What's New?
 - Sitemap - Calendar
Trade Agreements - FTAA Process - Trade Issues 

español - français - português
Search


BINATIONAL PANEL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 1904

In the matter of: Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico; Final Results of the Seventh Antidumping Administrative Review (August 1, 1996 - July, 31, 1997)

Secretariat File No.:
USA-MEX-99-1904-03



PANEL:  

Louis S. Mastriani, Chairman.

 
Gustavo Vega Canovas.  
Mark R. Joelson.  
Kevin C. Kennedy.  
Ruperto Patino Manffer.  


COUNSEL:   
For CEMEX, S.A. de C.V. ("CEMEX"): Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (Irwin P. Altschuler, Esq.)
For Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V.: White & Case
(Gregory J. Spak, Esq. and Kristina Zissis, Esq.)

For The Southern Tier Cement Committee: King & Spalding
(Joseph W. Dorn, Esq. and Michael P. Mabile, Esq.)

For the Investigating Authority: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration
(David W. Richardson, Esq.)


TABLE OF CONTENTS  

  I. INTRODUCTION
  II. BACKGROUND
  III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  IV. APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
       A. Governing Law Applicable To Panel Review And Scope of Panel Review
       B. Standard of Review
            1. Substantial Evidence
            2. In Accordance With Law
       C. Standards for Remand
  V. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
       A. Whether Commerce Properly Determined That CEMEX's Home Market Sales Of
         Type II And Type V Cement Were Outside The Ordinary Course Of Trade
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
       B. Whether Commerce Properly Determined That CEMEX's Home Market Sales Of
          Type V Cement Sold As Type I Cement Were Outside The Ordinary Course Of

          Trade
        
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        C. Whether This NAFTA Panel Has The Authority To: (A) Review Commerce's
          Conclusion That The U.S. Statutory Scheme For Assessment Of Antidumping
          Of Antidumping Duties In Regional Industry Cases Is Consistent With the
          Obligations of the United States Under The WTO Antidumping Agreement; (B)
          Review The Questions Raised By CDC Concerning The Interpretation Of The
          U.S. Constitution As Bearing On The Regional Assessment Issue; and (C) Order
          Commerce To Revoke The Order Based On An Allegedly Improper
          Assessment Methodology
  
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        D. Whether Commerce Properly Denied An Adjustment To CDC's U.S. Indirect Selling
          Expenses For Interest Allegedly Incurred In Financing Cash Deposits For Antidumping
          Duties
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        E. Whether Commerce Properly Determined To Resort To Partial Adverse Facts Available
          For CEMEX's Data From The Hidalgo Plant Rather Than Total Adverse Facts Available 
          For CEMEX's Entire Response
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        F. Whether Commerce Properly Refused To Revoke The Antidumping Order Based Upon
          Alleged Defects In The Initiation Of The Original LTFV Investigation
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        G. Whether (a) Commerce's Classification of CEMEX's Bag and Bulk Cement As The
          Same Like Product and (b) Commerce's Decisions That Sales Of CEMEX's Bag And
          Bulk Cement Were At The Same Level Of Trade Is Supported By Substantial
          Evidence.
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
       H. Whether Commerce's Treatment Of Warehousing Expenses As Indirect Selling
          Expenses Is Supported By Substantial Evidence
      
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        I. Whether Commerce's Treatment Of CEMEX's Home Market Pre-Sale Warehousing
         Expenses As Indirect Selling Expenses Is Supported By Substantial Evidence
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        J. Whether Commerce's Decision To Classify Certain CDC Sales As Indirect Export-
          Price Sales Is Supported By Substantial Evidence
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        K. Whether Commerce's Difference-In-Merchandise ("DIFMER") Adjustment Is Supported
          By Substantial Evidence
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
        L. Whether Commerce's Decision To Allow CEMEX An Adjustment For Freight Expenses
          Is Supported By Substantial Evidence
            1. Background
            2. Contentions of the Parties
            3. Analysis
            4. Conclusion
  VI. CONCLUSIONS
 


Back to Top