Barcode : 4259556-02 A-533-889 REV - Admin Review 12 / 13 / 19 - 5 / 31 / 21
If both tests in the first stage ( i . e ., the Cohen ’ s d test and the ratio test ) demonstrate the existence of a pattern of prices that differ significantly such that an alternative comparison method should be considered , then in the second stage of the differential pricing analysis , Commerce examines whether using only the average-to-average method can appropriately account for such differences . In considering this question , Commerce tests whether using an alternative comparison method , based on the results of the Cohen ’ s d and ratio tests described above , yields a meaningful difference in the weighted-average dumping margin as compared to that resulting from the use of the average-to-average method only . If the difference between the two calculations is meaningful , then this demonstrates that the average-to-average method cannot account for differences such as those observed in this analysis , and , therefore , an alternative comparison method would be appropriate . A difference in the weighted-average dumping margins is considered meaningful if : ( 1 ) there is a 25 percent relative change in the weightedaverage dumping margins between the average-to-average method and the appropriate alternative method where both rates are above the de minimis threshold ; or ( 2 ) the resulting weighted-average dumping margins between the average-to-average method and the appropriate alternative method move across the de minimis threshold .
Interested parties may present arguments and justifications in relation to the above-described differential pricing approach used in these preliminary results , including arguments for modifying the group definitions used in this proceeding . 67
2 . Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis
For PESL , based on the results of the differential pricing analysis , we preliminarily find that 57.09 percent of the value of U . S . sales pass the Cohen ’ s d test and confirms the existence of a pattern of prices that differ significantly among purchasers , regions , or time periods . Further , we preliminarily determine that there is no meaningful difference between the weighted-average dumping margin calculated using the average-to-average method and the weighted-average dumping margin calculated using an alternative comparison method based on applying the average-to-transaction method to those U . S . sales which passed the Cohen ’ s d test and the average-to-average method to those sales which did not pass the Cohen ’ s d test . Thus , for these preliminary results , we are applying the average-to-average method for all U . S . sales to calculate the weighted-average dumping margin for PESL .
C .
Export Price
Section 772 ( a ) of the Act defines EP as “ the price at which subject merchandise is first sold ( or agreed to be sold ) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States ,” as adjusted under section 772 ( c ) of the Act . In accordance with section 772 ( a ) of the Act , we calculated EP for all of PESL ’ s U . S . sales , where the subject merchandise was first sold to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
67
The CAFC has affirmed much of Commerce ’ s differential pricing methodology . See , e . g ., Dillinger France S . A . v . United States , 981 F . 3d 1318 ( Fed . Cir . 2020 ); and Apex . We ask that interested parties present only arguments on issues which have not already been decided by litigation .
15 Filed By : Kyle Clahane , Filed Date : 7 / 1 / 22 2:00 PM , Submission Status : Approved