31 F.Supp.2d 999 (CIT. 1998), 96-06-01573, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. United States
|Docket Nº:||Court No. 96-06-01573.|
|Citation:||31 F.Supp.2d 999|
|Party Name:||AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works, Defendant-Intervenor, Guangxi Gitic Import & Export Corp. And Guangxi Vinylon Plant, Defendant-Intervenors.; Slip Op. 98-165.|
|Case Date:||December 15, 1998|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Ellis & Aeschliman (David R. Busam), Wickens & Lebow (Edward M. Lebow) for Plaintiff.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General of the United States; David M. Cohen, Director; Cynthia B. Schultz, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Of Counsel, Robert J. Heilferty, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, Department of Commerce, Counsel for Defendant.
Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins (William E. Perry) for Defendant-Intervenor, Sinopec Sichuan Vinylon Works.
Aitken Irvin Lewin Berlin Vrooman & Cohn, LLP (Bruce Aitken) for Defendant-Intervenors, Guangxi Gitic Import & Export Corp. and Guangxi Vinylon Plant.
On May 6, 1998, this Court remanded certain aspects of the Department of Commerce ("Commerce" or "the Department") final determination in Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 61 Fed.Reg. 14,057 (Dep't Commerce 1996)(final det.) ("Final [22 C.I.T. 1126] Determination"). See Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 22 CIT 433, 14 F.Supp.2d 737 (1998)("Air Products").
The remand order directed Commerce to cite evidence to support its conclusion that VAM Organic Chemicals, Ltd. (VAM Organic) and Polychem, LTD. (Polychem) are equally representative of the polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) industry in India, thereby justifying the use of a simple average of the available data from both producers in valuing certain factors of production. Id. at ----, 14 F.Supp.2d at 746. Plaintiff Air Products and Chemicals Inc., objects to Commerce's remand determination.
This case concerns the "factors of production" methodology applicable in a nonmarket economy proceeding.1 In the underlying administrative review, Commerce used India as the surrogate market economy, and sought surrogate values for each factor of production. Commerce stated that it would select, where possible, publicly available, published information ("PAPI").2 Commerce provided interested parties with the opportunity to submit PAPI for the Department to consider when valuing the factor inputs. Id. at ----, 14 F.Supp.2d at 744.
Air Products, petitioner at the administrative level, provided rates for the factors of production based upon financial statements for VAM Organic. In its preliminary calculations, Commerce relied upon the petitioner's PAPI. Id. After making certain adjustments, Commerce applied a factory overhead rate of 37.44%, a general and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP