Trust Chem Co. Ltd. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 95
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Trust Chem challenges Commerce's fourth administrative review of CVP-23 antidumping from China.
- Trust Chem proposed nitric acid surrogate data from Chemical Weekly at 9.00 INR/kg ($215.31/MT); petitioners proposed 35.08 INR/kg ($839.44/MT) from Indian data bank.
- Commerce preliminarily used World Trade Atlas (WTA) data for HTS 2808.00.10 at $10,474.46/MT; margin assigned 29.57%.
- Final Results kept the WTA-based value, yielding a 30.72% dumping margin for Trust Chem.
- Trust Chem argues the Chemical Weekly data is more specific and that WTA data is aberrational or unrepresentative; court must reexamine if Commerce’s data selection is supported by substantial evidence.
- Court remands for reconsideration and further explanation consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly chose the surrogate nitric acid data. | Trust Chem argues Chemical Weekly data is more specific. | Commerce found WTA data more representative and adequately explained selection. | Partial remand; need reconsideration and explanation. |
| Whether the WTA data was aberrational or distorted. | Trust Chem shows large price difference and small import volumes indicate aberration. | Difference alone does not prove aberration; need comparative data. | Remand; court requires better record and justification. |
| Whether U.S. import data can justify surrogate values. | Data supports using U.S. pricing as benchmark if inadequate record. | Current practice benchmarks against comparable economies, not U.S. data. | Affirmative remand for record development. |
| Whether Commerce properly relied on its current methodology rather than prior determinations. | Prior reliance on Chemical Weekly was abandoned as inconsistent with current statute. | New method better aligns with statute; allowed to change practice. | Remand to justify methodology change with record support. |
| Whether Commerce adequately explained its decision given the prior investigation. | Earlier aberrational finding for WTA data; inconsistency warrants reversal. | Current reasons are adequate under new practice; not bound by prior determinations. | Remand for fuller explanation consistent with SKF/related standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consol. Edison's Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) (substantial evidence standard governs agency action)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (scope of review for administrative findings)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence review in antidumping)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (need to consider important factors raised by comments)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (best available information methodology; factors for selection)