Intervenor Tells CIT Price Effects Don't Have to be Main Reason for ITC Injury in AD Case

Adverse price affects from imports do not have to be the main driver of injury for the International Trade Commission to reach an affirmative injury finding in an antidumping duty investigation, said Novus International, an intervenor supporting the ITC's challenged affirmative injury determination in the AD duty investigations on methionine from Spain and Japan, in a brief filed July 14 (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. U.S., CIT #21-00562).

The plaintiffs, Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA brought the case to challenge aspects of the September 2021 final determination by the ITC, which led to the imposition of AD duty orders. They argued that purchasing decisions were not driven principally or exclusively by price and that the commission erred in its finding that price was an important factor. They said global overcapacity caused a global price deflation and that the ITC did not thoroughly address that issue during the investigation.

According to Novus, Addiseo's argument that purchasing decisions must be driven "principally if not exclusively by price" as a determining factor, rather than the established basis that price is one of numerous factors considered, would "burden the Commission with a non-existent requirement."

"The testimony of only two purchasers ... merely stating that other factors may be more important than price does not invalidate the Commission’s general finding that price “is an important factor," said Novus. This "heightened test" would only provide a basis for CIT to "ignore the Commission’s analysis on price effects and to reweigh the record evidence in Plaintiffs’ favor" and impose "artificial restrictions" on the ITC's analysis methods," it said.

The ITC "in no way" ignored the global overcapacity argument, said Novus. Instead, the ITC laid out in its final determination how the theory of global overcapacity did not explain declining domestic prices during the period of investigation. The Plaintiffs have "preposterously" argued that lower prices in other markets, when caused by global overcapacity, would authorize subject producers to sell at injurious and unfair prices in the U.S. and would essentially create a “get out of jail free” card for dumping whenever global prices fall below U.S. prices, Novus said.

If either of the plaintiffs' arguments are upheld, Novus argues, it would "create holes in the trade laws to allow injurious dumping in certain factual scenarios without the possibility of remediation."