Mueller Comercial De Mexico, S. de R.L. de C v. v. United States
34 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2361
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Mueller challenged Commerce’s use of facts available (AFA) in calculating Mueller’s margin for missing COP data from a non-cooperating mandatory respondent, Ternium; Commerce applied an AFA rate to Ternium’s costs while using TUNA’s COP data for Mueller’s costs; Mueller fully cooperated, but its supplier TUNA cooperated and Ternium did not; Commerce chose TUNA-derived COP data and an AFA rate for Ternium, rather than Mueller’s own COP data; the final results increased Mueller’s margin, and the court sustained Commerce’s approach under Chevron deference.
- Mueller fully cooperated, but Ternium failed to provide product-specific COP data; Commerce determined AFA was appropriate against Ternium and used it to fill Mueller’s COP gap.
- Commerce sought to ensure accurate margins and compliance, concluding that applying AFA to Ternium prevents Ternium’s non-cooperation from benefitting Mueller’s margin.
- Commerce’s interpretation of 1677e allows using adverse inferences against a non-cooperative supplier to fill information gaps for a cooperating exporter.
- Mueller’s challenge to zeroing remains stayed pending Federal Circuit decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1677e permits adverse inferences against a non-cooperative supplier to fill Mueller’s COP gap | Mueller argues SKF USA bars AFA against cooperative exporter | United States argues Chevron permits reasonable use of AFA against non-cooperative supplier | Yes; Commerce’s use is reasonable under Chevron |
| Whether Commerce’s selection from facts available including Ternium’s AFA is reasonable for Mueller’s COP | Mueller contends data were not probative | Commerce selected most probative data to fill the gap | Yes; selection deemed reasonable and probative |
| Whether SKF USA dictates a different result and requires fairness to cooperating exporters | Mueller relies on SKF USA to argue unfairness | Commerce’s approach is distinguishable given record and aims to induce cooperation | No; SKF USA distinguishable; Commerce’s approach sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (agency may not penalize a cooperating exporter for a non-cooperating supplier’s actions; requires fairness)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (governs deference to agency interpretations in ambiguous statutory terms)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reasonableness standard for agency interpretations under Chevron)