C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES › Subpart D—Calculation of Export Price, Constructed Export Price, Fair Value, and Normal Value

19 C.F.R. § 351.413

Disregarding insignificant adjustments

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Ordinarily, under section 777A(a)(2) of the Act, an “insignificant adjustment” is any individual adjustment having an ad valorem effect of less than 0.33 percent, or any group of adjustments having an ad valorem effect of less than 1.0 percent, of the export price, constructed export price, or normal value, as the case may be. Groups of adjustments are adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale under § 351.410, adjustments for differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise under § 351.411, and adjustments for differences in the levels of trade under § 351.412.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2004–2013 · leading case: China Steel Corp. v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
China Steel Corp. v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). · cites it 3× “Second, Plaintiff claims Commerce’s conclusion that the two sets of data were “reasonably close” is not in accordance with law, because an 8.6 percent difference exists between the two sets of data.”
United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 759 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011). · cites it 3× “The Department’s regulations, in 19 C.F.R. § 351.413 (2007), set forth a standard of less than 0.”
NSK LTD. v. United States, 416 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2006). “at 3 (quoting Commerce’s Final Results Analysis Memo for the Fourteenth Administrative Review *1342 (“Final Results Memo”) at 3, ¶ 2; see 19 C.F.R. § 351.413 ). Defendant argues these “not insignificant” distortions occurred with many customers and in [a percentage] of sales.”
Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v. United States, 2007 CIT 3 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007). · cites it 3× “§ 1677Í-1 and 19 C.F.R. § 351.413 (2003) to *38 disregard “insignificant adjustments” to normal value.”
Washington Int'l Ins. Co. v. United States, 2009 CIT 78 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “409 (b)(1) (20% considered adequate for certain calculation); 19 C.F.R. § 351.413 (1% or less considered “insignificant” for certain adjustments; therefore, greater than 1% considered significant); 19 C.”
Alloy Piping Prods., Inc. v. United States, 2004 CIT 134 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “at 20, citing 19 C.F.R. §351.413 . 17 See TCSSPL Reply Brief, p.”
Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States, 2013 CIT 63 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). “” 19 C.F.R. §351.413 . Here, except for Commerce’s averment, the court has no basis for concluding what effect, if any, correction of the admitted ministerial errors, in addition to correction of any other identified errors, would have on the analysis.”
Washington Int'l Ins. v. United States, 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1023 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). “409 (b)(1) (20% considered adequate for certain calculation); 19 C.F.R. § 351.413 (1% or less considered “insignificant” for certain adjustments; therefore, greater than 1% considered significant); 19 C.”
Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v. United States, 2005 CIT 54 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “” 19 C.F.R. § 351.413 . [This section] gives [Commerce] the flexibility to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether it should disregard a particular insignificant adjustment.”
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.