33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1558
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Pasta Zara SpA challenges Commerce's Final Results for the 11th antidumping duty review of Italian pasta, and the Remand Redetermination issued after Pasta Zara.
- Zara argues U.S. price should be based on EP rather than CEP, and that certain U.S. affiliate expenses were misclassified as direct rather than indirect.
- Zara contends Italy home-market sales occurred at more than one LOT, asserting separate marketing stages and levels of trade.
- Courts previously sustained CEP for U.S. price in Pasta Zara and remanded only on the LOT and expense classifications; on remand Commerce reclassified expenses as indirect and kept CEP.
- The Remand Redetermination concluded all Zara home-market sales occurred at a single LOT, supported by factual findings in the remand record.
- The court reviews the Remand Redetermination under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) for substantial evidence and legality, affirming Commerce's determinations
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEP vs EP for U.S. price | Zara contends CEP over EP is unlawful and not compelled to maintain CEP. | Commerce properly used CEP as in Pasta Zara; evaluating other cases is inapt. | Affirmed: CEP basis sustained; remand not to revisit CEP |
| Reclassification of accounting expenses | Reclassifying as indirect would affect margins if not treated as direct under EP. | Indirect classification does not affect margin because both direct and indirect are deducted from CEP. | Affirmed: reclassification allowed; margin unchanged |
| Single LOT for home-market sales | Sales to traditional local customers qualify as a separate LOT due to distinct marketing activities. | Remand findings show shared selling activities; traditional-local activities do not create a separate LOT. | Affirmed: Zara's home-market sales are at a single LOT |
Key Cases Cited
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 675 F.Supp.2d 1206 (2009) (fair comparisons/CEP methodology considerations)
- Pasta Zara SpA v. United States, 703 F.Supp.2d 1317 (2010) (remand and LOT analysis; sustains CEP and analyzes LOT)