985 F.Supp. 138 (CIT. 1997), 96-11-02503, Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States
|Docket Nº:||Court No. 96-11-02503.|
|Citation:||985 F.Supp. 138|
|Party Name:||NATION FORD CHEM. CO., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Yude Chem. Co., Zhenxing Chem. Indus. Co. & Pht Int'l., Inc., Defendant-Intervenors. Slip Op. 97-172.|
|Case Date:||December 12, 1997|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
King & Spalding (Stephen A. Jones; Martin M. McNerney with him on the brief), Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Reginald T. Blades, Jr.) and Linda S. Chang, International Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, of counsel, Washington, DC, for defendant.
Williams Mullen Christian & Dobbins (William E. Perry), Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenors.
DiCARLO, Senior Judge.
Plaintiff Nation Ford, the sole domestic producer of sulfanilic acid, challenges the final results of the antidumping administrative review found in Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China, 61 Fed.Reg. 53,702 (1996) (final results & partial recission of admin. review), covering the period from August 1, 1994 to July 31, 1995. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1994). For the reasons given below, Commerce's final results are sustained.
Nation Ford claims that Commerce incorrectly calculated the normal value of sulfanilic acid from the PRC by undervaluing the cost to Chinese producers of aniline, the primary raw material used in the production of sulfanilic acid. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c) (1994) (outlining factors of production methodology used to construct normal value). Pursuant to § 1677b(c), Commerce used prices available in India to calculate normal value because the PRC is a nonmarket economy. Plaintiffs argue that Commerce should have used Indian domestic rather than Indian import prices to value aniline because 1) PRC manufacturers use domestically produced aniline, and 2) Indian import prices are subsidized, aberrational, and not market-based. In the alternative, they argue that if Commerce does use import statistics to value aniline, it should adjust the basic Indian import price to reflect: 1) an 85% import duty, and 2) an importer mark-up.
The facts and issues in this case are identical to those in Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 21 CIT 1371, 985 F.Supp....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP