Ditar, S.A. v. United States
1:24-cv-00130
| Ct. Intl. Trade | Jan 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Ditar, S.A., a Colombian manufacturer of paper shopping bags, challenged the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final determination in an antidumping investigation which found sales at less than fair value.
- The key dispute centered on whether Ditar's sales in its home market (Colombia) were made at one or two levels of trade (LOT); specifically, whether Ditar's sales to distributors and end users constituted different LOTs affecting price comparability.
- Ditar provided extensive qualitative and quantitative evidence, claiming significant differences in selling functions, activity intensity, and pricing between sales to end users and sales to distributors in Colombia.
- Commerce declined to recognize two LOTs, arguing that Ditar failed to demonstrate meaningful differences in activities or pricing, and that differences observed were due to product design rather than LOT.
- The Court reviewed Commerce's determination under the substantial evidence and APA arbitrary/capricious standards.
- The Court granted Ditar's motion, remanding to Commerce with instructions to reconsider the LOT determination and recalculate dumping margins if two LOTs are found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce erred in failing to find two levels of trade in Colombia | Ditar argued sales to end users required more and higher-intensity selling activities than sales to distributors, supported by detailed evidence, warranting a LOT adjustment | Commerce claimed selling activities were not meaningfully different; differences were due to product (design) requirements, not marketing stage | Court held Commerce ignored or misapplied substantial evidence and misinterpreted regulatory standards—remand required |
| Whether selling activity differences must involve merchandise passing through multiple hands to constitute a different level of trade | Ditar argued agency precedent and regulations do not require merchandise to change hands twice; different selling functions suffice | Commerce maintained a more restrictive view, suggesting multiple hands/layers needed | Court found Commerce’s interpretation too narrow and unsupported by its own regulations and practice |
| Whether price comparisons should be based on product codes or CONNUMs | Ditar contended CONNUMs reflect product identity for fair dumping comparisons and agency practice supports this approach | Commerce relied on product code-level comparisons, suggesting it better reflects true price differences | Court found Commerce’s approach conflicted with long-standing agency practice and failed to justify deviation |
| Whether the evidence linking differences in selling activities to price comparability was sufficient | Ditar provided metrics and pricing analysis showing a consistent price pattern by customer type, meeting statutory requirements | Commerce asserted no significant price impact or insufficient pattern shown | Court agreed with Ditar, noting substantial unrebutted evidence and Commerce’s lack of a reasoned explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (requiring agencies to provide a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (interpretation of "substantial evidence" standard on administrative record review)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (explaining application of the substantial evidence standard in trade cases)
- Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365 (reasoned analysis requirement for agency decisions)
- Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 810 F.2d 1137 (agency abuses discretion when based on unsupported factual findings)