Trust Chem Co. Ltd. v. United States, 2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 26

Trust Chem challenged the Department of Commerce's Remand Results in valuing nitric acid for Trust Chem's products.
Trust Chem I required Commerce to reconsider its nitric acid valuation using best available data, not aberrational data, and to compare with other record data.
On remand, Commerce reopened the record; Trust Chem did not submit data linking price to nitric acid concentration.
Commerce placed historical WTA data (Dec 2003–Nov 2008) and considered surrogate countries, concluding India-derived data best matched higher concentration nitric acid costs.
The court reviews Commerce's remand determinations under substantial evidence and law, affording deference if adequately reasoned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with remand order	Remand lacks usable surrogate data specific to Trust Chem's nitric acid.	Once remanded and record reopened, Commerce needed to pick the best available information, not more data.	Affirmed remand results; Commerce complied and chose best available data.
Substantial evidence	Record inconsistently supports Commerce's choice and data.	Commerce provided rational explanations tying costs and concentration to price; evidence supports choice.	Remand results supported by substantial evidence.
Use of U.S. nitric acid prices	Commerce improperly used U.S. price quotes as benchmarks.	Data used to illustrate concentration-price relationship, not as a direct benchmark.	Permissible; data used as proxy for concentration effects, not as a strict benchmark.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Plaintiff raised new argument about supplier's dilution to 38% concentration after remand.	New argument was not presented to Commerce previously; court should require exhaustion.	Denied; argument not exhausted; cannot be heard.

SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand explanatory requirements and best-available-data standard)
Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. United States, 768 F.Supp.2d 1286 (CIT 2011) (need for reasonable inferences from record; not mere speculation)
Daewoo Electronics Co. v. International Union, 6 F.3d 1511 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (substantial evidence standard and deference to agency findings)
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence-based standard for agency determinations)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence review and agency explanation requirements)