33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1531
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- This is a consolidated action challenging four Department of Commerce determinations in the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Italian pasta.
- Garofalo, a mandatory respondent, challenges COS's use of quarterly cost averaging periods to determine costs of production and the contemporaneity of sales comparisons.
- Petitioner Plaintiffs challenge Commerce's plan to apply new industry-wide model match criteria in future reviews and its acceptance of respondent-specific model-match criteria in the current review.
- The Department employed quarterly COP averages where POR-wide averaging was distorted by significant cost changes and linked quarterly costs to quarterly prices.
- Commerce limited U.S.–home market sale comparisons to the same quarterly period as the U.S. sale to reflect concurrent market conditions under the shortened matching framework.
- The court affirms the Final Results, holding Commerce’s methodologies reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| COP averaging period legality | Garofalo argues quarterly COP averaging is improper. | Garofalo contends the approach distorts costs; Commerce justifies with linkage evidence. | Quarterly COP averaging was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. |
| Sales comparison period (contemporaneity) | Garofalo challenges limiting comparisons to the same quarter. | Commerce argues contemporaneous quarters better reflect changing costs and prices. | Limiting comparisons to contemporaneous quarterly periods is proper under significant cost changes. |
| New model match criteria for future reviews | Petitioners challenge the legality of proposed future model-match criteria. | Commerce states changes are not ripe for judicial review as they are non-final. | Issue not ripe for review; proposal upheld as not final agency action. |
| Respondent-specific model match criteria in this review | Petitioner asserts per-respondent criteria violate industry-wide criteria and rely on inputs, not finished products. | Commerce relies on longstanding precedent supporting company-specific matching based on significant physical differences. | Respondent-specific model-match criteria are permissible and supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 F.2d 229 (2d Cir. 1938) (substantial evidence standard governs agency determinations)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1962) (agency decisions must be reasoned and lawful)
- SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (broad discretion in determining foreign like product and matching)
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence review of product matching theories)
- New World Pasta Co. v. United States, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (CIT 2004) (affirmed agency's differentiated model-matching approach for different respondents)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 66 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (recognizes substantial discretion in determining 'foreign like product')