Differential Pricing Conclusion in Steel Pipe AD Case Inappropriate, Exporters Argue
It was "not appropriate" for the Commerce Department to conclude that price differences between an Emirati exporter's sales across four quarters were due to differential pricing, several Emirati producers and exporters of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe said in a June 22 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
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.
Universal Tube and Plastic Industries argued that Commerce's use of a differential pricing analysis was arbitrary because the department had already determined the price differences across the 2020-2021 period of review were due to significant cost differences.
The plaintiffs, including Universal, had requested the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the United Arab Emirates and were selected for individual examination by Commerce as a collective affiliated entity. In the preliminary results of the review, Universal said Commerce had found a linkage between the company's changing sales prices and manufacturing costs during the period of review.
Commerce determined that a quarterly cost-averaging period approach was appropriate for Universal due to manufacturing cost changes and reasonable linkages between costs and sales prices, but the company said "it was not appropriate for Commerce to conclude that price differences among Universal’s U.S. sales in the four quarters of the POR were due, in part, to differential pricing."