Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States (2000)

However, by enacting the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act, Congress “incorporated the trade agreements adopted by *1300 the World Trade Organization at the Uruguay Round negotiations into United States law.” Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1367-68, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 216 (2000) (Allied Tube I).

Under the collapsing regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.401 (f)(1), “the evidence required to justify a collapsing determination ‘goes beyond that which is necessary to find common control.’ ” Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT -, -, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 222 (2000) (quoting Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 63 Fed.Reg. 55,578, 55,583 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 16, 1998) (fi *1345 nal results of antidumping duty administrative review)).

See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 C.I.T. 1357, 1371-72 , 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 220 (2000) (“Plaintiff, therefore, must demonstrate that it presented Commerce with evidence of sufficient weight and authority as to justify its {date of sale] as the only reasonable outcome.”).

However, by enacting the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Congress “incorporated the trade agreements adopted by the World Trade Organization at the Uruguay Round negotiations into United States law.” Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1367-68, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 216 (2000).

Corp. v. United States, 25 CIT-,-, 178 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1322 (2001) (citing Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1191 ). “[Ajntidumping laws are not punitive in nature, but are designed to remedy the inequities caused by unfair trade practices.” Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1370, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 218 (2000); see NTN, 74 F.3d at 1208 (stating that “the antidumping laws are remedial not punitive” (citing Chaparral Steel Co. v. United States, 901 F.2d 1097…

Cir. 1995); Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., 127 F. Supp. 2d 207, 218 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000).

See, e.g., NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 , 1208 (Fed.Cir.1995); Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 218 (CIT 2000).

Resp. at 18 (citing Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1368, 127 F. Supp. 2d 207, 217 (2000)); see also Rebar Resp. at 20.

Accordingly, to successfully rebut Commerce's presumptive selection of the invoice date, an interested party must demonstrate "that a reasonable mind has one, and only one, date of sale choice." Toscelik , 256 F.Supp.3d at 1263 (citing Allied Tube , 127 F.Supp.2d at 220 ("Plaintiff, therefore, must demonstrate that it presented Commerce with evidence of sufficient weight and authority as to justify its [date of sale] as the only reasonable outcome.") ).

See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1371-72, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 220 (2000) (“Plaintiff, therefore, must demonstrate that it presented Commerce, with evidence of sufficient weight and authority as to justify its [date of sale] as the only reasonable outcome.”); Yieh Phui Enter.

See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1371-72, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 220 (2000) (“Plaintiff, therefore, must demonstrate that it presented Commerce with evidence of sufficient weight and authority as to justify its factual conclusions as the only reasonable outcome.”).

See, e.g., Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1371, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 220 (2000) (“Plaintiff, therefore, must demonstrate that it presented Commerce with evidence of sufficient weight and authority as to justify its factual conclusions as the only reasonable outcome.”).

Although Commerce’s regulation provides that the date of sale will normally be the invoice date, Congress has “expressed its intent that, for antidumping purposes, the date of sale be flexible so as to accurately reflect the true date on which the material elements of sale were established.” Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1370, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 219 (2000). *1337 Implicated in this case is what discretion the Secretary has to be “satisfied” th…

Preamble, 62 Fed.Reg. at 27,349; see, e.g., Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1371-72, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 220 (2000) (“Allied Tube ”) (“Plaintiff, therefore, must demonstrate that it presented Commerce with evidence of sufficient weight and authority as to justify its factual conclusions as the only reasonable outcome.

Hence, Congress has “expressed its intent that, for antidumping purposes, the date of sale be flexible so as to accurately reflect the true date on which the material elements of sale were established.” Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1370, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 219 (2000).

Globe Metallur *1325 gical, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT-,-, 350 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1157 (2004) ("The goal of the [antidumping] statute is not punitive; the goal is to level the playing field for United States producers of similar goods with producers in [a foreign] country.”); Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1370, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 218 (2000) (finding that "fair and equitable” calculation of anti-dumping duties is "crucial” to purpose of antidumpi…

See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1370, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 219 (2000) (“Commerce may not act arbitrarily ... ”). 5 B.

While ZMC should have qualified for revocation for the final results of this administrative review, Commerce may not ignore the evidence of continued dumping by ZMC, even if such evidence is uncovered in a subsequent administrative review. “[AJntidumping laws are not punitive in nature, but are designed to remedy the inequities caused by unfair trade practices.” Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1370, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 218 (2000); see NTN Bearing C…

See, e.g., NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1995); Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 218 (CIT).

This argument has been considered and rejected by this court in Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 217-20 (CIT 2000). 3 .

See, e.g., Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 24 CIT 1357 , 1370, 127 F.Supp.2d 207, 219 (2000) (Congress “has expressed its intent that, for antidumping purposes, the date of sale be flexible so as to 3 19 C.F.R. §351.401 (i) provides as follows: . . .