However, Prost noted that Commerce’s first extension for TKT was shorter than requested, which may have exacerbated the situation. “If Commerce had granted the requested two-week extension initially, none of this might have happened,” she said.
Potential Precedent on Deadlines and Penalties
The panel’s exchanges revealed competing priorities: enforcing deadlines to maintain the integrity of trade investigations versus ensuring proportionality in penalties for noncompliance. Judge Dyk speculated whether rejecting TKT’s submission was arbitrary and proposed a partial AFA rate to deter future delays without imposing the maximum penalty.
The government’s counsel resisted the idea, arguing that Commerce’s decision was reasonable based on TKT’s conduct.
Industry Petitioners and Final Arguments
Mississippi Silicon and Globe Specialty Metals, represented by Jennifer M. Smith-Veluz of The Bristol Group PLLC, supported Commerce’s approach but faced criticism for not directly answering judicial questions. Judge Dyk remarked, “There’s no point in being up there if you don’t answer questions.”
Outlook
The Federal Circuit’s decision could have broad implications for how Commerce applies adverse inferences in trade investigations, particularly when respondents miss deadlines. A ruling in TKT’s favor could pressure Commerce to grant more leniency in future cases, while a decision upholding the penalty may reinforce strict adherence to deadlines.
