US Magnesium LLC v. United States, 1:12-cv-00006

Background

This case challenges Commerce's Final Results in the 2009–2010 antidumping review of pure magnesium from the PRC, regarding TMI as the exporter and USM as the plaintiff.
POR is May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010; TMI supplied magnesium produced by its sole supplier via the Pidgeon process, with retorts used and some reportedly rented.
Commerce used NME surrogate values (India) to determine NV, classifying retorts as indirect material and treating US sales as EP without CEP adjustments.
USM submitted a Chinese magnesium industry bulletin about retorts almost 11 months after the deadline, along with corroborating material; Commerce rejected it as untimely and “clearly available” prior records.
Court remands on several surrogate-value issues (truck freight, labor, financial ratios) and on whether to reconsider retort classification, while sustaining movement expenses.
Final holding: judgments on untimely submission and surrogate values remanded; retort classification to be reconsidered on remand; U.S. movement expenses sustained.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Untimely submission and fraud evidence	USM shows prima facie fraud; record open; deadline extension warranted on fairness.	Commerce properly refused untimely submission; evidence not on record at time; no fraud before close.	Remand for Commerce to consider prima facie fraud evidence on remand.
Retort classification	Retorts should be direct materials; current indirect-material classification understates NV.	Classification consistent with accounting and prior rulings; no need to change on record.	Remand to reconsider retort classification after remand on untimely submission.
Truck freight surrogate value	Infobanc data are unreliable and not adequately supported by record evidence.	Infobanc is best available given flaws in alternatives and has been used in prior reviews.	Remand to cure lack of substantial evidence and address reliance on Infobanc.
Financial ratios surrogate value	Hindalco's statements are not best available due to non-comparability and subsidies.	Maintain Hindalco pending remand and reconsider if needed.	Remand granted to reconsider surrogate financial ratios.
Labor surrogate value	Inflation base period and index chosen are incorrect per policy.	Leave as is; remand permissible to address arguments.	Remand granted to reconsider labor surrogate value.
U.S. movement expenses (Gammons services)	Expenses for facilitation may be movement expenses deductible from U.S. price.	Gammons’ activities are not movement of goods and thus not deductible; included in surrogate SG&A.	Sustained that movement expenses issue is not adverse; no adjustment for Gammons.

Key Cases Cited

Home Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand when prima facie fraud evidence discovered post-record closure)
Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (remand and Fraud considerations in agency proceedings)
NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (agency discretion and deadline extensions for information submissions)
Guangdong Chem. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 30 CIT 1412 (2006) (reasoned selection of surrogate data and requirement for substantial record support)
China First Pencil Co. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (2010) (substantial evidence standard for surrogate value selection)