Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co., Ltd. v. United States
2013 CIT 142
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Blue Field (Sichuan) Food Industrial Co. was a mandatory respondent in Commerce’s 12th administrative review of the antidumping order on preserved mushrooms from China for Feb 1, 2010–Jan 31, 2011.
- Commerce assigned Blue Field a 308.33% dumping margin in the Final Results, up from 2.17% in the prior review; the increase rested largely on surrogate values Commerce used for two inputs: rice straw and cow manure.
- Monterey Mushrooms proposed Colombian Global Trade Atlas (GTA) import prices (HTS 1213.00 for cereal straw/husks and HTS 3101.00 for fertilizers) as surrogates; Blue Field submitted alternative surrogate prices and benchmarks from India, Indonesia, the U.S., Philippines, and other sources.
- Blue Field argued the Colombian GTA surrogates were aberrational (far higher than other record benchmarks and inconsistent with grain prices) and that Commerce failed to adequately consider or explain the competing data and benchmarks.
- The court examined exhaustion of administrative remedies and concluded Blue Field exhausted most arguments (including Indian data and many benchmarks) but not arguments based on small sample sizes and a general domestic-pricing preference.
- Holding: The Court remanded. It found Commerce’s surrogate values for rice straw and cow manure were not supported by substantial evidence and directed Commerce to reconsider surrogate selection and to recalculate Blue Field’s margin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blue Field exhausted administrative remedies for surrogate/benchmark arguments | Blue Field contends it timely presented Indian data and many benchmarks; Commerce had adequate notice | Gov't contends several arguments (2009-10 India data, benchmark critiques, sample-size concerns, domestic-price argument) were not raised below | Court: Exhaustion satisfied for Indian data, many benchmarks, and challenge to Monterey’s untimely benchmarks; not satisfied for sample-size and domestic-price arguments |
| Whether Commerce’s rice straw surrogate (Colombian GTA HTS 1213.00) was supported by substantial evidence | The Colombian price ($1,350.88/mt) is aberrational relative to multiple record benchmarks ($10–$90/mt), and inconsistent with Colombian rice grain prices; India/Indonesia/U.S. data were better or at least required explanation | Commerce relied on Monterey’s benchmarks from other countries to corroborate Colombian data and favored Colombia as surrogate country | Court: Commerce failed to explain or address many benchmarks and to test whether Monterey’s corroborating benchmarks were themselves aberrational; remand required to reassess surrogates and benchmarks |
| Whether Commerce’s cow manure surrogate (Colombian GTA HTS 3101.00) was supported by substantial evidence | The Colombian fertilizer price ($1,337.94/mt) is far above multiple record surrogates/benchmarks ($21–$162/mt); Commerce ignored or inadequately rejected Indian, Philippine, and other data | Commerce argued Indian/other data were non-contemporaneous, not from lead surrogate country, or not specific | Court: Commerce’s explanations were inadequate; it failed to properly address benchmarks and to justify rejecting Indian data; remand required |
| Whether Commerce reasonably rejected Blue Field’s Indian and Indonesian alternative surrogates | Blue Field: Indian/Indonesian data were more specific and within record; contemporaneity or country-list status should not be dispositive when Colombian data appear aberrational | Commerce: India not on surrogate list, data issues (sample size, contemporaneity, taxes), Colombia met surrogate criteria | Court: Rejection of Indonesian data was reasonable on record-specific grounds; rejection of Indian data was inadequately explained—Commerce must reconsider on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (agency must consider arguments and record evidence in surrogate selection)
- Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United States, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (Commerce must explain surrogate choices when confronted with evidence suggesting aberration)
- Peer Bearing Co.-Changshan v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011) (benchmarks may be used to test aberration; benchmarks need not be from comparable economies)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (Sup. Ct. 1938) (substantial evidence standard)
- Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. v. United States, 617 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (agency must consider rebuttal information and allow response to arguments first raised in agency memorandum)
- China First Pencil Co. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010) (Commerce retains discretion in surrogate selection but must justify choices when record suggests distortion)