Importer Defends Its Position Seeking Overturn of ITC Injury Determination on Mattresses at Trade Court

The International Trade Commission erred in its determination that mattress imports injured the domestic industry and again when it argued in its defense at the Court of International Trade, importer CVB said in an August 1 brief at the Court of International Trade (CVB v. United States, CIT #21-00288).

The brief was in response to filings by the International Trade Commission and defendant interveners, which argued that the ITC correctly investigated the antidumping duty investigations on mattresses from Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam and a countervailing duty investigation on mattresses from China. In its June 13 brief, the ITC said that it properly considered evidence concerning the two market segments, reasonably found them to be "interchangeable," and that purchasers "do not focus on or prefer mattresses packaged in a particular way" (see 2206220060).

The ITC said that it considered "all relevant economic factors," and found that the imports at issue "significantly undersold" similar domestic products based on pricing and purchase cost data. VB's complaint relied on the ITC's decision not to use "methodologies proffered by CVB," particularly segmented market analysis, the ITC brief said. However, it argued that the commission has a wide leeway to choose how it analyzes economic factors and that CVB has not actually argued against the reasonableness of that decision.

CVB now argues that the ITC should have considered alternative evidence and methodologies suggested by CVB. "While the Commission's findings are entitled to some deference," CVB said, it is "not entitled to ignore relevant evidence or escape the conclusions demanded by that evidence." In its consideration of the ITC's conclusions, argues CVB, it is insufficient for this Court to only examine the evidence that the agency used to obtain its finding. CVB argues that the ITC and defendant intervenors "mischaracterize the standard of review and overstate the deference owed to the [ITC]."

CVB asked the court to grant its March 27 motion for judgment on the agency record and overturn the ITC's injury determination (see 2204040060).