UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 23-96

Before the Court in Greenfirst Forest Products v. United States, Court No. 22-97, Slip Op. 23-96 (July 6, 2023), is the “U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) remand redetermination pursuant to the Court’s order in GreenFirst Forest Prods. v. United States, 603 F. Supp 3d 1368 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022) (“GreenFirst I”) remanding Commerce’s refusal to conduct a changed circumstances review (“CCR”) for further explanation or reconsideration.”

On remand, GreenFirst argues that when Commerce denied its CCR request for a second time it did not adequately explain its denial, as requested by the court. For the following reasons the Court remanded Commerce’s determination for further explanation or reconsideration.

The court’s holding in GreenFirst I, explained that the “purpose of a CVD CCR is to determine whether a successor company is the same entity as a predecessor company for subsidization purposes.” This court was unsatisfied with Commerce’s remand because it did not address the reasons “why this practice was not applied to a non-examined company” as posed in GreenFirst I. The court stated that Commerce did not offer any rationale about how its previous practice and reliance on Pasta from Turkey applied to this case. The court noted that (1) Commerce does not explain how or why their determination in Pasta from Turkey is reasonable, (2) “the [r]espondent in Pasta from Turkey was individually examined in prior administrative review”, and (3) “Commerce used that determination to decide whether it was appropriate to affirm a cash deposit rate that was calculated during a previous time.”

In the case at issue, the company that GreenFirst acquired, before the acquisition was given an average rate of non-selected companies, not an individualized rate. Second, since Commerce did not explicitly state the reasoning for Pasta from Turkey was limited to situations where Commerce individually examined a company, it should be applicable in other circumstances. The court contended that, regardless of whether the reasoning in Pasta from Turkey can be applied to other circumstances, Commerce has yet to explain its reasoning behind the present case. The court has not received a clear explanation as to why Commerce thinks why is it inappropriate “successor-in-interest company to inherit a non-selected rate from a non-individually examined company unless the successor-in- interest company is essentially the same as the non-individually examined company previously assigned that rate.” This court concluded that on remand Commerce must reconsider or further explain how “its determination from Pasta from Turkey applies when a predecessor company was not individually examined.”