2016 WL 4398940
Ct. Intl. Trade2016Background
- Goodman, a Chinese garlic exporter, requested a Commerce "new shipper" review (NSR) for sales to the U.S. during Nov 1, 2011–Oct 31, 2012; Commerce initiated the NSR and preliminarily found Goodman's sales bona fide and granted separate-rate considerations.
- Commerce preliminarily calculated a per-unit dumping margin for Goodman ($0.44/kg) but later rescinded the NSR, concluding Goodman's POR sales were not "bona fide" and therefore rescinded the review.
- As a consequence of the rescission, Commerce left Goodman subject to the PRC-wide cash-deposit rate ($4.71/kg) and declined to grant a separate-rate determination in that segment.
- Goodman sued in the Court of International Trade seeking remand, arguing Commerce’s rescission was unsupported by substantial evidence and that applying the PRC‑wide rate was unlawful because Goodman cooperated and demonstrated independence from government control.
- The court found Commerce’s rescission defective because the agency failed to consider record evidence as a whole (e.g., purchase prices, market price trends during the POR, bulb-size price effects, distortive CBP data) and made unsupported inferences about an employee (Ms. Gao); the court remanded for reconsideration and ordered Commerce to issue a remand redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce lawfully rescinded the NSR by finding Goodman’s POR transactions not "sales" (not bona fide) | Goodman: Commerce’s finding lacked substantial evidence; record shows arm’s-length transactions, reasonable markups, and market price increases supporting bona fides | Commerce: Sales were aberrational in price/quantity and there were concerns about reliability related to Ms. Gao and affiliation arguments | Court: Rescission unsupported — Commerce failed to consider relevant record evidence as a whole; remand required |
| Whether Commerce properly treated Goodman's prices as "aberrational" | Goodman: Price comparisons ignored purchase prices, intra-POR price increases, bulb-size differentials, and a distortive exporter data point | Commerce: Compared Goodman’s AUVs to POR-wide CBP AUVs and found Goodman’s AUVs significantly higher | Held: Commerce’s price analysis was superficial and omitted probative record evidence; not supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Commerce properly relied on quantities being "aberrational" to reject sales | Goodman: Entry quantities were commercially meaningful and Commerce did not ground "normal entry size" in record evidence | Commerce: Goodman’s entries were much smaller than POR average | Held: Quantity-based finding lacked substantial evidence and improper comparison to an unsubstantiated "normal entry size" |
| Whether assigning the PRC‑wide rate was lawful without an AFA finding | Goodman: Application of PRC‑wide (AFA) rate unlawful absent finding of non-cooperation; Goodman established de jure/de facto independence | Government/Intervenors: Rescission left Goodman in China‑wide entity; separate-rate determination could be handled in the concurrent administrative review | Held: Commerce’s reasons were conclusory or post-hoc; assigning PRC‑wide rate arbitrary and capricious; remand required to address rate question on the record and statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474 (applicant must consider record as a whole when reviewing agency factfinding)
- Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (CIT 2005) (Commerce may exclude sales as not bona fide only in exceptional, distortive circumstances)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (agency must explain connection between facts found and choice made)
- Sango Int'l, L.P. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1371 (substantial-evidence review considers both supporting and detracting record evidence)