Commerce Properly Picked Turkey as Comparison Market in Melamine AD Case, US Says
The Commerce Department properly picked Turkey as a third country comparison market and decided that no adjustment to an antidumping duty respondent's cost of manufacturing was necessary in the AD investigation on melamine from Qatar, the U.S. argued in a Jan. 9 response to petitioner Cornerstone Chemical's motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Cornerstone Chemical v. United States, CIT # 25-00005).
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 government argued that Cornerstone's arguments against Commerce's selection of Turkey as the comparison market amount to an attempt to get the court to reweigh evidence, which the court should refuse to do, "especially here where Cornerstone’s arguments rest largely on generalizations and suppositions."
Cornerstone argued that Turkey shouldn't have been selected as a comparison market, since a "sales-based particular market situation existed" in Turkey based on three things: (1) the fact that the majority of melamine imports into Turkey came from China; (2) the average unit value of Chinese melamine imports was "slightly lower than most other countries"; and (3) the imposition of antidumping duty and countervailing duty measures on Chinese melamine from the U.S., the EU and India (see 2507290001).
The petitioner first noted that Chinese imports of melamine into Turkey constituted 65.9% of all imports in 2023 and thus its imports had a "strong effect" on melamine prices in Turkey. The U.S. responded that Commerce "reasonably found that the average unit value data provided by petitioners did not adequately demonstrate the alleged 'strong effect' of Chinese imports creating significant distortion in the Turkish melamine market."
Cornerstone failed to identify any other evidence that would establish why China's share of the market "necessarily means Chinese imports significantly distort the Turkish market such that Turkish sales prices should be found outside the ordinary course of trade," the brief said. While this fact may be relevant to the analysis, "the paucity of the totality of circumstances does not undermine Commerce’s reasoned ultimate determination."
Looking to the average unit value of imports, Commerce correctly said the average unit value of Chinese imports "was not even the lowest and that Qatar’s average unit values were the second highest, roughly ten percent higher than from China," the U.S. said. The agency reasonably found that this data didn't sufficiently show that the Turkish melamine market was "significantly distorted by Chinese imports," the brief said.
The petitioner argued that Commerce should have found that despite the higher Qatari values, they would have been significantly higher but for Chinese imports. The U.S. said "Cornerstone asks this Court to rely on mere presumptions about the nature of the Turkish melamine market, which is why Commerce correctly concluded that Cornerstone failed to adequately support its allegation." Were the court to accept Cornerstone's arguments, "this would mean Commerce would be compelled to find a particular market situation for any market merely based on a majority share of Chinese imports in said market," the brief said.
The government also defended Commerce's determination that no adjustment to the respondents' cost of manufacturing was needed. Cornerstone argued that Commerce was required to take into account its "particular market situation finding when conducting its cost analyses." The agency declined to make a PMS adjustment outside of the constructed value adjustment.
The U.S. said Commerce properly compared the "transfer price paid for purchases of natural gas by [Qatar Fertiliser Company] to QatarEnergy’s cost of production and to a price based on QatarEnergy’s sales to unaffiliated customers consistent with its practice rather than comparing the purchases to data submitted in Cornerstone’s particular market situation allegation." The Qatar Fertiliser Company and QatarEnergy were found to be affiliated in the investigation and were selected as a mandatory respondent.
The petitioner said that "Commerce erred in comparing transfer prices to sales of unaffiliated customers in Qatar due to Commerce’s affirmative cost-based particular market situation finding for Qatar’s natural gas market." However, Cornerstone doesn't explain why its position is "consistent with the statute or any Commerce practice," the brief said. The statute in fact tells the agency to look at "the amount representing that element {of value} does not fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of merchandise under consideration in the market under consideration.”