ITC Defends Its Findings Against Proposed Remand Order in Methionine AD Case

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 is merely an attempt to have the Commission "reweigh the facts ... to reach a negative determination," the ITC said in a Feb. 9 response to a draft remand order (Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA v. United States, CIT # 21-00562).

The plaintiffs, Adisseo Espana and Adisseo USA, brought the case to challenge aspects of the ITC's September 2021 final determination in the case, which led to the imposition of AD orders. 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 and price depression. Defendant-intervenor Novus International filed its own response on Feb. 8 (see 2302080058).

Adisseo has asked the Court of International Trade to force the ITC to rule on underselling in the underlying investigation. The ITC argues that it is only required to consider underselling rather than make a discreet ruling. "[The] plaintiffs continue to misinterpret the Federal Circuit’s instruction that the Commission consider underselling and price depression or suppression separately as imposing a requirement that the Commission make a finding on the significance of underselling," the ITC's response said.

The commission said that it correctly considered non-price factors in its analysis of competitive conditions and in the context of its injury analysis. It considered availability and reliability of supply, the degree of product interchangeability, and why the record did not support Adisseo's claim that subject imports merely replaced nonsubject imports from China.

Contrary to Adisseo's assertion, the commission denied that it has a “precedent” of placing substantive weight on quarterly price comparison data when determining price effects. Price comparison data did not undermine the Commission's finding of price depression. Its finding that low-priced subject import offers resulted in lowered domestic prices or lost sales was informed by the conditions of competition, hearing, testimony, price trend data, confirmed lost sales and other documentation, the ITC said.