Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17458
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Qingdao Sea-line requested a new shipper review of an existing 1994 antidumping order on fresh whole garlic from China; Commerce reviewed imports from Nov. 1, 2008–Apr. 30, 2009.
- Because China is a non-market economy, Commerce used Indian surrogate data (Azadpur APMC Bulletin) to value the intermediate input "fresh garlic bulb" and selected India as the primary surrogate country.
- Sea-line’s garlic was Super A (bulb >55 mm); the APMC Bulletin contained no Super A prices for the period of review, so Commerce averaged earlier Super A prices (Nov 2007–Apr 2008) and adjusted them to the review period using the IMF Wholesale Price Index (WPI).
- Commerce calculated a surrogate financial ratio by averaging Indian companies’ financials and selected Tata Tea’s 2008–09 statement (with Limtex) as comparable; Commerce rejected Garlico’s financials for errors and because most Garlico sales were of highly processed products.
- Sea-line challenged (1) use of non-contemporaneous Super A prices and the IMF WPI adjustment, and (2) reliance on Tata Tea rather than Garlico; the Trade Court remanded for further explanation, Commerce reaffirmed its decisions on remand, and the Trade Court affirmed. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of non-contemporaneous Super A prices and IMF WPI adjustment | Sea-line: Using older Super A prices inflated by IMF WPI distorted surrogate value because Indian garlic prices fell just before the POR; contemporaneous A/B/C prices show decline. | Commerce: Size is the controlling price factor; no Super A contemporaneous data exists; IMF WPI is a regularly used, verifiable inflator and Sea-line failed to provide verifiable superior alternatives. | Court: Affirmed — Commerce reasonably prioritized size over contemporaneity and properly used IMF WPI; record lacked verifiable better data. |
| Choice of surrogate financials (Tata Tea v. Garlico) | Sea-line: Tata Tea is not comparable because it produces highly processed products; Garlico’s garlic-related business is more comparable. | Commerce: 2008–09 Tata Tea financials show little evidence of substantial high-processing; Garlico statements contain material errors and mostly reflect highly processed products. | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports Commerce’s reliance on Tata Tea and rejection of Garlico. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard for surrogate financial ratio selection)
- QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Commerce discretion in selecting best available information)
- Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 548 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard of review for Trade Court decisions)
- Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm., 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (agency findings may be supported even if record permits inconsistent conclusions)