357 F. Supp. 3d 1295
Ct. Intl. Trade2018Background
- This case challenges Commerce’s final results in the 20th administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the PRC (period: Nov. 1, 2013–Oct. 31, 2014). Xinboda was a mandatory respondent.
- On remand after an earlier court order, Commerce allowed Xinboda to submit information supporting Mexico as an economically comparable surrogate country but retained Romania as the primary surrogate country and used Romanian pricing data for raw garlic.
- Commerce also used World Bank Doing Business (Romania) data to calculate movement expenses (brokerage/handling and inland freight) by dividing reported container costs by a 10,000 kg denominator.
- Xinboda argued: (1) Mexico is a better surrogate (garlic size and price comparability); (2) Commerce improperly added transportation costs to Romania wholesale prices; and (3) Commerce erred in using a 10,000 kg denominator for movement expense calculations.
- The court sustained Commerce’s selection of Romania and the use of Romanian pricing data for raw garlic, but remanded: (a) Commerce’s addition of transportation costs to the surrogate garlic price; and (b) Commerce’s movement-expense calculation because the 10,000 kg denominator lacked record support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrogate country selection (Romania vs. Mexico) | Mexico is economically comparable and its data better reflect garlic size/price; translations were defective but evidence supports Mexico | Record translations were largely unintelligible; Romanian data were legible, contemporaneous, product-specific and better reflected respondent’s purchasing level | Commerce's choice of Romania and Romanian pricing data is supported by substantial evidence and sustained |
| Comparability of garlic size (Mexico) | Mexican sources show large-bulb garlic comparable to Chinese subject merchandise | Mexican submissions were poorly translated, noncontemporaneous, or uninformative; Romanian sources supported large-bulb production | Court upheld Commerce’s reliance on Romanian evidence and rejection of Mexican submissions as insufficient |
| Addition of transportation costs to Romanian surrogate price | Adding transport costs double-counts costs because Romanian wholesale prices likely already include transport/storage/processing | Commerce added transport costs to approximate Excelink’s delivery costs from farm/storage to processor | Sustained surrogate selection but remanded: Commerce must clarify/justify adding transport costs to Romanian wholesale price |
| Movement-expense calculation denominator (10,000 kg) | Doing Business data report costs per standard 20-ft container; denominator should reflect container weight or actual shipments, not assumed 10,000 kg | Doing Business methodology assumes a 20-ft full container and previous Commerce decisions used 10,000 kg | Remanded: Commerce’s use of 10,000 kg is unsupported by the Romania report and thus arbitrary; agency must identify and justify a supported denominator |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir.) (agency action may be sustained if a reasonable mind could conclude it chose best available information)
- QVD Food Co., Ltd. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.) (burden on parties to build administrative record)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.) (court reviews record as a whole, including evidence that detracts from agency finding)
- Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir.) (describes Commerce’s surrogate-country selection process)
- Changzhou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co. v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for Commerce reasoning)
- Downhole Pipe & Equip., L.P. v. United States, 776 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (court will not reweigh evidence or reconsider factual questions anew)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S.) (arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S.) (court may not sustain agency on a ground the agency did not articulate)