Commerce Can Make Both Same- and Inter-Quarter Price Comparison in Review, Producer Says

In support of the results after remand of an antidumping duty review on welded carbon-quality steel from the United Arab Emirates (see 2409240022), defendant-intervenors said the Commerce Department’s use of inter-quarter comparisons in a differential pricing analysis but same-quarter comparisons in a margin calculation was reasonable because the contexts are different (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).

Court of International Trade Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves found that the department’s final results were inconsistent and remanded them for alteration or explanation (see 2407290019). In the remand results, Commerce explained that “there are several key differences” between the two analyses; in particular, production costs will impact dumping margin calculations but not comparisons between two groups of U.S. prices, or, in other words, the Cohen’s d test.

As a result, the significant cost fluctuations on the record in this case could have impacted exporter Universal Tube and Plastic Industries’ dumping margin, requiring a same-quarter comparison, defendant-intervenor Wheatland Tube Company said. That wasn’t necessary for the Cohen’s d test.

“Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ claims, it is perfectly reasonable for Commerce to apply different comparison methodologies in different contexts, and this does not mean that the agency is being inconsistent,” the domestic producer said.

Under the precedent of CIT and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, agencies can interpret terms “differently in different contexts,” it said. The plaintiffs, led by Universal Tube, haven’t pointed to any specific terms that the department interpreted in a contradictory manner, it said.

CAFC has actually reversed holdings that treated different contexts too similarly, Wheatland Tube said. It has also upheld the use of same and inter-quarter comparisons in the same review, it said.

And Universal Tube also expressed concern that Commerce ignored the fact “improper sales comparisons might lead to a false finding of a pattern of price differences,” but hasn’t shown that Commerce acted improperly, the producer said. The department also doesn’t have to look into the causes of production cost fluctuations, it said.