Antidumping duties-uniformity at all ports of entry-Puerto Rican importations-Under the Constitution, assessment of dumping duties pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 must be uniform throughout the United States, and by statute the same duties must be assessed on merchandise imported into Puerto Rico as are required to be collected on importations into the United States. A.R.D. 294 Buying commission-export valuebona fides-Commissions paid to agents for services rendered in procuring merchandise, inspecting and packing goods, arranging shipment, and making payments for the account of the buyer, no part of which inures to the benefit of the seller, are buying commissions and are not part of the dutiable export value, provided the agency is bona fide. A.R.D. 297 Export value-freely offered to all pur

chasers-Where the evidence did not establish that Toyo Jitsugyo KK sold or offered its merchandise to all purchasers on an ex-factory basis or that it offered the option of purchasing either ex-factory without the participation of Oriental Trading Company, Ltd., or on some other basis, held, the ex-factory prices did not represent statutory export value. A.R.D. 297 Export value-selected purchaserprice which fairly reflects market value In reversing the decision and judgment of the trial court, the appellate term held that the importer was a selected purchaser at wholesale, as held by the trial court, but that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the selling prices to the selected purchaser fairly reflected the market value of the merchandise and, accordingly, the export value was the proper basis for appraisement pursuant to sec. 402 (f) (1) (B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956. A.R.D. 295

Fairly reflects market value-The determination of the trial judge that the record, in effect, presented no substantial basis or criteria for determining that the prices to a selected purchaser in the United States fairly reflected the market value of the imported merchandise was affirmed. A.R.D. 293

Tariff Commission-absence of injury to domestic industry at port of entry-Puerto Rico-When dumping duties are imposed, they are appli

cable to importations of the affected merchandise at every port of entry. including Puerto Rico, whether or not importations of such merchandise at a particular port are causing injury to an industry in the United States. A.R.D. 294

Tariff Commission-Antidumping Act of 1921-remedies-Although under the Antidumping Act of 1921 the Tariff Commission may exercise broad discretion in the selection of methods used to determine whether there is injury or likelihood of injury to an industry in the United States by reason of dumping, clearly the Commission has no discretion under the statute to fashion antidumping remedies. A.R.D. 294

Tariff Commission-determinations under Antidumping Act of 1921-The presence of dumping or sales of foreign merchandise at less than fair value may not be regarded by the Tariff Commission as ipso facto injurious to an industry in the United States in making its finding under sec. 201(a) of the Antidumping Act of 1921. A.R.D. 294

Tariff Commission-finding under Antidumping Act of 1921-scope of judicial review-substantial evidence rule-Under the Antidumping Act of 1921, a Tariff Commission injury investigation is not required to be "on the record," but rather is authorized to be made upon "such investigation as it [Commission] deems necessary." Much of the Commission's information may be confidential and not open to public inspection or judicial review. Under these circumstances, the substantial evidence rule is clearly inappropriate in reviewing injury determinations of the Tariff Commission. A.R.D. 294

Tariff Commission-recurring or renewed dumping-The fact that there was recurrent or renewed dumping of portland gray cement by the exporter was properly considered by the Tariff Commission in making its finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921. A.R.D. 294

Tariff Commission-scope of delegated authority in injury-Inasmuch as the Antidumping Act of 1921 requires that the Commission shall determine "whether an industry in the United States is being or is likely to be injured *** by reason of the importation of [dumped] merchandise," the statute in effect mandates the

Tariff Commission-Continued

Commission to focus upon dumped imports as a cause of injury or likelihood of injury to domestic industry. Consequently, the Commission does not act ultra vires in considering the factor of dumped imports in making the finding prescribed by the statute. A.R.D. 294

United States value-freely offered for sale ordinary course of trade-usual wholesale quantities—When the manner in which a newly developed product is first freely offered for sale and sold in the market place to all purchasers in wholesale quantities of five pounds or less is no different from the manner in which the product is freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in wholesale quantities of 25 pounds or more, the purchase of the newly developed product in wholesale quantities of five pounds or less for experimental or testing purposes is a sale in the ordinary course of trade relevant to determining the "usual wholesale quantities" in which the product is freely offered for sale and sold. Judgment of the trial court that on United States

value basis under sec. 402 (e), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and as represented by appraised values, the value of the Phenidone is the price at which the Phenidone was freely offered for sale and sold in the United States, in the ordinary course of trade, in usual wholesale quantities of one ounce, affirmed. A.R.D. 292 United States value-presumption of correctness-burden of proof-In affirming the decision and judgment of the trial court, that United States value, under sec. 402a (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was the proper basis for the determination of the value of the imported merchandise, and that such values were represented by the appraised values, the appellate term held that the appellant had not overcome by competent proofs the presumption that the Government correctly found that there were free offerings of the merchandise within the purview of sec. 402a (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956. A.R.D. 296