Read the Federal Circuit’s opinion [PDF 138 KB]
The U.S. Commerce Department was requested by a U.S. domestic manufacturer of nails to revoke part of an antidumping duty order on imports of certain steel nails.
Before Commerce issued its preliminary determination for partial revocation, the plaintiff (an importer) requested that the partial revocation have an earlier effective date (January 23, 2008). This request was made on a date before Commerce completed its administrative review of certain imports of steel nails and prior to liquidation.
Commerce, however, rejected the January 2008 effective date claim, and instead applied an effective date of August 1, 2009.
Even though Commerce invited interested parties to comment, the plaintiff did not act on this request. In its final ruling, Commerce adopted the partial revocation (which the domestic industry did not oppose) with the August 1, 2009 effective date.
Concerning a challenge to the effective-date determination filed by the plaintiff, the U.S. Court of International Trade declined to address the merits and instead looked to a requirement that the plaintiff had to exhaust the administrative remedies “where appropriate.” The trade court dismissed this challenge because it found that the plaintiff had failed to resubmit to Commerce, after the preliminary ruling, its request for an earlier effective date.
The Federal Circuit today reversed the trade court’s ruling as an abuse of discretion. The Federal Circuit found no purpose was served by requiring that the plaintiff had to resubmit its effective-date argument after Commerce had announced the preliminary results.
For more information, contact a professional with KPMG’s Trade & Customs practice:
John L. McLoughlin
Todd R. Smith
Luis A. Abad
Or your local KPMG Trade & Customs professional.