UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-56

Bonney Forge Corp. v. United States, Court No. 20-03837, Slip Op. 25-56 (May 6, 2025) is the third installment in a case about Indian forged steel fittings, and reminds us that in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations “verification is a spot check”.

The case originates in 2019 when the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated an antidumping review and selected Indian producer Shakti Forge Industries Pvt. Ltd. as a mandatory respondent, and found that company to have a margin of zero. Domestic petitioners Bonney Forge Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union that Commerce sued, arguing that Commerce should have conducted an in-person verification of Shakti’s information. No in-person verification was conducted because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Initially, the Court agreed with the plaintiffs and remanded the case to Commerce, finding it insufficient that Commerce sent Shakti questionnaires asking for data about its production processes and costs, including costs relating to the company’s use of sophisticated computer numerical control machines and high tech lathes. The plaintiffs argued that the Court should remand Commerce’s determination for the agency to conduct a “virtual verification”. Finding that a virtual verification of Shakti’s processes was not feasible, Commerce determined that, although it could not verify Shakti’s information, it would use the information Shakti provided as “facts available” in making its determination.

After a second remand, Commerce completed an in-person verification at Shakti’s factory in Rajkot, India, finding no discrepancies in the company’s reported costs. This verification entailed a tour of Shakti’s factory and a review of sales and cost records for Shakti’s highest-selling products. Its Second Remand Determination again calculated a zero percent dumping margin for Shakti.  In response, plaintiffs collectively argued that Commerce should have searched further to find errors in Shakti’s reported costs. The Court disagreed, holding that “just keep looking” in the hope that discrepancies would be found was not a viable argument. The Court agreed with Commerce that Shakti satisfactorily explained the discrepancy in the finishing costs that the Plaintiffs identified. Commerce also verified the two control numbers representing the products sold at the highest volume in both the Indian and U.S. markets and reviewed paperwork demonstrating what processes those products underwent.

Rejecting the petitioners’ argument that Commerce could have found errors if it had continued searching, the Court stated “verification is not an unending haystack after it has completed a spot check” and sustained Commerce’s second remand determination.