Canadian Lumber Producer Questions Cohen's d Test in CIT Complaint

The Commerce Department's use of the differential pricing methodology, including the Cohen's d test, failed to adhere to basic statistical assumptions, Canadian lumber exporter Resolute FP Canada said in its Oct. 30 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Resolute asked the court to remand Commerce's calculation of a 6.26% rate for non-selected companies in its 2021 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada to the agency for reconsideration (Resolute FP Canada v. U.S., CIT # 23-00206)

Resolute argued that Commerce’s use of the Cohen’s d test "suffer from several defects," including its calculation of the denominator using a simple average of standard deviations, "disregarding the scholarly literature" and case law.

Commerce also failed to perform a "fair comparison" in determining dumping, Resolute said. The “meaningful difference” component of the differential pricing method "deliberately and systematically" ignores other explanations for price fluctuations. Commerce then calculated dumping margins for mandatory respondents Canfor and West Fraser, using the average-to-transaction (A-T) price comparison method with zeroing while ignoring the requirement to address the preferred average-to-average method.

"Without the A-T methodology, Commerce would not have used zeroing and without zeroing Commerce would have found no dumping margin for either Canfor or West Fraser and, hence, no dumping with respect to the non-selected companies," Resolute said.