Globe Metallurgical, Inc. v. United States
781 F. Supp. 2d 1340
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Consolidated ITC review of Silicon Metal from PRC; Globe seeks judgment challenging Commerce’s final results in antidumping duty proceeding.
- Commerce reduced export prices by 10% for export tax; VAT reduction was rejected.
- Surrogate value for coal input: India Yearbook Grade A non-coking coal selected using empirical coal-specs formula.
- Respondents challenged FACOR’s inclusion in SG&A calculations and two line-items (surplus fixed asset sale and miscellaneous income).
- Court remands FACOR SG&A calculation issue to Commerce; remaining determinations sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Export tax and VAT treatment under 1677a(c)(2)(B) | Globe contends both export tax and VAT should reduce export prices. | Commerce applied Magnesium Corp. and longstanding practice to exclude VAT; expanded treatment not warranted. | Sustains Commerce on export tax and VAT treatment; remands only FACOR SG&A issue. |
| Coal input surrogate value selection | Globe argues China classification should drive surrogate value; India data misapplied. | Commerce correctly used Indian data with an empirical formula tying ash/moisture to UHV. | Upheld surrogate value choice; reasonable given record and classification differences. |
| Sales database methodology for EP sales (POR exposure) | Respondents’ data should be filtered to POR entry dates; challenges ignored. | Commerce reasonably used all sales invoiced during POR to ensure universe of transactions; CBP data not raised administratively. | Sustains use of all POR invoiced sales; new CBP-based arguments not considered. |
| FACOR: SICA status and use as surrogate; FACOR SG&A treatment | FACOR allegedly sick under SICA; should be excluded; SG&A line-items should include certain revenues. | FACOR not plainly stated as sick; SG&A methodology should exclude non-operational items per practice. | Sustain FACOR status denial; remand FACOR SG&A treatment for further Commerce consideration. |
| FACOR: SG&A ratio calculation remand | Exclusion of certain line-items biased SG&A; could yield zero/negative ratio. | Exhaustion issue; ministerial error argument insufficient. | Remand FACOR SG&A ratio calculation to Commerce for reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Magnesium Corp. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (export taxes in NMEs not included in price under 1677a(c)(2)(B))
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (reasonable review; substantial evidence standard guidance)
- Lasko Metal Prods., Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (pricing in market vs non-market economies; interpretation)
- Parkdale International v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (tax neutrality arguments and surrogate values context)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (exhaustion of administrative remedies and prior agency opportunity)
- Hebei Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 288, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (CIT 2005) (methodology for surrogate financial ratios in NME)