“Was Commerce’s differential pricing methodology which determines whether there is a ‘significant difference’ between pricing patterns in a Test Group and a Comparison Group supported by substantial evidence in the record and in accordance with law?”
“The United States, by motion, informs this Court that the Department of Commerce has abandoned the position on which it prevailed in this case in the United States Court of International Trade, and it asks this Court to remand the case for further remand to Commerce so that Commerce may consider an alternative methodology for analyzing whether there is ‘a pattern of export prices (or constructed export prices) for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or period of time’ under [a relevant statute]. We grant the motion, consistent with ordinary practice when an agency has materially changed the policy directly at issue in the case, mooting the specific dispute presented on appeal. . . . The judgment of the Court of International Trade is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of International Trade, which shall further remand the matter to the Department of Commerce.”
