ITC Used Inconsistent Methodology in AD Investigation, Steel Pipe Importer Says
The International Trade Commission erred when it ruled that imports of seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure pipe (SSLP) from Russia were not negligible, said Pao TMK, a producer and exporter of SSLP from Russia, in a July 22 motion at the Court of International Trade (PAO TMK v. U.S., CIT #21-00532).
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.
Pao sought review of the ITC's final affirmative determination that a domestic industry is materially injured by reason of imports of SSLP from Russia that are sold at less than fair value and subsidized by the Russian government (Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Czech Republic, ITC Inv. No. 731-TA-1529). Pao argues that the commission mistakenly found that the volume of subject imports from Russia exceeded the negligibility threshold and thus did not terminate the investigation as would be statutorily required if imports were negligible.
Pao's brief in support of its March 11 motion for judgment argued that the ITC used inconsistent methodologies in calculating negligibility. Despite the ITC calculating Russian imports to be negligible in its prehearing staff report, in its posthearing staff report, and in its determination regarding the Czech Republic, it ultimately found Russian imports were not negligible. Pao said the ITC used "a methodology that was not used in any previous calculation..." and noted that the ITC added a section to its staff report entitled “methodology concerns” as evidence.
The ITC said it used "the best information available" as to the amount of non-subject imports. Pao acknowledged this shortcoming, but said it was "not a license to arbitrarily cherry pick discreet datapoints." ITC is required by statute to announce what factor permitted it to resort to the "best information available" method, which could include importers withholding or failing to provide requested information.
Pao also said that it asked the ITC repeatedly to use Customs Net Import File (CNIF) data in its calculations. The ITC has argued that the CNIF data is irrelevant because it does not cover the entire period of investigation. Pao argued in its brief that although the CNIF data is incomplete with respect to the negligibility period, it contradicts data derived from importer questionnaires and demonstrates an important inconsistency that the ITC needed to address.