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
(a) In general. In an antidumping proceeding, the Secretary will convert foreign currencies into United States dollars using the rate of exchange on the date of sale of the subject merchandise.
(b) Exception. If the Secretary establishes that a currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale under consideration, the Secretary will use the exchange rate specified with respect to such foreign currency in the forward sale agreement to convert the foreign currency.
(c) Exchange rate fluctuations. The Secretary will ignore fluctuations in exchange rates.
(d) Sustained movement in foreign currency value. In an antidumping investigation, if there is a sustained movement increasing the value of the foreign currency relative to the United States dollar, the Secretary will allow exporters 60 days to adjust their prices to reflect such sustained movement.
Notes of Decisions
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 5× “§ 1677b-l(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.415 , 3 Commerce used the November 3,1997 exchange rate to convert Indian rupees into United States dollars.”
Pakfood Pub. Co. Ltd. v. United States, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010).
· cites it 3× “§ 1677b-1(a); 19 C.F.R. § 351.415 (b), Pakfood argued that, because the department had not previously requested data on contractual exchange rates, “the need to provide this information thus was not previously evident.”
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The government further contends that the goal of achieving an accurate dumping margin is general and hortatory and does not displace Congress’s specific command to use a sale-date exchange rate.”
Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2001).
· cites it 5× “§ 1677b-1(a) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.415 , 3 Commerce used the November 3, 1997 exchange rate to convert Indian rupees into United States dollars.”
Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Grp., Inc. v. United States, 2015 CIT 89 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015).
“401(i) & 351.414. Given precedent that precludes adjudication to the contrary, the court cannot conclude that Commerce’s targeted dumping determination and its application of mixed alternative comparison methodology to analyze normal value and U.”
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.