Labor Union Backs Voluntary Remand, Opposes Proposed Intervention in AD Case
The defendant-intervenor in an antidumping duty case, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, backed the Commerce Department's motion for voluntary remand since court precedent supports granting remands to correct issues in underlying determinations for the courts to review. Making its case in an Aug. 9 response, the union said that preventing Commerce from performing the review laid out in the remand would "serve no legitimate purpose." In another filing, the union opposed the case's mandatory respondent from intervening in the case due to an untimely bid (Pirelli Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #20-00115).
The remand dispute comes in a case over the 2017-18 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. In the review, the Commerce Department tapped Shandong New Continent (SNC) as the mandatory respondent, finding a zero percent dumping margin for the exporter. Following the review, CBP alerted Commerce to certain inaccuracies in SNC's reported sales prices on imports of the covered tires, prompting the Department of Justice's attempt at a voluntary remand and lift of the stay order on the case to review potential fraud in the case (see 2107260023).
The plaintiff, Pirelli Tyre Co., asserted that Commerce's goals could be met through a "changed circumstances review" instead of a full voluntary remand (see 2108090031). The union opposed this contention, pointing to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling which stated the opposite. "As held by the Federal Circuit in Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Commerce need not conduct a changed circumstances review, as it possesses the widely recognized inherent authority to reopen its determination in this situation," the union said. "Therefore, Commerce will not need to conduct a changed circumstances review once remand is granted, but will instead be able to directly address its concerns."
SNC also attempted to intervene in the case once Commerce made its motion to voluntary remand the investigation -- filing its motion over a year past the deadline to move to intervene. SNC was not precluded from intervening before the motion for remand, it just didn't foresee the need to participate in the case, the union said, paraphrasing SNC's position. "SNC’s claim of only recently discovering that its actions during the review may yet be further scrutinized by Commerce would at most be a 'surprise,' to be addressed under the 'excusable neglect' criteria found in subsection (i), not the criteria of subsection (ii), of Rule 24(a)(3),'" the brief said.
The respondent also said that it would be "severely prejudiced" in its ability to participate in Commerce's voluntary remand. "Here, the only possibly legitimate prejudice SNC can actually claim is one it can overcome with a minimum of effort in monitoring filings in this case, as action it is already taking," the union said. "Existing parties, however, will be forced to respond to a party that only has an interest in outside issues and that has shown that it is willing to use this case as to interfere with how those outside issues proceed."