Commerce Rightfully Denied Untimely Filed Responses in AD/CVD Cases, DOJ Says

Turkish steel exporter Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi's argument that an “extraordinary circumstance” existed, precluding the timely filing of a questionnaire response in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, is not backed by substantial evidence, the Justice Department said in two July 27 reply briefs. By Celik's counsel's own admission, an oversight in the time difference for the filing deadline resulted in the untimely submission, not counsel's emergency medical procedure, DOJ said (Celik Halat ve Tel Sanayi A.S. v. United States, CIT #21-00045, #21-00050).

In AD/CVD investigations into prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Turkey, Celik Halat missed the filing deadlines for questionnaire responses. For the AD case, Commerce rejected Celik Halat's entire sections B and C responses for being 21 minutes late; for the CVD investigation, and the respondent's Section III responses for being 87 minutes late. In its motions for judgment, Celik Halat called the rejections a “severe abuse of discretion” (see 2106010053). Counsel for Celik Halat underwent unexpected emergency surgery less than two weeks before the deadline, causing the delay.

DOJ disagreed, citing Celik Halat's own admission that a mistimed filing deadline alarm, due to confusion over Mountain and Eastern time, as causing the filing delay. “Here, Commerce found that there was no 'unexpected event' surrounding Celik Halat’s untimely submission,” the brief said. “Plaintiff’s assertion that counsel’s medical condition was the cause of Celik Halat’s untimely submission is unsupported by the facts. Specifically, the record shows that Celik Halat’s counsel was aware of the impending deadlines and believed the submission was timely.”

Moreover, Commerce must be permitted to enforce its deadlines, DOJ argued. “Absent constitutional constraints or compelling circumstances, this Court must 'defer to the judgment of an agency regarding the development of the agency record,'” the brief said, citing the 2014 CIT Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. U.S. decision.