(a) Introduction. In calculating normal value the Secretary may make adjustments to account for certain differences in the circumstances of sales in the United States and foreign markets. (See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.) This section clarifies certain terms used in the statute regarding circumstances of sale adjustments and describes the adjustment when commissions are paid only in one market.
(b) In general. With the exception of the allowance described in paragraph (e) of this section concerning commissions paid in only one market, the Secretary will make circumstances of sale adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act only for direct selling expenses and assumed expenses.
(c) Direct selling expenses. “Direct selling expenses” are expenses, such as commissions, credit expenses, guarantees, and warranties, that result from, and bear a direct relationship to, the particular sale in question.
(d) Assumed expenses. Assumed expenses are selling expenses that are assumed by the seller on behalf of the buyer, such as advertising expenses.
(e) Commissions paid in one market. The Secretary normally will make a reasonable allowance for other selling expenses if the Secretary makes a reasonable allowance for commissions in one of the markets under considerations, and no commission is paid in the other market under consideration. The Secretary will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of the other selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less.
(f) Reasonable allowance. In deciding what is a reasonable allowance for any difference in circumstances of sale, the Secretary normally will consider the cost of such difference to the exporter or producer but, if appropriate, may also consider the effect of such difference on the market value of the merchandise.
Notes of Decisions
Abb, Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 811 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 10× “3 Commerce made no explicit reference in the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum to granting or denying a commission offset under 19 C.F.R. § 351.410 (e). 4 Commerce stated, however, that it was including "COMMU" under the programming field "USCOMM" for "U.”
ABB Inc. v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
· cites it 4× “In such circumstances, Commerce treats the commission expense as a CEP expense and "deducts the expense[ ] and allocated profit from the price used to establish CEP without providing a home market commission offset because such commissions are only associated with economic…”
Ntn Corp. v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
· cites it 6× “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.410 (a). The regulations state that “with the exception of the allowance described in paragraph (e) of this section .”
ABB, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 137 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
· cites it 10× “§ 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.410 (e). Id. at 29 . This includes the possibility of a commission offset if commissions are only incurred on sales to one market.”
ABB Inc. v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1159 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
· cites it 4× “21 ABB relies on 19 C.F.R. § 351.410 (c) to argue that installation expenses are necessarily direct because they bear a direct relationship to particular sales and that, Hyosung’s accounting practices notwithstanding, Commerce’s decision to accept Hyosung’s expenses as reported…”
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 616 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).
· cites it 3× “at 19-20 (citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.410 (c)). Good Luck incurred expenses for shipping to the United States defective merchandise which was ultimately destroyed by a customer.”
Tosçelik Profil ve Sac Endüstrisi A.Ş. v. United States, 2018 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018).
· cites it 2× “In the Preliminary Results , we made a circumstances of sale adjustment for Toscelik's reported warehousing expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. In reviewing Toscelik's reported warehousing expenses, we find no evidence suggesting…”
Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1998).
“The court does not reach the issue of what is covered by a COS adjustment under the new statute, although 19 C.F.R. § 351.410 states that it covers, except for commissions, only direct and assumed selling expenses.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.410(e) — 2 cases
ABB, Inc. v. United States, 2017 CIT 137 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
“§ 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.410 (e). Id. at 29 . This includes the possibility of a commission offset if commissions are only incurred on sales to one market.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.