Search Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher
Email a friend
  • To include more than one recipient, please separate each email address with a semi-colon ';', to a maximum of 5

  • By submitting this article to a friend we reserve the right to contact them regarding AMM subscriptions. Please ensure you have their consent before giving us their details.

CIT denies Mukand appeal on stainless bars from India

Keywords: Tags  stainless steel bars, stainless steel, stainless, steel, Mukand, India producer, Court of International Trade, anti-dumping duty margins adverse facts available

NEW YORK — The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has denied an appeal by Indian producer Mukand Ltd. involving margins in an anti-dumping duty administrative investigation on stainless steel bar.

Mukand had appealed a 2011 Commerce Department decision to issue it a 21.02-percent dumping margin, arguing that the agency had erred in applying adverse facts available when calculating the margin, according to opinions dated March 25 and released publicly last week.

The issue centers on Commerce’s attempts to obtain size-specific cost information from Mukand. The company on multiple occasions allegedly declined to provide unique cost information for different bar sizes, instead explaining that cost differences from one size to another were "insignificant."

Commerce, not convinced that there was no "reasonable and verifiable way" to estimate the cost differences, repeatedly sought more information. After eventually issuing an adverse facts available margin, Mumbai-based Mukand responded that it had complied with the agency’s requests.

But despite the agency’s five attempts to elicit the necessary cost information, Mukand didn’t "comprehensively address Commerce’s questions," senior judge Richard W. Goldberg ruled.

"To accurately perform its less-than-fair-value analysis, Commerce must compare the normal value and export price ... of each entry of the subject merchandise," he wrote. "In this case, Mukand’s failure to report size-based costs prevented Commerce from performing a sales-below-cost analysis."

Commerce "did not have all the information necessary to calculate Mukand’s dumping margin," Goldberg said, noting that "an adverse inference was appropriate under the circumstances."

Mukand couldn’t be reached for comment.

Have your say
  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
    All fields are compulsory.

Latest Pricing Trends