Albemarle Corp. v. United States
2014 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 137
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- This consolidated action challenges Commerce’s Final Results of the 3rd administrative review of the antidumping order on certain activated carbon from the PRC (POR: Apr 1, 2009–Mar 31, 2010). Commerce had individually examined two mandatory respondents (CCT and Jacobi) and assigned separate-rate margins to several unexamined Chinese exporters (including Huahui, Shanxi DMD, BPAC, and GHC).
- In the Final Results Commerce used prior-review margins to set rates for unexamined respondents ($0.28/kg) while assigning de minimis (zero) margins to the two examined respondents. Plaintiffs challenged surrogate values and the method for setting margins for unexamined respondents.
- The Court in Albemarle granted a voluntary remand to Commerce to reconsider two surrogate values (carbonized material; coal/fines by-products), to reassess margins for unexamined respondents, and to reconsider applying a per-unit margin to Shanxi DMD.
- On remand Commerce: (1) recalculated surrogate values (sustained by the court), (2) recalculated CCT’s margin (still de minimis), (3) assigned zero margins (average of de minimis rates) to unexamined respondents GHC, BPAC, and Shanxi DMD, and (4) left Huahui’s prior-review-specific $0.44/kg margin unchanged.
- Parties disputed whether Commerce properly assigned zero margins to the unexamined respondents, whether Commerce should have reopened the record, and whether Huahui’s continued $0.44/kg rate was permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce reasonably assigned zero/de minimis margins to unexamined respondents (GHC, BPAC, Shanxi DMD) on remand | CCC (intervenor) argued zero margins lack substantial record support; Commerce should have reopened the record and obtained company-specific data | Commerce averaged the contemporaneous de minimis margins of examined respondents (Jacobi, CCT) and assigned the average (zero); reopening the record is unnecessary and resource-intensive | Court upheld Commerce’s assignment of zero margins: averaging contemporaneous, POR-specific de minimis margins is a reasonable method supported by record evidence and Bestpak rationale |
| Whether Commerce permissibly declined to reopen the record on remand | CCC: reopening was required to gather factors-of-production and sales data to reflect "commercial reality" | Commerce: Congress contemplates assigning rates to unexamined respondents when record lacks POR data; reopening would effectively require examining additional respondents and is not required | Court held Commerce reasonably refused to reopen the record and that the existing POR-based margins provided substantial evidence for the zero rates |
| Whether Commerce permissibly left Huahui’s $0.44/kg margin (from prior review) unchanged | Albemarle: Huahui should receive the same zero rate as other separate-rate respondents; the $0.44/kg from prior review is not a contemporaneous reflection of POR commercial reality | Commerce: Huahui’s $0.44/kg is company-specific and temporally proximate (prior review), so it reasonably reflects Huahui’s potential POR margin | Court sustained Commerce’s decision to retain Huahui’s prior-review, company-specific margin as a permissible exercise of agency discretion |
| Whether Commerce’s redetermined surrogate values for carbonized material and coal/fines by-products are supported | Albemarle challenged surrogate choices and resulting inversions | Commerce placed an expert report on the record, selected Indian import HTS data (coconut shell charcoal) and capped by-product values at the carbonized-material value | No party contested the remand surrogate determinations; court sustained Commerce’s surrogate-value redeterminations |
Key Cases Cited
- Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (agency must calculate dumping margins "as accurately as possible" and rates must reflect economic reality)
- Viraj Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (agency may register protest when complying with a court remand)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussing accuracy objective in antidumping margin determinations)
- Parkdale International v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (deference to Commerce in antidumping methodology within statutory bounds)
- Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (courts review Commerce’s methods for reasonableness)
- Novosteel S.A. v. United States, 284 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (argument waiver rule for administrative-review challenges)