Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Group Corp. v. United States
2017 CIT 65
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Commerce conducted the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC for Feb 10, 2001–Nov 30, 2002, using India as the surrogate country and the factors-of-production method.
- For raw honey surrogate value Commerce relied on a March 2000 Tribune of India article (Rs. 25–45/kg; average Rs. 35/kg) rather than a March 2001 Tribune article (Rs. 24/kg) because it found the 2001 article internally inconsistent and less reliable.
- Commerce adjusted the Rs. 35/kg price to the period of review using Indian wholesale price indices and purchase prices from two Punjab bee farms (Jallowal and Tiwana) to account for commodity-specific price spikes during Dec 2001–May 2002.
- For surrogate financial ratios Commerce used Mahabaleshwar Honey Production Cooperative’s (MHPC) 2001–2002 financial statement rather than its 2002–2003 statement and declined to average the two statements under its established practice.
- Zhejiang challenged Commerce’s raw honey surrogate selection, the inflation adjustment (including refusal to cap November 2002 price based on a non-public USDA contact email), and Commerce’s refusal to average MHPC financial statements; Commerce on remand reaffirmed its original choices and recalculated a slightly lower margin (67.06%).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of raw honey surrogate data | The March 2001 article is closer to POR and should be used | March 2001 article has internal inconsistencies and is less reliable than March 2000 article | Commerce reasonably selected March 2000 article as best available |
| Inflation adjustment of raw honey price | Commerce’s inflator overstates prices; should cap Nov 2002 using Singh email | Singh email prices are non-public/unsubstantiated; use WPI and Jallowal/Tiwana for commodity-specific increases | Commerce reasonably used WPI and Jallowal/Tiwana data and rejected unsubstantiated non-public email |
| Use of Jallowal/Tiwana data | Inconsistent to reject it for surrogate value but use it for inflator | Data unsuitable as country-wide surrogate but acceptable to measure localized, commodity-specific increases | Commerce reasonably used the data for limited inflator purpose while not using it as nationwide surrogate |
| Averaging MHPC financial statements | Should average 2001–02 and 2002–03 statements to reflect commercial reality | Commerce’s practice is to select the single most contemporaneous, representative statement | Commerce reasonably selected 2001–02 statement and did not average the two statements |
Key Cases Cited
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for substantial evidence review)
- Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (criteria for selecting best available surrogate data)
- Wuhan Bee Healthy Co. v. United States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (CIT) (upholding selection of March 2000 Tribune article over March 2001 article)
- QVD Food Co. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (CIT) (Commerce’s surrogate-data selection factors)