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. § 351.414

Comparison of normal value with export price (constructed export price)

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

(a) Introduction. This section explains when and how the Secretary will average prices in making comparisons of export price or constructed export price with normal value. (See section 777A(d) of the Act.)

(b) Description of methods of comparison—(1) Average-to-average method. The “average-to-average” method involves a comparison of the weighted average of the normal values with the weighted average of the export prices (and constructed export prices) for comparable merchandise.

(2) Transaction-to-transaction method. The “transaction-to-transaction” method involves a comparison of the normal values of individual transactions with the export prices (or constructed export prices) of individual transactions for comparable merchandise.

(3) Average-to-transaction method. The “average-to-transaction” method involves a comparison of the weighted average of the normal values to the export prices (or constructed export prices) of individual transactions for comparable merchandise.

(c) Choice of method. (1) In an investigation or review, the Secretary will use the average-to-average method unless the Secretary determines another method is appropriate in a particular case.

(2) The Secretary will use the transaction-to-transaction method only in unusual situations, such as when there are very few sales of subject merchandise and the merchandise sold in each market is identical or very similar or is custom-made.

(d) Application of the average-to-average method—(1) In general. In applying the average-to-average method, the Secretary will identify those sales of the subject merchandise to the United States that are comparable, and will include such sales in an “averaging group.” The Secretary will calculate a weighted average of the export prices and the constructed export prices of the sales included in the averaging group, and will compare this weighted average to the weighted average of the normal values of such sales.

(2) Identification of the averaging group. An averaging group will consist of subject merchandise that is identical or virtually identical in all physical characteristics and that is sold to the United States at the same level of trade. In identifying sales to be included in an averaging group, the Secretary also will take into account, where appropriate, the region of the United States in which the merchandise is sold, and such other factors as the Secretary considers relevant.

(3) Time period over which weighted average is calculated. When applying the average-to-average method in an investigation, the Secretary normally will calculate weighted averages for the entire period of investigation. However, when normal values, export prices, or constructed export prices differ significantly over the course of the period of investigation, the Secretary may calculate weighted averages for such shorter period as the Secretary deems appropriate. When applying the average-to-average method in a review, the Secretary normally will calculate weighted averages on a monthly basis and compare the weighted-average monthly export price or constructed export price to the weighted-average normal value for the contemporaneous month.

(e) Application of the average-to-transaction method—In applying the average-to-transaction method in a review, when normal value is based on the weighted average of sales of the foreign like product, the Secretary will limit the averaging of such prices to sales incurred during the contemporaneous month.

(f) Contemporaneous Month. Normally, the Secretary will select as the contemporaneous month the first of the following months which applies:

(1) The month during which the particular U.S. sales under consideration were made;

(2) If there are no sales of the foreign like product during this month, the most recent of the three months prior to the month of the U.S. sales in which there was a sale of the foreign like product.

(3) If there are no sales of the foreign like product during any of these months, the earlier of the two months following the month of the U.S. sales in which there was a sale of the foreign like product.

[77 FR 8114, Feb. 14, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 2016 CIT 9 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 2016 CIT 9 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 16× “I & D Memo at 7; 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (b)(3) (2013); 2 see also 19 C.”
Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2013 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). · cites it 26× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (f) (2004) 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “2004 Regulation”).”
Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 846 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (f)(2) (2008). The Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) held that Commerce had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by withdrawing the regulation without providing notice and opportunity for comment.”
Stupp Corp. v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (c)(1); see also 19 U.”
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 79 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 10× “are satisfied, the Secretary normally will limit the application of the [A-T] method to those sales that constitute targeted dumping under [ 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (f)(l)(i) ].” 19 C.F.”
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2014 CIT 104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014). · cites it 13× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (c)(2) (2012) (“The Secretary [of Commerce] will use the transaction-to-transaction method only in unusual situations, such as when there are very few sales of subject merchandise and the merchandise sold in each market is identical or very similar or is…”
Seah Steel Corp. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 7× “Specifically, 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (c)(2) identifies the Department’s preference for use of the average-to-transaction method in making comparisons of export price with normal value in an administrative review.”
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “Over time, Commerce unified its procedures through regulation, stating, “[i]n an investigation or review, the Secretary will use the average-to-average method unless the Secretary determines another method is appropriate in a particular case,” 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (c)(1) (2012),…”
Jtekt Corp. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 7× “Commerce based its decision on 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (e)(2), which addresses the selection of the “contemporaneous months,” ie.”
Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, 2018 CIT 150 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 4× “414 (b) describe three methods by which Commerce may compare the normal value to the export price: (1) average-to-average ("A-to-A"), a comparison of weighted-average normal values to weighted-average export prices for comparable merchandise; (2) transaction-to-transaction…”
Union Steel v. United States, 2012 CIT 24 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 4× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (d)(3). The price comparisons in reviews are based on monthly averages for normal values.”
United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 5× “(citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (c)(1)). Because a respondent’s weighted-average dumping margin is based on all of its U.”
Show all 102 citing cases →
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(b) — 1 case
The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Sys. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 156 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(1) — 3 cases
Chang Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2013 CIT 49 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (f) (2004) 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “2004 Regulation”).”
Husteel Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 66 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
Timken Co. v. United States, 2015 CIT 72 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(l) — 1 case
The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Sys. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2017 CIT 156 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(e)(2) — 4 cases
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria & Agricultura v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
Jtekt Corp. v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2011).
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
Union Steel Mfg. Co. v. United States, 2016 CIT 117 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(f) — 1 case
Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. v. United States, 2013 CIT 74 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(f)(2) — 1 case
Beijing Tianhai Indus. Co. v. United States, 2017 CIT 79 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). “are satisfied, the Secretary normally will limit the application of the [A-T] method to those sales that constitute targeted dumping under [ 19 C.F.R. § 351.414 (f)(l)(i) ].” 19 C.F.”
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.