Commerce Erred With Comparison Market Choice in AD Paper Review, Manufacturer Argues at CIT
The Commerce Department's decision to use Afghanistan as a comparison market for India in the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from India was flawed and resulted in skewed margins for respondent Cellpage and the non-selected respondents, a group of U.S. manufacturers said in a June 5 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Prices in Afghanistan were not representative and should not have been the basis for normal value, Association of American School Paper Suppliers (AASPS) argued as it asked the court to remand the results back to Commerce (Association of American School Paper Suppliers v. U.S., CIT # 23-00102).
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.
Commerce selected Indian manufacturers Cellpage Ventures and Navneet Education as mandatory respondents. Cellpage reported that it did not have a viable home market and indicated in its questionnaire responses that Afghanistan was its largest third country export market. Commerce agreed that Cellpage had knowledge that certain sales were destined for export at the time of sale and ruled that Cellpage did not have a viable home market. Commerce then calculated normal value based on Cellpage’s sales to Afghanistan despite arguments from AASPS that Afghanistan was not a suitable comparison market. Navneet received a de minimis margin, so any non-selected respondents were given rates based solely on that of Cellpage.
Commerce's determination that Cellpage's home market was nonviable, is not supported by substantial evidence, AASPS said. The department failed to make a reasonable determination that Cellpage had demonstrated, at the time of sale, that it had knowledge that certain sales in India were destined for export to a third-country market, AASPS said. Commerce also failed to adequately explain its choice of Afghanistan as a comparison market and failed to address arguments that Afghani prices were not sufficiently representative enough to form the basis of normal value.