Atar S.R.L. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 110
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Atar S.r.l. challenged Commerce’s Final Results for the ninth admin. review of pasta from Italy covering July 1, 2004–June 30, 2005 (POR).
- The court previously remanded for reconsideration of CV profit and ISE in Atar I (2009) and found flaws in the First Remand Redetermination in Atar II (2010).
- In the Second Remand Redetermination, Commerce kept CV profit and ISE but asserted the method satisfied the profit cap; Thai I-Mei was invoked by defendant as controlling.
- The court held the profit cap determination unlawful and not supported by substantial evidence; Thai I-Mei did not mandate vacating prior orders.
- The court ordered a third remand redetermination with a lawful profit cap and noted CV ISE may be redetermined if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the profit cap complies with 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii). | Atar argues the cap uses improper data and construction. | Commerce relies on a statutory construction and data from profitable firms. | Not sustained; profit cap unlawful on remand. |
| Whether Thai I-Mei requires vacating Atar I/II orders. | Thai I-Mei dictates a different approach to CV profit calculation. | Thai I-Mei supports excluding non-ordinary-course data when appropriate. | Thai I-Mei does not require vacating the orders. |
| Whether Second Remand Redetermination satisfies the 'reasonable method' requirement. | Second Remand Redetermination fails to provide a lawful method. | Not sustained; remand required for lawful method and profit cap. | |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the Second Remand Redetermination's data usage. | Data from only two profitable eighth-review respondents misrepresents home-market profitability. | Not sustained; data omitted were probative of home-market conditions. | |
| Whether Court should vacate Final Results based on Thai I-Mei guidance. | Court should align with Thai I-Mei. | Thai I-Mei controls only particular circumstances. | Court denies relief; remand allowed for lawful redetermination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United States, 616 F.3d 1300 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (upheld exclusion of non-ordinary-course sales in CV profit where data sufficient)
- Floral Trade Council v. United States, 23 C.I.T. 20 (1999) (profit cap and CV methodology considerations in trade remedies)
- Geum Poong Corp. v. United States, 26 C.I.T. 322 (2002) (profit-cap and home-market profit considerations in CV)
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (statutory interpretation deference in agency rulemaking)