ITC Failed to Consider Non-Price Factors in Injury Determination, Methionine Producer Says
The International Trade Commission overvalued the importance of price in its determination of injury in an antidumping duty investigation on methionine from Spain and Japan, a Spanish exporter told the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief that seeks to toss out the ITC's determination of material injury (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).
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.
The plaintiffs, Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA, brought the case to challenge aspects of the September 2021 final determination by the ITC and subsequent AD orders on methionine from Spain and Japan. They argued in an April motion for judgment that purchasing decisions were not driven exclusively by price and that the ITC erred in its finding that price was the important factor. They said global overcapacity caused global price deflation and that the ITC did not thoroughly address that issue during the investigation.
The ITC failed to deal with record evidence and arguments, and to adequately explain its choices, which "fatally undermine[d] the Commission’s determination," Adisseo said. The Commission’s price effects analysis "significantly understated" the importance of non-price factors in methionine purchasers’ decision making and discussion of non-price factors was "almost non-existent," Adisseo said. Any mention of supply availability by the ITC was "a mere recitation of market conditions," rather than an analysis. The ITC’s assumption in its pricing analysis that the lower-priced bid will win the sale is not reasonable, Adisseo said. Availability and substitutability play a role in purchaser decision-making and those factors were not suitably addressed by the ITC.
The ITC's theory that the respondents to the investigation were making offers at below-market prices is "nonsensical" in light of evidence that shows the same respondents were making actual sales at above-market prices at the same time, Adisseo said. Evidence of above-market price sales also undermines the ITC's contention that price was the most important factor. The ITC failed to address these issues both during the investigation and in subsequent court proceedings, Adisseo said. The ITC relied heavily on "circumstantial and anecdotal evidence" of supposed price effects instead of "verified pricing information," Adisseo said. Even though the ITC has broad discretion in determining pricing methodology, it still must follow precedent when rejecting substantial price comparison data and provide a reasonable explanation for the choice, which, Adisseo said, it failed to do.