2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 60
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Plaintiffs Fenglian and Suzhou challenge Commerce’s Final Determination rescinding their new shipper reviews for honey from China.
- Commerce concluded the sales were not bona fide and rescinded the reviews; plaintiffs sought remand for record correction.
- Plaintiffs argued Commerce properly should have accepted certain late factual submissions and considered CBP data placed on the record.
- Commerce rejected two submissions under 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c), which governs rebuttal timing; one was deemed untimely.
- Plaintiffs moved to supplement the administrative record; the court postponed ruling and ultimately denied the supplementation motion.
- Court remands for Commerce to accept a particular submission and issue redetermination consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce lawfully rejected Plaintiffs’ September 22 submission. | Fenglian/Suzhou: submission to rebut Commerce-placed data was timely. | Commerce: § 351.301(c)(1) governs rebuttals to information submitted by others; limits apply. | Unlawful to reject; remand to accept submission. |
| Whether Commerce properly rejected Plaintiffs’ September 18 rebuttal. | Submission rebutted Petitioners’ data; timely under regulation. | Submission untimely as more than 10 days after information rebutted. | Lawful rejection upheld. |
| Whether Commerce should have issued additional supplemental questionnaires. | More questionnaires could correct record; agency discretion should not bar necessary data. | Agency may exercise broad discretion; not unlawful to decline. | No reversal; discretion supported. |
| Whether the court should compel supplementation of the record beyond agency proceedings. | Court may consider extra-record information under limited conditions. | Record should be based on material presented to agency. | Denied; remand with record as assembled. |
Key Cases Cited
- NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (courts compel Commerce to accept certain submissions to determine dumping margins)
- Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (preliminary submissions may be considered before final results)
- Cathedral Candle Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 400 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (agency interpretations must align with regulation; deference limited when plainly erroneous)