Opinion ID: 209423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Commerce's Method Of Calculating Net Duties Was Reasonable.

Text: Appellants also contend that Commerce's methodology in calculating net duties was flawed for two reasons: (1) there is no proof that the net duties or refunds were passed through, i.e., reflected in the price paid by U.S. purchasers; and (2) Commerce counted duty refunds received by Cutrale during the period of investigation on orange juice that entered the U.S. before the period of investigation. Under the law of this court, Commerce is the `master of antidumping law,' and reviewing courts must accord deference to the agency in its selection and development of proper methodologies. Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. v. United States, 187 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.1999) (citations omitted). Thus, Commerce's methodologies for calculating dumping margin are presumptively correct. Id. Section 1677a(c)(2)(A) requires that an adjustment to price be based upon import duties that are included in such price. Appellants argue that this language requires foreign producers to adduce evidence demonstrating that the drawback refunds actually affected the price paid by U.S. purchasers. Commerce reasonably concluded that such proof is not required. In Daewoo Electronics Co. v. International Union, we interpreted similar language in Section 1677a(d)(1)(C), which allowed a price adjustment only to the extent that such taxes are added to or included in the price of ... merchandise. 6 F.3d 1511, 1514 (Fed.Cir.1993). We held that where Commerce adjusts domestic prices for excise taxes not charged on exports, it need not inquire as to whether those taxes are passed through to the customer. The statutory language does not mandate that [the International Trade Administration] look at the effect of the tax on consumers rather than on the [foreign] company. Id. at 1517. Likewise here, Commerce need not analyze whether taxes are passed through to U.S. customers. As appellants admit, the statute contains no provision mandating such an inquiry. [2] Appellants' second challenge is that Commerce erroneously counted drawback refunds that Cutrale received for merchandise imported prior to the period of investigation. The statute requires adjustments for costs, charges, expenses and United States import duties, but, as explained above, it does not restrict these adjustments only to expenses incurred at the time of importation. Under Sections 1313(b) and 1313(j)(2) importers have up to three years to claim drawback refunds, even though the import duties are paid to Customs at the time of importation. Because of this three-year lag, it is inherent that some of the claimed refunds will pertain to merchandise actually imported prior to the period of investigation. [3] In light of the discretion vested in Commerce to interpret the antidumping statute, it was reasonable to allow an offset for drawback refunds claimed for merchandise imported prior to the period of investigation.