Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case reviewed by the United States Court of International Trade, Polyplex Corporation Limited challenged the Department of Commerce's inclusion of its products in an antidumping (AD) duty order concerning polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film imported from India. The central legal issue involved the calculation of Polyplex's dumping margin at 10.34 percent, which was above the de minimis threshold requiring inclusion in the AD order. Despite a zero cash deposit rate set to avoid dual duty collection, Commerce upheld the dumping margin, maintaining Polyplex's inclusion. The Court of International Trade partially supported Commerce's determinations under Chevron deference, focusing on the statutory interpretation of 'imposed' under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C). The court instructed Commerce to reassess its methodology, particularly regarding the application of concurrent countervailing (CV) duties, to ensure statutory compliance and prevent strategic manipulation by petitioners. On remand, Commerce clarified its stance, maintaining the original dumping margin due to the timing of the CV duty order issuance. The court ultimately affirmed Commerce's interpretation and decision, emphasizing that Polyplex's margin did not meet the criteria for exclusion from the AD order.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adjustment of Export Price under 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Commerce's interpretation of the statute required an increase in export price reflecting countervailing duties from an issued order, but no adjustment was made as the CV duty order was issued after the AD determination.
Reasoning: Commerce interpreted 'imposed' in section 1677a(c)(1)(C) to mean duties that have been levied following a CV duty order, excluding merely estimated duties from consideration.
Antidumping Duties and Margin Calculationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Commerce correctly calculated Polyplex's dumping margin at 10.34 percent, which is above the de minimis threshold, thus including it in the antidumping duty order.
Reasoning: The Court of Appeals affirmed that Commerce correctly calculated Polyplex's dumping margin at 10.34 percent, which was not considered de minimis.
Chevron Deference in Statutory Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court granted Chevron deference to Commerce's interpretation of 'imposed' as reasonable, even though it resulted in the inclusion of Polyplex in the AD order.
Reasoning: The Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce's interpretation of section 1677a(c)(1)(C) and granted it Chevron deference, determining that Commerce's view is reasonable.
Exclusion from Antidumping Order Based on De Minimis Marginssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that exclusion from an AD order requires a dumping margin below two percent, which Polyplex did not achieve.
Reasoning: The court found that a party can only be excluded from an AD duty order if it has a dumping margin below two percent.
Procedural Timing and Manipulationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court found no evidence of manipulation in the timing of the issuance of CV and AD orders that might affect Polyplex's margin calculation.
Reasoning: Commerce addressed concerns regarding petitioner manipulation, noting that petitioners can request alignment of these investigations under 19 C.F.R. § 351.210(b)(4)(I).