AD Petitioners Attempt to Differentiate PMS Adjustment Case From Recent CAFC Decision
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shouldn't merely affirm an antidumping duty case concerning whether the Commerce Department can make a particular market situation adjustment to the sales-below-cost test, AD petitioners, led by the American Cast Iron Pipe, said in a June 28 submission to the appellate court. Though the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can't make such an adjustment in the Hyundai Steel v. U.S. case, the present action has a "much different factual posture that merits consideration," so litigation should continue, the petitioners said (Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., Fed. Cir. #22-1502).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Hyundai Steel ruling said the statute doesn't permit Commerce to make a PMS adjustment to the cost of production in the sales-below-cost test when determining normal value in antidumping proceedings (see 2112100039). That decision was an appeal of an administrative review. The petitioners said their case warrants special consideration because, unlike the Hyundai Steel case, their complaint deals with the original investigation, "which determines the very existence of an antidumping duty order established by the Commerce Department."