Jinan Yipin Corp., Ltd. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 35
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States involves CG import antidumping on Chinese garlic; Commerce’ s surrogate values for inputs disputed on remand.
- Second Remand Redetermination (Feb. 25, 2010) addressed garlic seed, cardboard cartons, and water costs; labor cost value to be redetermined on voluntary remand.
- Court previously remanded to reconsider garlic seed data and subsidies-related issues; Second Remand maintained water value.
- Shandong Heze International Trade and Developing Company is a co-plaintiff but its issues are uncontested on remand.
- Jinan Yipin challenged surrogate values for garlic seed and cardboard cartons and alleged ministerial errors; court sustained some values and rejected others on substantial evidence grounds.
- Court grants voluntary remand to reassess labor costs under Dorbest framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Garlic seed surrogate value appropriate? | Jinan Yipin contests NHRDF seed data; argues MSFTI data superior. | Commerce properly favored NHRDF data for specificity and anti-subsidy concerns. | Surrogate value sustained (NHRDF data), supported by substantial evidence. |
| Cardboard cartons subsidy data validity? | Export subsidy evidence insufficient to exclude Thailand, Korea, Indonesia data. | Subsidy findings supported excluding those countries; Singapore treated differently. | Commerce’s carton surrogate value upheld; exclusion justified. |
| Ministerial errors must be investigated? | Untimely ministerial error allegations must be reviewed. | Regulatory deadline allows denial of untimely claims. | No requirement to address untimely ministerial error allegations. |
| Labor cost surrogate value remand? | Labor rate should be revalued to reflect lawful methodology. | Remand appropriate due to intervening Dorbest decision invalidating prior method. | Voluntary remand granted to redetermine labor costs under lawful methodology. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2010) (remand and statutory interpretation guiding ministerial errors and methodology)
- Nation Ford Chemical Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.1999) (deference to agency for selecting best information in value determinations)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed.Cir.2001) (remand standards and finality considerations)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (Supreme Court) (definition of substantial evidence standard)