791 F. Supp. 2d 1292
Ct. Int'l Trade2011Background
- Antidumping orders on certain lined paper products from PRC issued Sept. 2006; Commerce remanded after AASPS I ruling.
- Remand sought reconsideration of surrogate financial value data selection; Sundaram data chosen over Navneet data.
- Commerce concluded Sundaram data are best available information; Navneet data rejected due to subsidies and integration concerns.
- Remand Redetermination assessed Sundaram data for completeness, reliability, and contemporaneity; found data sufficiently complete and accurate.
- Court reviews Commerce's substantial evidence standard; upheld Commerce's remand results as supported by record evidence.
- Plaintiff challenges past practice on incomplete statements; court examines consistency and explanation of Commerce’s actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sundaram data are the best available information | AASPS argues Sundaram not clearly best on record | Commerce permissibly found Sundaram best available given specificity and contemporaneity | Yes, Sundaram qualifies as best available information |
| Whether Sundaram data are sufficiently complete | Sundaram missing schedules; incomplete data | Records show usable data (balance sheet, P&L, notes) | Yes, Sundaram sufficiently complete for surrogate ratio calculations |
| Whether Sundaram data are reliable representations | No guarantee 2006-2007 values reflect Sundaram’s official report | Comparison with 2004-2005 report supports accuracy; corroborated by records | Yes, Sundaram data reliably reflect Sundaram's official report on record |
| Whether Commerce followed a consistent past practice | Commerce consistently rejects incomplete statements | Past practice is case-specific and relies on vital missing information | No, no consistent blanket rejection established by record |
| Whether Navneet data should have been used instead | Navneet data should be considered due to comparability | Navneet rejected due to subsidies and different integration; Sundaram preferred | No, Navneet properly rejected; Sundaram chosen as best available |
Key Cases Cited
- Aimcor v. United States, 154 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.1998) (substantial evidence requires record-wide view)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed.Cir.1984) (reasonable mind may accept evidence as adequate)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court 1966) (substantial evidence requires considering record as a whole)
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir.2003) (record must be considered in its entirety)
- Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT 1608, 350 F.Supp.2d 1148 (CIT 2004) (agency discretion with substantial evidence standard)
- NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed.Cir.2009) (review of past practice under substantial evidence)
- Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed.Cir.2003) (mode of analysis includes past practice and policy statements)
- Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd. v. United States, 768 F.Supp.2d 1315 (CIT 2011) (assessing Commerce's consistency in practice)