Commerce Used 'Inconsistent' Pricing Calculations in UAE Steel Investigation, Respondents Tell CIT
After finding it was inappropriate to calculate Universal Tube and Plastic Industries’ dumping margin by comparing the selling prices of U.S. and home market sales made in different quarters, Commerce "did exactly that" in its differential pricing analysis, said Universal, THL Tube and Pipe Industries and KHK Scaffolding and Formwork in their Oct. 26 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Comparing Universal’s selling prices in different quarters of the review period was unlawful because it had separately determined that selling price comparisons of Universal’s sales across quarters was impermissible, said Universal in its request to remand the issue back to Commerce (Universal Tube and Plastic Industries v. U.S., CIT # 23-00113).
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 the final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order against circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from the United Arab Emirates, Commerce correctly determined cost changes were significant during the review period and correctly relied on quarterly-average costs, said Universal. Because evidence showed that Universal's prices reacted to cost fluctuations, Commerce reasonably departed from its standard annual cost methodology, said the exporter.
However, the department then compared sale prices across quarters in its differential pricing analysis. In that analysis, Commerce applied the Cohen’s d test and found a large difference in prices between time periods. However, Universal argued the department had "already concluded that it could not compare the selling prices of sales made in different POR quarters" and it was "inconsistent and contradictory" for Commerce to compare the selling prices across the four quarters as part of its differential pricing analysis.
Universal previously argued it was "not appropriate" for the department to conclude that price differences among Universal's sales across four quarters were due to differential pricing, in its June complaint (see 2306230036).