Exporter, Domestic Producer Support Parts of Remand Results in Indian PTFE AD Review
A plaintiff and defendant-intervenor provided lukewarm responses to the Commerce Department’s new results on remand for its antidumping duty review on granular polytetrafluorethylene resin from India (see 2407120016), each supporting it in part (Daikin America v. United States, CIT # 22-00122).
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.
Domestic producer Daikin America, the case’s plaintiff, said in its comments in support that it agreed with Commerce’s continued refusal to grant exporter Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited a constructed export price offset. Gujarat hadn’t met its burden to provide a quantitative analysis showing it needed one, it argued.
“This made it impossible for Commerce to determine whether the qualitative evidence that GFCL provided -- mostly consisting of narrative descriptions of selling activities -- was actually grounded in GFCL’s books and records,” it said.
The Court of International Trade remanded Commerce’s results to explain why it had initially granted the offset (see 2205120026). On remand, the department switched positions, agreeing that the exporter hadn’t provided enough evidence to support one.
In turn, Gujarat said in its own reply that its reporting of certain transportation expenses had been accurate and nondistortive, as Commerce had found. It said that Commerce reached its decision “relying on substantial record evidence” that the exporter had provided.
It said it couldn’t provide movement expenses on any more specific basis than grade-wise because, for its constructed export price sales, its U.S. affiliate made sales from its U.S. inventory that could each involve “multiple purchases from GFL India.”
“The transaction-specific shipment information on which the movement expenses at issue were based cannot be tracked or identified after the goods are stored in the U.S. warehouses and entered into GFL Americas LLC’s inventory,” it said.
It said Daikin itself was “speculating to support its position” by claiming Gujarat could provide more specific information and was just stonewalling.