Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nation Ford Chemical Co. v. United States

February 02, 1999

NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, AND YUDE CHEMICAL COMPANY, ZHENXING CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COMPANY AND PHT INTERNATIONAL, INC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Before Rich, Newman, and Lourie, Circuit Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lourie, Circuit Judge.

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade Senior Judge Dominick L. DiCarlo United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Nation Ford Chemical Company ("NFC") appeals from the decision of the United States Court of International Trade sustaining the Department of Commerce's use of Indian import prices for aniline in its investigation of certain Chinese manufacturers accused of dumping sulfanilic acid in the United States. See Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. United States, 985 F. Supp. 133 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1997) ("NFC I"). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

NFC is the only manufacturer of sulfanilic acid in the United States. NFC suspected that various manufacturers from the People's Republic of China were "dumping" sulfanilic acid in the United States and successfully petitioned Commerce to investigate those manufacturers' activities from August 1, 1993 to June 31, 1995. *fn1 See Sulfanilic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 Fed. Reg. 25196 (1996) ("1993-94 Preliminary Results"); Sulfanilic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 Fed. Reg. 29073 (1996) ("1994-95 Preliminary Results"). In its investigation, Commerce sought to determine the "dumping margin," i.e., "the amount by which the foreign market value exceeds the United States price" for that product. See 19 U.S.C. § 1673 (1988); *fn2 see also id. § 1677a (defining "United States price"); id. § 1677b (defining "foreign market value"); Aimcor v. United States, 141 F.3d 1098, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that the "dumping margin" constitutes a duty on imported merchandise that is designed to "raise the United States price to the foreign market value.") (citation omitted).

Finding China to be a "nonmarket economy" country or "NME," *fn3 Commerce applied 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c) to determine the "foreign market value." This provision reads as follows:

"(1) In general"

"If-"

"(A) the subject merchandise is exported from a nonmarket economy country, and"

"(B) [Commerce] finds that available information does not permit the foreign market value of the subject merchandise to be determined under subsection (a) of this section,"

"[Commerce] shall determine the foreign market value of the subject merchandise on the basis of the value of the factors of production utilized in producing the merchandise . . . . [T]he valuation of the factors of production shall be based on the best available information regarding the values of such factors in a market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the administrator."

"(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the factors of production utilized in producing merchandise include, but are not limited to-"

"(A) hours of labor required,"

"(B) quantities of raw materials ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.