Tianjin Magnesium International Co. v. United States, 836 F. Supp. 2d 1377

This case concerns the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Voluntary Remand for Pure Magnesium from the PRC covering the 2006-2007 period of review.
Tianjin was assigned a 0.63% antidumping rate in the 2006-2007 Final Results and challenged modifications on surrogate values and the byproduct offset.
Commerce issued a First Redetermination after remand, and then sought another remand to consider Home Products factors.
Commerce ultimately found clear and convincing evidence of fraud by Tianjin related to the byproduct offset and reopened the 2006-2007 review.
Adverse facts available were applied, yielding a high margin of 111.73% for Tianjin, and Commerce concluded Tianjin impeded the investigation.
The court affirms Commerce’s Second Redetermination as supported by substantial evidence and law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce properly reopened the 2006-2007 review.	Tianjin contends no threshold fraud finding or remand warranted.	US Magnesium argues the Home Products framework supports reopening.	Yes, supported by substantial evidence under Home Products.
Whether there was a proper analysis of fraud elements.	Tianjin argues no element-by-element fraud analysis.	Commerce’s showing of taint suffices under Home Products standard.	Threshold analysis not required; record supports material fraud.
Whether Tianjin’s conduct warranted adverse facts available.	Tianjin asserts no best-efforts deficiency.	Commerce correctly applied adverse facts available due to best-efforts failure.	Affirmative; adverse FA due to impediment and best effort failure.

Home Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand permissible when clear and convincing fraud evidence taints proceedings; factors vary per case)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (best of its ability standard does not excuse carelessness in recordkeeping)