Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria & Agricultura v. United States
471 F. App'x 892
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- This antidumping case concerns orange juice from Brazil and Fischer S.A. and Citrosuco North America, Inc. (Fischer).
- The Court of International Trade affirmed Commerce's final results from Fischer's first administrative review.
- Commerce refused Fischer's late-added evidence on home-market Brix levels, prompting remand.
- On remand, Commerce found no change from Fischer's U.S. sales data; ITC affirmed.
- This appeal challenges: (a) rejection of Fischer's home-market Brix data, (b) inventory carrying costs, (c) the 90/60 day rule.
- The court vacates and remands on the home-market Brix issue; otherwise affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce abused discretion by rejecting home-market Brix data | Fischer argued corrected Brix data were actual levels for home-market sales. | Government contended Fischer reported actual Brix values; corrections untimely. | Remand required to consider actual home-market Brix data. |
| Whether the inventory carrying costs calculation affected the duty | Disputed home-market carrying costs; asserted error. | Issue moot as it did not affect the antidumping duty. | No disturbance; calculation upheld. |
| Whether Commerce correctly applied the 90/60 day contemporaneity rule | Rule applies to U.S. sales; home-market sale timing irrelevant. | Rule applicable via agency interpretation to home-market data. | Affirmed: agency interpretation reasonable. |
| Whether zeroing was proper in administrative reviews | Zeroing caused improper margins; request remand to address. | Not fully briefed; court should remand to consider policy reasons. | Remand to address reasonableness of zeroing; otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard of review for agency decisions in antidumping cases)
- Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (correcting errors raised during administrative process; final determinations)
- NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (remedial nature of antidumping laws; timely correction of errors)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand and zeroing considerations in antidumping reviews)
- Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (agency interpretations entitled to deference when reasonable)
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court 1945) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)
- Alloy Piping Prods., Inc. v. Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd., 334 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finality of agency determinations and correction timing)