768 F. Supp. 2d 1315
Ct. Int'l Trade2011Background
- This action challenges Commerce's Remand Results granting a CEP offset to Rubicon Group for the 2006-2007 review after remand.
- Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee contested Commerce's grant of the CEP offset and the related record evidence.
- The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) to review antidumping remand determinations.
- Commerce based the CEP offset on differing selling functions and a more advanced LOT for Canadian sales versus CEP U.S. sales.
- The record included Rubicon Group questionnaire responses and new information since the LTFV investigation, plus arguments about ISE ratios.
- The court ultimately affirmed Commerce's Remand Results, finding substantial evidence and compliance with law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEP offset is supported by substantial evidence | Rubicon Group argues more selling functions show LOT difference. | Commerce reasonably found Canada sales more advanced than CEP U.S. sales. | Yes; supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether ISE ratios should govern LOT analysis | ISE ratios corroborate selling functions and should weigh in LOT. | Selling activities, not expenses, govern LOT; ISE ratios not controlling here. | No; proper to prioritize selling activities; ISE ratios not dispositive. |
| Whether Commerce's Remand Results complied with Chevron and TOK | Remand should revert to prior reasoning given inconsistent record. | Agency may change policy with adequate explanation; standard Chevron deference applies. | Yes; Chevron framework applied and decision upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aimcor v. United States, 154 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.1998) (substantial evidence standard defined)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed.Cir.1984) (reasonableness of inferences under substantial evidence)
- Consolo v. United States, 383 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court 1966) (finality of agency actions and scope of review)
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir.2003) (record-wide review and evidence considerations)
- National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (Supreme Court 2005) (deference when statute is ambiguous)