.” Id. at 11. Commerce rejected this argument highlighting that it was previously addressed by the Court and that Uttam Galva “ignore[d] the importance that Commerce places on receiving affiliated company information early in the proceeding.” Id. Alternatively, Uttam Galva maintained that even if Commerce has reasonably distinguished its treatment of Uttam Galva as compared to JSW, “Commerce’s recounting of the carbon alloy steel threaded rod (“CASTR”) from China investigation and the facts surrounding the partial AFA application seek to minimize the similarity between the underlying administrative review.” Id. at 12-13. Uttam Galva further challenged Commerce’s determination that the affiliate information belatedly provided in CASTR from China was “voluntary.” Id. at 13. For the following reasons, the Court sustained Commerce’s Second Remand Results. Id. at 3.

The court sustains Commerce’s “determinations, findings, or conclusions” unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Id. at 6. Here, the Court was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s contentions that Commerce’s determination to apply total AFA was unreasonable. Id. at 12. In this case, the Court concluded that Commerce provided a reasoned explanation for the differences in its application of AFA to JSW and Uttam Galva. Id. at 15. The Court explained that “Uttam Galva’s alternative arguments about Commerce’s determinations in CASTR from China and Plastic Ribbon from China implicitly concede that Commerce reasonably explained its application of partial AFA to JSW and total AFA to Uttam Galva (searching for alternative grounds of unreasonableness).” Id. The Court found that Commerce reasonably explained why CASTR from China and Plastic Ribbon from China were distinguishable here given the underlying facts in each of those proceedings compared to the underlying facts justifying total AFA for Uttam Galva. Id. As such, the Court sustained the Second Remand Results. Id.