US Magnesium, LLC v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 15
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2013Background
- US Magnesium LLC challenges Commerce's Final Results in the 2009–2010 administrative review of pure magnesium from PRC, including the classification of retorts, surrogate values, and movement expenses.
- The POR was May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, involving Tianjin Magnesium International Co. (TMI) as the producer/exporter and a sole PRC magnesium producer context for Pidgeon-process magnesium.
- Commerce classified retorts as indirect material (factory overhead) and treated them in the NV calculation; USM argues retorts should be direct material.
- USM submitted a late factual submission (Sept. 1, 2011) concerning retorts and corroborating evidence; Commerce rejected the submission as untimely and pre-deadline documents were cited as controlling.
- Commerce used India as surrogate country and Infobanc as the surrogate for truck freight, Hindalco for surrogate financial ratios, and did not adjust US prices for 'movement expenses' related to Gammons’ U.S. services.
- The court remands on several surrogate values and untimely submission issues, while sustaining the movement-expenses determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Untimely submission and fraud evidence | USM urges consideration of prima facie fraud evidence despite late filing. | Commerce may reject untimely evidence and follow deadlines. | Remanded to address whether the untimely submission presents fraud evidence; can place on record or explain on remand. |
| Retort classification | Retorts should be direct material based on accounting and industry practice. | Retorts properly classified as indirect material per I&D Memo. | Defers judgment; remand permitted to consider remand results on untimely submission which may affect the classification. |
| Truck freight surrogate value | Infobanc data are unreliable and not adequately supported by record; alternative data exist. | Infobanc is the best available; flaws in alternatives justify its use. | Remand to adequately explain Infobanc selection or substitute a surrogate with substantial record support. |
| Financial ratios surrogate value | Hindalco's data may be inappropriate due to non-comparable production and subsidies. | Hindalco remains best available; remand requested to reconsider. | Remand to reassess Hindalco as surrogate financial ratios. |
| Labor surrogate value | Base period and index choice for labor inflation are incorrect per policy. | Commerce may remand to reconsider these allegations. | Remand to reevaluate surrogate labor value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addressing remand for prima facie fraud after close of proceedings)
- Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (protecting integrity of proceedings from fraud; remand proper)
- NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (discretion in setting deadlines and evaluating administrative decisions)