In March 2002, major U.S. producers and exporters of Silicon metal, and pertinent union groups in the United States filed a petition with the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that the silicon metal imports from Russia was undercutting the U.S. market and severely hurting the local industry. Based on the detailed outcome of the investigation and prehearing briefs from the plaintiffs , the ITC ruled that silicon imports from Russia were sold lower than the fair values and subsequently impacted material injury on the U.S industry. However, the court found no evidence of “critical circumstances” against the participated Russian exporters. The subsequent content of this paper summarizes
…show more content…
import source were also underselling at that time. Given that market forces of demand and supply determines the silicon metal price, its demand declined drastically in 1997 and 1998 due to the Asian financial crisis. Their defense on the increase in export volume claimed that by historical records (from 1993 to 1998) it was comparatively low. Finally, they rebutted that the collapse of the U.S. silicon metal industry resulted from a legacy impact of 1998 Asian financial crisis and not the subject import. However, DOC comparison found the price of subject imports were lower than fair value. During the period of investigation, the increase in the volume of Russian silicon metals was the highest compared to other nonsubject imports. Most notably, the large portion of the subject import destined to the chemical market undercut the U.S market for majority of the U.S. …show more content…
industry. Further, the commission determined that the export prices for subject import of the Russian respondents were within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. So, they were eligible for separate rates. The ITC then directed the DOC to instruct the Customs services to lift the suspension of the imported merchandise and reimburse any bond or other securities and cash deposits collected to secure the antidumping margins at the time of investigation the relevant
import source were also underselling at that time. Given that market forces of demand and supply determines the silicon metal price, its demand declined drastically in 1997 and 1998 due to the Asian financial crisis. Their defense on the increase in export volume claimed that by historical records (from 1993 to 1998) it was comparatively low. Finally, they rebutted that the collapse of the U.S. silicon metal industry resulted from a legacy impact of 1998 Asian financial crisis and not the subject import. However, DOC comparison found the price of subject imports were lower than fair value. During the period of investigation, the increase in the volume of Russian silicon metals was the highest compared to other nonsubject imports. Most notably, the large portion of the subject import destined to the chemical market undercut the U.S market for majority of the U.S. …show more content…
industry. Further, the commission determined that the export prices for subject import of the Russian respondents were within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. So, they were eligible for separate rates. The ITC then directed the DOC to instruct the Customs services to lift the suspension of the imported merchandise and reimburse any bond or other securities and cash deposits collected to secure the antidumping margins at the time of investigation the relevant