990 F.Supp. 829 (CIT. 1997), 95-09-01181, STC Corp. v. United States

Docket Nº:Court No. 95-09-01181.
Citation:990 F.Supp. 829
Party Name:STC CORPORATION, STC of America, Inc. and American Tape Company, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, Hoechst Celanese Corporation and ICI Americas Inc., Defendant-Intervenors. Slip Op. 97-173.
Case Date:December 15, 1997
Court:Court of International Trade
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 829

990 F.Supp. 829 (CIT. 1997)

STC CORPORATION, STC of America, Inc. and American Tape Company, Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES

E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, Hoechst Celanese Corporation and ICI Americas Inc., Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 97-173.

Court No. 95-09-01181.

United States Court of International Trade.

Dec. 15, 1997

Page 830

Coudert Brothers (Steven H. Becker and Kay C. Georgi), for plaintiff, STC.

Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Velta A. Melnbrencis, Assistant Director, and Lance J. Lerman), of counsel: Karen L. Bland, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, for defendant.

Howrey & Simon (Matthew J. Clark, Michael A. Hertzberg and Maria Tan Pedersen) and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (John D. Greenwald), for defendant-intervenors, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Hoechst Celanese Corporation and ICI Americas Inc.

OPINION

TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge.

Plaintiff, STC Corporation, STC of America, Inc. and American Tape Company (collectively "STC"), brings this action pursuant to Rule 56.2 of the Rules of this Court for judgment on the agency record contesting the final results of the Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration's ("Commerce") final results of the administrative review, entitled Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 Fed. Reg. 42,835 (Aug. 17, 1995) , as amended, 61 Fed. Reg. 5375 (Feb. 12, 1996).

Background

The administrative review at issue encompasses imports of polyethylene terephthalate ("PET") film, sheet and strip from the Republic of Korea covering the period November 30, 1990, through May 31, 1992. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 Fed.Reg. 32,521, 32,522 (July 22, 1992). On November 30, 1990, Commerce issued an affirmative preliminary determination and, in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1673(e) (1988), directed the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of relevant entries of PET film from Korea. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of Korea (" Preliminary LTFV Results "), 55 Fed.Reg. 49,668. On July 8, 1994, Commerce published the preliminary results of the instant review. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 Fed.Reg. 35,098. Commerce published the Final Results at issue on August 17, 1995. See Final Results, 60 Fed.Reg. at 42,835.

STC claims Commerce erred in: (1) not utilizing a tax-neutral methodology for adjusting

Page 831

for value-added taxes ("VAT"); and (2) wrongfully including a particular sale of PET film in calculating U.S. price.

Discussion

The Court's jurisdiction in this action is derived from 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2) (1994) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1994).

The Court must uphold Commerce's final determination unless it is "unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal Camera Corp. v. N L R B, 340 U.S. 474, 477, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). "It is not within the Court's domain either to weigh the adequate quality or quantity of the evidence for sufficiency or to reject a finding on the grounds of a differing interpretation of the record." Timken Co. v. United States, 12 CIT 955, 962, 699 F.Supp. 300, 306 (1988), aff'd, 894 F.2d 385 (Fed.Cir.1990).

1. Value-Added Tax Adjustment

STC challenges the VAT adjustment methodology that Commerce applied in this review, arguing that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP