CAFC Issues Mandate Granting US Voluntary Remand Motion in AD Case on Use of 'd' Test
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Dec. 23 issued its mandate in an antidumping duty case after the court granted the government's motion for a voluntary remand to reconsider its differential pricing analysis, which is used…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
to identify "masked" dumping. The U.S. asked for the remand after CAFC's rulings in Stupp v. U.S. and Marmen v. U.S., in which the court largely invalidated the Commerce Department's use of the Cohen's d test in its differential pricing analysis. While the court held oral argument on whether a voluntary remand was needed, due to opposition from exporter PT Enterprise, the court ultimately found remand to be proper given that Commerce has "materially changed the policy directly at issue in the case" (see 2512030015). In response to Stupp and Marmen, Commerce has adopted a new "price differences test" to detect masked dumping (Mid Continent Steel & Wire v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1556).