Tianjin Magnesium International Co. v. United States, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1342

This case reviews Commerce’s 2008-2009 antidumping final results for pure magnesium from PRC, denying Tianjin’s offset and applying a low Tianjin rate with a PRC-wide rate; the 0.73% Tianjin rate and 111.73% PRC-wide adverse rate were issued in the 2008-2009 Final Results.
Tianjin submitted voucher books claiming a by-product offset, but the records showed the sales never occurred.
The fabrication came to light during verification in the 2007-2008 review, where Commerce found manipulating voucher documents.
Commerce declined to apply total adverse facts available (AFA) in the 2008-2009 review despite similar conduct, concluding Tianjin cooperated except for the offset data.
This Court previously upheld FAF in the 2007-2008 review; this opinion remands for further proceedings and questions Commerce’s rationale in the 2008-2009 results.
The court analyzes whether Commerce’s failure to apply AFA and its treatment of the offset data were supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FAF should have been applied to Tianjin.	Tianjin argues substantial record evidence supports applying AFA.	US Magnesium contends Tianjin cooperated and did not require AFA.	Yes; FAF should have been applied; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Whether Commerce properly considered Tianjin’s cooperation to the best of its ability.	Tianjin maintains it cooperated fully except for the offset issue.	Commerce reasonably found cooperation did not extend to the offset data.	Not adequately addressed; remand to explain cooperation standard and application.
Whether Commerce’s downgrade of documents from 'altered' to 'unreliable' without explanation was lawful.	The language change undermines prior findings of falsifications.	No explicit improper change; reliance on overall cooperation.	Requires explanation; remand to justify treatment of documents.
Whether by-product offset data submitted after verification tainted the record for reliable margin calculation.	Such late submissions should trigger adverse inference.	Only offset data is questionable; overall data considered reliable.	Inadequate explanation; remand to address impact on margin calculation.
Whether Commerce’s reasons for not applying certain prior findings in 2008-2009 were supported by law.	Past misconduct should govern current decision.	Different verification context; no need to apply prior FAF.	Not clear; remand to reconcile with governing law and precedent.

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (cooperation standard under 1677e(b))
F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (incentives to cooperate; purpose of 1677e(b))
Shanghai Taoen Int’l Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (adverse inferences when misleading information is provided)
Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (limits on court’s substitution of its judgment for Commerce)
PAM, S.p.A v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (broad discretion to apply or not apply adverse inferences)
AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 28 CIT 1408, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (2004) (cooperation standard context in antidumping)