70 F.Supp.3d 1321 (CIT. 2015), 14-00038, U.S. Magnesium LLC v. United States

Docket Nº:Consol. Court 14-00038
Citation:70 F.Supp.3d 1321
Opinion Judge:Gordon, Judge
Party Name:US MAGNESIUM LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant
Attorney:Consol. Court No. 14-00038 Stephen A. Jones and Jeffery B. Denning, King and Spalding of Washington, DC for Plaintiff U.S. Magnesium LLC. David A. Riggle and David J. Craven, Riggle and Craven of Chicago, Illinois for Plaintiff and Defendant-Intervenor Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd. Eric E. La...
Judge Panel:Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge.
Case Date:June 01, 2015
Court:Court of International Trade

Page 1321

70 F.Supp.3d 1321 (CIT. 2015)




Consol. Court No. 14-00038

United States Court of International Trade

June 1, 2015

Motion for judgment upon the agency record denied; final results of administrative review sustained.

Stephen A. Jones and Jeffery B. Denning, King and Spalding of Washington, DC for Plaintiff U.S. Magnesium LLC.

David A. Riggle and David J. Craven, Riggle and Craven of Chicago, Illinois for Plaintiff and Defendant-Intervenor Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd.

Eric E. Laufgraben, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, DC for Defendant United States. With him on the brief were Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Aman Kakar, Attorney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance of Washington, DC.

Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge.


Page 1322

Gordon, Judge

This action involves an administrative review conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (" Commerce" ) of the antidumping duty order covering pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China. See Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China, 79 Fed.Reg. 94 (Dep't of Commerce Jan. 2, 2014) (final results admin. review) (" Final Results" ); see also Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, A-570-832 (Dep't of Commerce Dec. 26, 2013) (" Decision Memorandum" ), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/prc/ 2013-31412-1.pdf (last visited this date). Before the court is U.S. Magnesium LLC's (" U.S. Magnesium" ) motion for judgment on the agency record. See U.S. Magnesium's R. 56.2 Br. in Support of Mot. for J. on the Agency R. (July 29, 2014), ECF No. 40 (" U.S. Mag. Br." );

Page 1323

see also Def.'s Opp. to Pl.'s and Def.-Intervenor's R. 56.2 Mots. for J. upon the Agency R. (Oct. 24, 2014), ECF No. 43; Resp. of Pl. Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd., to the Mot. Pursuant to R. 56 of the Rs. of the U.S. Ct. of Int'l Trade by U.S. Magnesium LLC (Nov. 14, 2014), ECF No. 47; U.S. Magnesium's Reply to the Resps. of Def. and Def. Intervenor (Dec. 15, 2014), ECF No. 55 (" U.S. Mag. Reply" ).1 The court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012),2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012).

US Magnesium challenges (1) Commerce's financial statement selection, (2) Commerce's refusal to apply adverse facts available to Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co. Ltd. (" TMM" ), and (3) Commerce's surrogate valuation of magnesium scrap. U.S. Mag. Br. at 5-39. For the reasons set forth below, the court sustains the Final Results on each of the issues challenged by U.S. Magnesium.

I. Standard of Review

For administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders, the court sustains Commerce's " determinations, findings, or conclusions" unless they are " unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole. Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence has been described as " such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as " something less than the weight of the evidence, and the 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, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966). Fundamentally, though, " substantial evidence" is best understood as a word formula connoting reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice § 9.24[1] (3d ed. 2015). Therefore, when addressing a substantial evidence issue raised by a party, the court analyzes whether the challenged agency action " was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record." 8A West's Fed. Forms, National Courts § 3:6 (5th ed. 2015).

II. Discussion

A. Financial Statement Selection

Commerce calculates dumping margins by determining " the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price of the subject merchandise." 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). In the non-market economy context, Commerce calculates normal value using data

Page 1324

from surrogate countries to value the factors of production. Id. § 1677b(c)(1)(B). Commerce must use the " best available information" in selecting surrogate data from " one or more" surrogate market economy countries. Id. § 1677b(c)(1)(B), (4). The surrogate data must " to the extent possible" be from a market economy country or countries that are (1) " at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country" and...

To continue reading