- 149 -
the imbalance and used accepted methodology, which petitioners
have criticized but not shown to be incorrect or unreasonable.27
Petitioners also criticize respondent’s expert’s comparable
approach in reaching a 4-percent markup based on comparable
companies. They point out that the removal of one of the five
comparables (Federal Express) drops the weighted average from 4
percent to 1.55 percent. Although petitioners are mathematically
correct, they do not address the fact that Federal Express
represents, by far, the largest share of the domestic market in
which petitioners were engaged. Petitioners also complain that
respondent’s expert’s comparables are taken from 1990 through
1992 information and should not be extrapolated back to years
1979 through 1988. Here, again, petitioners complain, but do not
provide more timely or appropriate comparables. Respondent’s
expert has made adequate and uncontroverted explanations for his
assumptions on this aspect.
As explained above, petitioners’ approach to respondent’s
position on the imbalance adjustments is that petitioners’
expert’s total cost analysis would result in an imbalance
requiring payment to DHLI in all years. If the Court decides
that a section 482 adjustment for imbalance fees is warranted,
27 Petitioners’ expert did not directly address
respondent’s expert’s approach but focused on a total cost
approach, as opposed to an imbalance approach, that he projected
would reflect that the “imbalance” actually favored DHLI during
the years in question. We address petitioners’ expert’s report
later in this opinion.
Page: Previous 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011