Atar S.R.L. v. United States, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18835

US appeals final trade-court judgment rejecting Commerce's profit cap calculation under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii) for Atar’s ninth administrative review of Italian pasta duties.
Commerce used a constructed value approach; could not use normal value due to lack of viable home/third-country data and used options (i)-(iii) with option (iii) as backstop.
Trade court previously remanded multiple times (Atar I–III) over how to compute profit cap and whether to include below-cost sales.
On remand, Commerce derived Atar’s constructed value profit using data from profitable respondents in the eighth review and applied a profit cap based on those data; Thai I-Mei influence noted.
Trade court remanded for reconsideration; this court reviews de novo for reasonableness and substantial evidence; the Government argues exclusion of below-cost sales aligns with the statute and SAA guidance.
Court ultimately holds Commerce reasonably excluded below-cost sales from the profit cap calculation and reverses the trade court’s view.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding below-cost sales from the profit cap is reasonable.	Atar argues exclusion was required by statute and proper under option (iii).	Commerce contends exclusion reflects data from other exporters and aligns with the statute and SAA guidance.	Yes; exclusion is reasonable under Chevron step-two review.

Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United States, 616 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (authority on option (iii) data use and profit-cap computation)
SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (dictum on need to include below-cost data under certain methodologies)
Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court 2001) ( Chevron deference framework for agency statutory construction)
Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197 (Supreme Court 1938) (definition of substantial evidence standard)