Quartz Countertop Exporter Says Commerce Must Consider Accuracy When Calculating AD
In a complex case involving antidumping duties on Indian quartz countertops, a defendant-intervenor that represents Indian exporters on Feb. 9 again argued against the AD petitioner’s claim for a 161.56% dumping margin calculated for a review’s non-individually examined respondents (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT # 23-00007).
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.
Cambria, the domestic company that originally requested the AD investigation, seeks to force the Commerce Department to apply a 161.56% AD rate to non-selected respondents by using the expected method in a 2020 administrative review. It argued Commerce had no legal basis for instead “pulling forward” a 3.19% rate from its investigation.
But according to the Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry, the 1930 Tariff Act doesn't require Commerce to calculate dumping margins for non-individually examined respondents in any particular way. Commerce and the courts therefore look to the law on determining rates for non-mandatory respondents in investigations, it said.
These rules provide an exception if individually investigated respondents receive AFA or de minimis dumping margins, such as they did here, the Federation said.
It also said that in cases “with facts closely analogous to the facts at issue here,” Commerce has “long held” it would be reasonable to calculate non-selected respondents’ rates by averaging the most recent dumping margins of selected respondents whose rates are not AFA or de minimis.
The Federation cited the 2016 case Albemarle Corp. v. U.S., which held Commerce cannot penalize cooperative non-selected respondents with adverse facts available when they never had the chance to be examined individually.
“Significantly, in reversing Commerce’s determination in that case, the court emphasized that accuracy and fairness must be Commerce’s objective when calculating dumping margins for cooperative non-selected companies,” the Federation said.
In support of its motion for judgment, Cambria recently argued that, since passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Commerce no longer has to consider accuracy when calculating dumping margins (see 2402010059), citing a 2017 case.