Anti-dumping normal value determination set aside and remanded after later Supreme Court precedent reversed the earlier basis.

The Tribunal's anti-dumping reasoning rested on its earlier view that duty was exporter-specific and manufacturer-specific, so prices of comparable goods from other exporters or manufacturers could not be used to determine normal value. That foundation was later reversed by a subsequent binding Supreme Court decision. In light of that later precedent, the proper course was fresh reconsideration of the appeals on merits rather than sustaining the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matters were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order setting aside the Designated Authority's anti-dumping determination should be sustained, or the appeals should be remitted for reconsideration in light of the subsequent decision reversing the earlier precedent.

Analysis: The Tribunal had relied on its earlier view that anti-dumping duty was exporter-specific and manufacturer-specific, and that prices of similar articles of other exporters or manufacturers could not be used to determine normal value. That foundation was later overturned by the Court in the subsequent decision cited in the order. In that situation, the proper course was for the Tribunal to reconsider the appeals afresh on merits in the light of the later binding decision rather than let the impugned judgment stand.

Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the matters were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits.

---