CIT Sustains Commerce Remand Dropping PMS Adjustment to Sales-Below-Cost Test in AD Case
The Court of International Trade sustained the Commerce Department's remand results in an antidumping administrative review of an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products from Turkey, dropping any adjustments to the sales-below-cost test it made after finding a particular market situation, in a one-page June 16 decision.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
In a February decision, Judge Jane Restani ruled that Commerce improperly applied a PMS adjustment in the below-cost test for plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret. The judge said that PMS adjustments are allowed only when calculating normal value based on constructed value, as opposed to normal value based on home market sales (see 2105200068).
Commerce also reversed its decision to reduce Borusan's export prices by the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs paid by the exporter. While CIT had upheld Commerce’s ability to adjust for Section 232 tariffs in its February decision, the trade court took exception with Commerce’s application of adverse facts available (AFA) in applying the adjustment for Borusan. After another look at evidence provided by Borusan, Commerce continued to determine that the single shipment on which Section 232 tariffs were paid had not been sold by the end of the period of review.
The changes caused Borusan's dumping margin to fall from 8.48% after the final results of the administrative review to 4.06% following litigation.
(Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. et al v. United States, CIT, Slip Op. 21-75, # 20-00015, dated 06/16/21, Judge Restani. Attorneys: Donald Cameron of Morris Manning for plaintiff Borusan Mannesmann; Robert Kiepura for defendant U.S. government)