The U.S. Court of International Trade recently ruled on a case involving Ditar, S.A., a Colombian producer of paper bags. The court upheld a decision regarding antidumping duties applied to Ditar's products imported into the United States. This ruling affects Ditar's pricing strategies and could have broader implications for international trade practices.
The case, Ditar, S.A. v. United States, was filed under docket number 24-00130. The court's opinion was issued by Judge M. Miller Baker on September 15, 2026. The ruling comes after Ditar sought adjustments to its home-market prices to calculate its antidumping margin, which is a measure used to protect U.S. industries from foreign companies selling goods at unfairly low prices.
Ditar argued that it should receive a “level-of-trade” adjustment, which would account for differences in selling activities between its home-market sales and those made in the U.S. However, the Department of Commerce initially denied this request, stating that Ditar did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in levels of trade or any significant impact on price comparability.
The parties involved in this case include Ditar, S.A. as the plaintiff, the United States as the defendant, and the Coalition for Fair Trade in Shopping Bags as a defendant-intervenor. The dispute arose from an earlier investigation by the Department of Commerce into the pricing of paper bags imported from Colombia. Ditar contended that its sales practices warranted a different treatment under the antidumping regulations.
The initial ruling from the Department of Commerce found that Ditar failed to show that its home-market sales were made at different marketing stages or that they were equivalent to such stages. This meant that Ditar could not qualify for the level-of-trade adjustment it sought. The court had previously remanded the case back to the Department of Commerce for further review of Ditar's claims regarding indirect selling expenses related to warehousing and repacking.
In the latest ruling, Judge Baker noted that Ditar did not provide adequate evidence to support its claims. The Department of Commerce had stated that the indirect selling expenses reported by Ditar were too vague and did not substantiate the claims regarding the intensity of sales functions. The court emphasized that Ditar had the burden to demonstrate the appropriateness of the level-of-trade adjustment, which it failed to do.
The court ruled, "Ditar failed to establish that its home-market sales to its two types of customers (distributors and end users) were made at different levels of trade."
Additionally, the Department of Commerce explained that two prerequisites must be met for a level-of-trade adjustment: there must be a difference in the level of trade involving different selling activities, and this difference must affect price comparability. Since Ditar could not establish the first requirement, the court found it unnecessary to address the second.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Ditar, as it may affect its pricing strategies and competitiveness in the U.S. market. The decision also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly regarding the burden of proof placed on companies seeking adjustments to antidumping duties.
Going forward, Ditar may consider its options for appeal, although the court's ruling appears to be well-supported by the evidence presented. There is no indication of any related cases pending that might affect this ruling. The decision underscores the importance of clear and substantial evidence when navigating international trade regulations.