Proposed Remand Order Overly Constricts ITC, Intervenor Argues
A proposed remand order that would force the International Trade Commission to reconsider a 2021 final injury determination in an antidumping duty case on methionine from Spain and Japan overly restricts the ITC's authority and discretion, defendant-intervenor Novus International argued in its Feb. 8 response to the draft order (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 ITC's September 2021 final determination on methionine from Spain and Japan, which led to the imposition of AD orders.
One of the central issues is whether adverse price effects from imports were required to be the main driver of injury for the ITC to reach an affirmative injury finding. Novus argued in July that price effects merely had to be a significant, but not the main, driver (see 2207150040). 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 in its Aug. 12 motion for judgment.
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" and mentions of supply availability by the ITC did not constitute an analysis (see 2208150017). The government argued in its own Aug. 29 reply that the "Commission did not find that 'purchasers will always buy the lowest price product,'" the government said, only that “price is an important factor in purchasing decisions" (see 2208310046).
Adisseo filed a proposed remand order with the court on Jan. 12, in which it argued that the ITC is statutorily required to make a finding on underselling based exclusively on quarterly pricing data. Adisseo asked the court to require that the commission make this price comparison finding dispositive when conducting its analysis of price effects, price depression, and causation analysis despite no such obligations in the statute, said Novus.
The request is merely "an attempt by the Plaintiff to have the Commission re-weigh the evidence." Adisseo's remand recommendations are "merely a backdoor attempt to undermine the Commission’s determination that price is an important purchasing factor," Novus said. The proposed remand order is an attempt to "impose extra-statutory requirements on the Commission" and force it to "give greater weight to issues preferred by the Plaintiff," Novus said.