Global Commodity Group LLC v. United States
825 F. Supp. 2d 1328
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- In 2009, Commerce issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid and citrate salts from China, with scope identical across orders.
- The scope covers all grades and sizes of citric acid, including blends that contain 40% or more unblended citric acid by weight, plus blends with other ingredients.
- GCG imported a product that is 35% Chinese citric acid and 65% citric acid from other countries, and sought a scope exclusion on July 26, 2010.
- GCG argued the product formed a blend excluded by the second sentence's 40% threshold because non-Chinese citric acid comprised more than 60%.
- Commerce preliminarily (March 7, 2011) and finally (May 2, 2011) determined the product fell within the scope, rejecting the blend exclusion.
- The Final Determination found the product functionally and chemically indistinguishable from citric acid from a single source, thus within the scope of the orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'other ingredients' means non-citrate ingredients | GCG argues 'other ingredients' are ingredients other than subject citrates. | Commerce interprets 'other ingredients' as non-citrate products. | Commerce's interpretation is sustained. |
| Whether the product qualifies as a blend under scope | If not a blend, exclusion applies due to 40% rule. | Product is not a blend; it is within first-sentence scope. | GCG's product does not qualify as a blend; within scope. |
| Sufficiency of substantial evidence for scope determination | Argues the record supports exclusion. | Record supports inclusion under first sentence and 40% clause. | Commerce's determination sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eckstrom Indus., Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (court may interpret scope provisions with deference but cannot alter terms)
- Duferco Steel, Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed.Cir. 2002) (high deference to Commerce's scope interpretation)
- Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.3d 778 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (deference to agency interpretations of scope provisions)