Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. v. United States , 28 Ct. Int'l Trade 1427 ( 2004 )

SLIP OP . 04-109
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE : RICHARD K. EATON , JUDGE
__________________________________________
:
ZHEJIANG NATIVE PRODUCE & ANIMAL :
BY -PRODUCTS IMPORT & EXPORT CORP ., ET AL.,
:
:
PLAINTIFFS , :
:
V. : COURT NO . 02-00057
:
UNITED STATES , :
:
DEFENDANT. :
__________________________________________:
[United States Department of Commerce’s final results pursuant to remand sustained]
Dated: August 26, 2004
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt, LLP (Bruce M. Mitchell, Jeffrey S.
Grimson, Mark E. Pardo, Paul Figueroa), for plaintiffs Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-
Products Import & Export Corp., Kunshan Foreign Trade Co., China (Tushu) Super Food Import
& Export Corp., High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.,
National Honey Packers & Dealers Association, Alfred L. Wolff, Inc., C.M. Goettsche & Co.,
China Products North America, Inc., D.F. International (USA), Inc., Evergreen Coyle Group,
Inc., Evergreen Produce, Inc., Pure Sweet Honey Farm, Inc., and Sunland International, Inc.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of
Justice; David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice (Reginald T. Blades, Jr.); Robert LaFrankie, Office of Chief Counsel for
Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for defendant.
Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC (Michael J. Coursey, John M. Herrmann), for defendant-
intervenors American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association.
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
EATON, Judge: This matter is before the court following remand to the United States
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). In Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products
Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 27 CIT __, slip op. 03-151 (Nov. 21, 2003) (“Zhejiang
I”), the court remanded Commerce’s determination contained in Honey From the P.R.C., 66 Fed.
Reg. 50,608 (ITA Oct. 4, 2001) (“Final Determination”), as amended by 66 Fed. Reg. 63,670(ITA Dec. 10, 2001) (“Am. Final Determination”); Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Antidumping Investigation of Honey from the P.R.C., Pub. R. Doc. 216 (“Decision Mem.”).
Plaintiffs Zhejiang, et al.,1 challenged that determination with respect to Commerce’s calculation
of antidumping duty margins, its critical circumstances finding, and the reliability of certain
sources of valuation data. Jurisdiction lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2000); and 19
U.S.C. §§ 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and (B)(i) (2000). For the reasons set forth below, Commerce’s
determination on remand is sustained.
BACKGROUND
The relevant facts and procedural history in this case are set forth in Zhejiang I. A brief
summary of these is included here. Commerce conducted two separate investigations of
honey from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), the first in 1994 (“First Investigation”) and
1
The other plaintiffs are Kunshan Foreign Trade Co., China (Tushu) Super Food
Import & Export Corp., High Hope International Group Jiangsu Foodstuffs Import & Export
Corp., National Honey Packers & Dealers Association, Alfred L. Wolff, Inc., C.M. Goettsche &
Co., China Products North America, Inc., D.F. International (USA), Inc., Evergreen Coyle
Group, Inc., Evergreen Produce, Inc., Pure Sweet Honey Farm, Inc., and Sunland International,
Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”).
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 3
the second in 2000 (“Second Investigation”).2 The First Investigation resulted in an affirmative
preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. See Honey From the P.R.C., 60 Fed.
Reg. 14,725 (ITA Mar. 20, 1995) (notice of prelim. determination). Subsequently, Commerce
entered into a suspension agreement with the government of the PRC. See Honey From the
P.R.C., 60 Fed. Reg. 42,521 (ITA Aug. 16, 1995) (notice of suspension of investigation);
Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Honey From the P.R.C., Aug. 2, 1995,
U.S.-P.R.C., reprinted in 60 Fed. Reg. at 42,522–27 (“Suspension Agreement”).3 Issues relating
to the Suspension Agreement were the subject of the court’s opinion in Zhejiang I.
The Suspension Agreement expired by its terms on August 16, 2000. Thereafter, the
2
The Second Investigation, which resulted in the Final Determination at issue here,
covered
natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent
natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing
more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey.
The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey
whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and
whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.
Final Determination, 66 Fed. Reg. at 50,610 (“Subject Merchandise”).
3
The scope of the Suspension Agreement covered products that were nearly
identical to the Subject Merchandise:
natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent
natural honey by weight, and preparations of natural honey
containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight. The
subject products includes all grades and colors of honey whether in
liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether
packaged for retail or in bulk form.
Suspension Agreement, 60 Fed. Reg. at 42,522.
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 4
domestic honey industry filed a petition with Commerce and the United States International
Trade Commission (“ITC”), alleging, among other things, that the honey industry was being
injured as a result of less than fair value sales of honey from Argentina and the PRC. See
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Pet., Honey from Arg. and the P.R.C. (Sept. 29, 2000),
Pub. R. Doc. 1.
The Second Investigation resulted in Commerce’s determination that honey from the PRC
“is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value,” Final
Determination, 66 Fed. Reg. at 50,608, and the assessment of antidumping duty margins ranging
between 25.88% and 183.80%. See Am. Final Determination, 66 Fed. Reg. at 63,672.
Subsequently Zhejiang filed a motion for judgment upon the agency record, and the court in
Zhejiang I remanded the matter to Commerce with instructions to revisit its decision to rely on an
article from the Indian newspaper, The Tribune4 (the “Tribune Article” or “Tribune of India”
article), in valuing raw honey at 35 rupees per kilogram.5 Commerce’s Final Results of
4
Commerce relied upon an article that appeared in the May 1, 2000, edition of The
Tribune, a Chandigarh, India newspaper. The article stated in relevant part: “The sale price of
honey by beekeepers in India varies from Rs 25 to Rs 45 per kg whereas in countries like the
USA, Argentina and Brazil, the price varies from Rs 55 to Rs 80 a kg.” K. Sarangarajan,
Apiculture, a major foreign exchange earner, THE TRIBUNE (Chandigarh, India), May 1, 2000.
5
Specifically, the court instructed Commerce to
(1) determine whether the use of the Tribune Article
results in the “valuation of [raw honey] . . . based on
the best available information regarding the value[]
of such factor[],” (2) should it find that it is, explain
in detail how the use of 35 rupees per kilogram in
determining normal value “evidences a rational and
(continued...)
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 5
Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (“Remand Results”) are the subject of this opinion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a final determination in an antidumping duty investigation, “[t]he court
shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by
substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . .” 19 U.S.C. §
1516a(b)(1)(B)(i); Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (quoting 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i) (2000)) (“As required by statute, [the court]
will sustain the agency’s antidumping determinations unless they are ‘unsupported by substantial
evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’”). “Substantial evidence is
‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
Huaiyin, 322 F.3d at 1374 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
The existence of substantial evidence is determined “by considering the record as a whole,
including evidence that supports as well as evidence that ‘fairly detracts from the substantiality of
5
(...continued)
reasonable relationship to the factor of production it
represents,” (3) no matter whether it continues to
use the Tribune Article or other sources, fully and
completely justify any sources of data as the “best
available information” for the finding such data are
used to support, and (4) should any resulting
calculation of normal value of honey from the PRC
exceed that of the weighted-average of the honey
unit import values from all other countries during
the POI, explain in detail how this furthers the goal
of estimating antidumping duty margins as
accurately as possible.
Zhejiang I, slip op. 03-151 at 45–46 (internal citations omitted).
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 6
the evidence.’” Id. (quoting Atl. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”
Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966) (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the court’s instructions to revisit its decision to value raw honey at 35 rupees
per kilogram based on the Tribune Article, Commerce conducted remand proceedings and
concluded that
the Department’s determination to use the publicly-available raw
honey information from the Tribune of India article to calculate
respondents’ normal value is (1) based on the “best available
information,” (2) evidences a “rational and reasonable relationship
to the factor of production it represents,” and (3) furthers our goal
of estimating antidumping duty margins as accurately as possible.6
Remand Results at 25. Plaintiffs argue here that Commerce has not demonstrated that the
Tribune Article is the “best available information” to value raw honey, and that Commerce has
failed to explain how its valuation of raw honey was reasonable. See generally Pls.’ Comments
Regarding Remand Determination (“Pls.’ Comments”). The court will address each argument in
turn.
6
Where the subject merchandise is exported from a nonmarket economy (“NME”)
country such as the PRC, normal value is constructed from values for the factors of production
used in producing the merchandise in a comparable market economy country, or surrogate. See
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). An NME country is defined as “any foreign country that the
administering authority determines does not operate on market principles of cost or pricing
structures, so that sales of merchandise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the
merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A).
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 7
I. Commerce’s use of the Tribune of India article to value raw honey is in accordance with
law and supported by substantial evidence
Among the factors of production valued by Commerce was raw honey. In valuing raw
honey, Commerce “used an average of the highest and lowest price for raw honey given in [the
Tribune Article] . . . .” Honey From the P.R.C., 66 Fed. Reg. 24,100, 24,106 (ITA May 11,
2001) (prelim. determination). Commerce stated:
The raw honey price data from The Tribune of India is the best
available surrogate value for the following reasons: 1) it is the most
contemporaneous, dated May 1, 2000; 2) the broad-based data is
specific to Indian raw honey prices (i.e., generally Indian honey,
like PRC raw honey, has a high moisture content); and 3) it is
quality agricultural data. We do not find that the prices offered by
petitioners and respondents offer more accurate or representative
alternatives.
Decision Mem., Pub. R. Doc. 216 at 21. With respect to Commerce’s decision, the court in
Zhejiang I stated:
In deciding to use the Tribune Article, Commerce rejected a study
published by the Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export
Development Authority (“APEDA Study”), finding that “the
values in . . . the APEDA study submitted by respondents . . .
suffer from inherent weaknesses not present in the prices reflected
in The Tribune of India.”
Zhejiang I, slip op. 03-151 at 40 (internal citation omitted). The court agreed that the Tribune of
India article appeared to be more reliable than the APEDA Study offered by Plaintiffs, stating:
As between the source of data relating to the price of honey
Commerce selected, and that offered by Plaintiffs, Commerce
appears to have used the more reliable source. The Tribune Article
addresses the sale price of honey, whereas the table in the APEDA
Study from which Plaintiffs identify the “average value of honey”
appears in the context of a discussion concerning the development
of a model for “doubl[ing] the number of bee colonies every 2
years,” not determining the value of honey. The publication of the
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 8
Tribune Article, dated May 1, 2000, coincides with the [period of
investigation]. The APEDA Study, in contrast, bears the year
1999. . . . Moreover, the Tribune Article, published on The India
Tribune’s Web site, was publicly available, while Plaintiffs make
no such argument with respect to the APEDA Study. See 19
C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1) (“The Secretary normally will use publicly
available information to value factors.”).
Id. at 42–43 (internal citations and footnote omitted). The court nevertheless found that “the
results reached by applying the data from the Tribune Article [we]re sufficiently incredible so as
to call into question their reliability.” Id. at 43.
On remand, Commerce was instructed to “determine whether the use of the Tribune
Article results in the valuation of [raw honey] . . . based on the best available information
regarding the value[] of such factor[] . . . .” Zhejiang I, slip op. 03-151 at 45 (internal citation
omitted). In the Remand Results, Commerce continues to insist that the Tribune Article was the
best source of information for valuing raw honey:
We have revisited our decision and find that the Tribune of India
article is the best available information to value raw honey. In
selecting the pricing information from the Tribune of India article
as the most appropriate surrogate value to represent raw honey
prices in India, the Department reasons that the raw honey pricing
data in this article is the best quality data because (1) it is
published, publicly-available data; (2) it was “intended to serve the
Indian agribusiness community;”7 and (3) it is representative of the
beekeeping honey industry in India. Therefore, the information in
this article has “greater credibility” than would a similar article
published only as a “general interest” article.
Remand Results at 10 (internal citation omitted). Commerce further explained that, in addition
7
Apparently, Commerce makes this claim based on the Tribune Article having
been republished in the Agricultural Edition of the Tribune. See Remand Results at 15.
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 9
to the foregoing reasons, it chose the Tribune Article because
a critical factor in determining which surrogate value is the most
specific or comparable to the raw honey input consumed by PRC
honey processors is moisture content. This is important to consider
because more raw honey will be consumed during the production
process to reduce the moisture content to an acceptable level. As
the record indicates, Indian raw honey generally has a high
moisture content. Therefore, the Department finds that the
country-wide raw honey prices from the Tribune of India article are
the most specific to the raw honey consumed by honey processors
in the PRC (i.e., generally, both have high moisture contents).
Id.8
Commerce also considered, but rejected, the source provided by defendant-intervenors
American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association, i.e., the 1999–2000
financial statement of an Indian Honey Cooperative, Mahabaleshwar Honey Producers
Cooperative Society, Ltd. (“MHPC”). With regard to the MHPC data, Commerce stated:
The Department determines that the average raw honey price from
the MHPC is not representative of raw honey prices in India
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1677b(c)(1)(B). As the Department stated
in the Final Determination, “although, the MHPC is a cooperative,
and hence likely buys raw honey from various sources, the value
for raw honey reported on its financial statement represents the
value as experienced by a single processor of honey in a particular
region of India.” And, as already noted above, the Department
prefers to use industry-wide values, rather than the values of a
single producer, wherever possible, because industry-wide values
are more representative of prices/costs of all producers in the
surrogate country. Since the average raw honey price from the
MHPC’s financial statement was based on information obtained
8
In other words, Commerce chose the Tribune Article, in part, because, in terms of
moisture content, Indian honey is generally similar to Chinese honey. In order to ensure that the
moisture content would be reflected in prices, however, Commerce concluded that a country-
wide rather than a regional surrogate price was needed.
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 10
from a single processor, it is not representative of all producers in
India. Therefore, the MHPC average raw honey price is neither
more accurate nor more reliable than the data from the Tribune of
India article.
Remand Results at 13 (internal citation omitted).
Finally, Commerce pursued its own search for potential sources for valuing raw honey.
Commerce stated:
As indicated by the record, we only located the republished
Tribune of India article (in its Agricultural Edition) dated May 1,
2000. Our search for a suitable surrogate revealed no additional
reliable or credible information on valuing raw honey in India other
than the Tribune of India article; thus, we continued to rely on the
published raw honey values appearing in the Tribune of India
article as the basis for calculating the final surrogate raw honey
price . . . .
Remand Results at 14–15 (internal citation omitted). Thus, having rejected the sources proposed
by the parties, and unable to find any additional reliable or credible sources of its own,
Commerce concluded that
the surrogate value information from the Tribune of India article
offers the most accurate and reliable calculation of plaintiffs’
normal value pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c). The Tribune of
India article constitutes the most reliable source on the record, and
is a publicly-available article printed in a widely-distributed and
established Indian newspaper . . . . [B]ecause the data itself is the
most representative of raw honey prices in India, and is quality data
that is contemporaneous with the POI, as well as specific to the
raw honey industry in India, the Department determines that it has
relied upon the “best available information” on the record of these
proceedings in valuing the raw honey input.
Id. at 15 (footnote omitted).
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 11
For their part, Plaintiffs continue to assert that the APEDA study should serve as the basis
for raw honey valuation, arguing that “[t]he only difference between the two documents is that
the APEDA study is far more detailed and demonstrates a much greater and more comprehensive
knowledge of the Indian honey industry.” Pls.’ Comments at 4.
As previously noted, the court’s views with respect to the APEDA study were stated in
Zhejiang I and will not be repeated here beyond restating that, “[a]s between the [Tribune
Article] and th[e] [APEDA study], Commerce appears to have used the more reliable source.”
Zhejiang I, slip op. 03-151 at 42. Plaintiffs offer nothing in their Comments to cause the court to
reconsider this conclusion.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c), Commerce is required to base the valuation of the
factors of production in NME cases “on the best available information regarding the values of
such factors in a market economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by
[Commerce].” Id. Although the statute does not define “best available information,” it provides
that Commerce “shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in
one or more market economy countries that are[:] (A) at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country, and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4). “[T]he statute grants Commerce broad
discretion to determine the ‘best available information’ in a reasonable manner on a case-by-case
basis.” Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, 25 CIT 1199, 1208, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1298
(2001) (citing Lasko Metal Prods., Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994));
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 12
see also Shakeproof Assembly Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works v. United States, 268 F.3d
1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he critical question is whether the methodology used by
Commerce is based on the best available information and establishes antidumping margins as
accurately as possible.”).
With respect to the source offered by defendant-intervenors, the court finds proper
Commerce’s decision to reject the average raw honey price calculated from MHPC’s 1999–2000
financial statement, on the grounds that the value for raw honey reported on the financial
statement represents the value for raw honey “as experienced by a single processor of honey in a
particular region of India.” Remand Results at 13 (internal citation omitted). Commerce
“prefers to use industry-wide values, rather than the values of a single producer, wherever
possible . . . .” id.; see also Peer Bearing Co., 25 CIT at 1217, 182 F. Supp. 2d at 1307(“Commerce asserts that it does not focus upon a particular surrogate producer of subject
merchandise if more objective, industry-wide values . . . are available because . . . Commerce’s
goal is to use surrogate values that represent the industry norm of the surrogate country, not
company-specific surrogate values . . . .”). Furthermore, the MHPC financial statement
represents the average price paid to its members for raw honey during a nine-month period that
predates the POI in this case. Commerce rightly favors data contemporaneous with the POI over
that which is not. See id. (“Commerce prefers to value factors using public information that is
most closely concurrent to the specific period of review . . . .”). Thus, because the data contained
in MHPC’s 1999–2000 financial statement neither represents an industry-wide value nor
comports with the POI, the court finds that Commerce properly rejected it. See, e.g., Writing
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 13
Instrument Mfrs. Ass’n, Pencil Sec. v. United States, 21 CIT 1185, 1202, 984 F. Supp. 629, 644
(1997) (approving Commerce’s chosen source for surrogate value information where the only
source submitted by plaintiffs lacked the “inherent reliability” of Commerce’s source).
Finally, as already noted, Commerce “pursued its own search for potential surrogate
values to value the raw honey input.” Remand Results at 14. With respect to that search,
Commerce stated that it “revealed no additional reliable or credible information on valuing raw
honey in India other than the Tribune of India article . . . .” Id.For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that Commerce has complied with the court’s
remand instruction to “determine whether the use of the Tribune Article results in the ‘valuation
of [raw honey] . . . based on the best available information regarding the value[] of such factor[] .
. . .’” Id. at 45 (internal citation omitted). In addition, the court finds that Commerce’s decision
to use the data from the Tribune Article is in accordance with law and supported by substantial
evidence.
II. Commerce’s decision to value raw honey at 35 rupees per kilogram is reasonable
Also on remand, Commerce was instructed to revisit its decision to value raw honey at 35
rupees per kilogram based on the data found in the Tribune Article. Commerce reached that
figure “based on a simple average of all raw honey pricing information from that article. In other
words, the Department took the highest and lowest values in the Tribune of India article, and
then averaged them together (i.e., (25 Rs./kg. + 45 Rs./kg.)/2 = 35 Rs./kg.).” Remand Results at
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 14
16. In Zhejiang I, the court found that, although the Tribune Article was the better of the two
proffered sources, the results reached by applying the data from it were “sufficiently incredible so
as to call into question their reliability.” Zhejiang I, slip op. 03-151 at 43. The court stated:
In accordance with the Suspension Agreement, the minimum price
at which honey could be sold during the POI was equal to 92% of
the weighted-average of the honey unit import values from all
other countries. Thus, taking Zhejiang’s data as an example, the
weighted-average of honey unit import values from all other
countries during the POI would have been approximately $932.25
per metric ton. Using a price of 35 rupees per kilogram, however,
Commerce calculated normal value for Zhejiang to be $1,001.99
per metric ton . . . . Thus, the weighted-average of the honey unit
import values from all other countries was approximately $69.74
less than Commerce’s calculation of the normal value of honey
sold by Zhejiang. Because raw honey is by far the most important
factor of production, its valuation appears to be the most
anomalous. As MOFTEC9 put it in a letter to Commerce, “This
conclusion implies that the whole world was dumping honey
during [the POI], which is irrational.” While it is possible that the
PRC is the worldwide high cost producer of honey, the very
magnitude of the difference between Commerce’s calculation of
normal value and the weighted-average of honey unit import values
from all other countries during the POI, calls into question
Commerce’s methodology and the evidence on which it relied.
Id. at 44–45 (footnotes and internal citations omitted). In other words, the data appeared to
indicate that Zhejiang’s constructed cost of producing honey was higher than the price for which
the other countries were able to sell honey.
As to the court’s concerns regarding this apparently anomalous result, Commerce argues
that the prices resulting from the Suspension Agreement were distorted by the large volume of
9
The Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (“MOFTEC”) is a
Chinese governmental agency responsible for foreign trade, economic cooperation, and foreign
investment.
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 15
dumped imports from Argentina during the POI. Commerce explained:
[T]his large volume of lower priced honey imports from Argentina
distorted the suspension agreement prices. This is evident from the
fact that, under the suspension agreement reference price
calculations (i.e., weighted average price of U.S. imports from all
countries, excluding the PRC), Argentina’s imports accounted for
approximately 76 percent (by volume) of the reference price
calculations. Given the predominant impact of Argentine imports
on the reference price calculations, the drop in Argentine prices
“drove down the suspension agreement prices” lower than they
should have been.
Remand Results at 23–24.
Commerce has provided various tables demonstrating the changes resulting from
removing the data from Argentina. Once this exercise has been performed, the unit import value
for all countries excluding Argentina and the PRC during the POI equals $1,264.56 per metric
ton or $163.67 more than the calculated normal value for Zhejiang. Thus, while “the whole
world” may not have been dumping honey, Argentina’s sales were such a large portion of
imports that they distorted the results. This being the case, the anomaly identified by the court is
removed. In light of Commerce’s further explanation and the explanatory calculations, the court
finds that Commerce’s decision to use a simple average of 35 rupees, as derived from the
Tribune of India article, is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. See,
e.g., Rhodia, Inc. v. United States, 25 CIT 1278, 1285, 185 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1350 (2001) (“The
general practice of Commerce [in calculating surrogate values] is to apply a simple average. In
order to depart from this practice, Commerce needs to ‘explain the reasons for its departure.’”)
(internal citation omitted). “As long as the agency’s methodology and procedures are reasonable
COURT NO . 02-00057 PAGE 16
means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is substantial evidence in the record
supporting the agency’s conclusions, the court will not impose its own views as to the sufficiency
of the agency’s investigation or question the agency’s methodology.” Ceramica Regiomontana,
S.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 404–05, 636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff’d 810 F.2d 1137(Fed. Cir. 1987).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Commerce’s final results pursuant to remand are sustained in
their entirety, and this case is dismissed. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.
/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton
Dated: August 26, 2004
New York, New York