Omani PET Resin Exporter Challenges ITC's Decision Not to Revoke AD/CVD Orders at Trade Court
The International Trade Commission erred when it found that revocation of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Oman would lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic PET resin industry within a foreseeable time, Omani exporter OCTAL argued. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade May 2, OCTAL argued that the ITC violated the law when it either ignored or failed to adequately address contrary evidence relating to whether the revocation of the orders would lead to injury to the U.S. industry (OCTAL Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00135).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In April 2021, the ITC initiated the first five-year review of the AD/CVD orders on PET resin from Canada, China, India and Oman. During the proceedings, producers of goods that use PET resin argued that the domestic industry running at 100% capacity and global supply chain snarls warranted revoking the orders. Domestic PET resin manufacturers disagreed, arguing that a revocation of the orders would lead to cheap Chinese and Indian imports flooding the market (see 2202110029).
The commission found that any revocation of the orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to the U.S. industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. OCTAL is challenging this conclusion in a three-count complaint, arguing that the ITC used an unlawful definition of "likely" that runs contrary to the statute. The exporter said that "likely" means "what is probably going to occur in the future" and any conclusion under this definition must be backed by substantial evidence.
"In the underlying PET resin sunset proceeding, the USITC did not adhere to these statutory requirements," the brief said. "Rather, with respect to several different subsidiary conclusions, the USITC did not analyze whether a particular event was 'likely' and failed to demonstrate that its conclusion about likelihood was supported by substantial evidence."
OCTAL argued that the ITC in its conclusion on the Oman orders failed to properly address evidence that revoking the orders would lead to injury to the domestic industry. The exporter said the ITC didn't look at capacity limitations at OCTAL's Oman facility, the lack of incentives to divert shipments to the U.S. market and pricing data showing that an adverse effect was unlikely.
OCTAL also argued that the ITC's conclusion that imports from Oman should be cumulated with other subject countries was illegal. "In its Determination the USITC either ignored substantial evidence regarding whether Omani imports of PET Resin would likely compete in the domestic market under distinct conditions of competition, or completely failed to articulate why the contrary evidence should be dismissed," the brief said. "As such the USITC’s conclusion regarding whether to cumulate imports from Oman with the other subject countries for the purpose of its broader analysis was not supported by substantial evidence and is otherwise not in accordance with law."