Slip Op. No. 24-16 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

EURO SME SDN BHD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant, 

 and 

POLYETHYLENE RETAIL CARRIER 

BAG COMMITTEE, HILEX POLY CO., 

LLC, and SUPERBAG CORP., 

 Defendant-Intervenors.

Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden, 

Judge 

Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) 

OPINION 

[Sustaining Commerce’s Final Determination.] 

 Dated: February 12, 2024 

Kelly Slater, Appleton Luff Pte Ltd. of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Euro SME Sdn 

Bhd. With her on the brief were Jay Y. Nee and Edmund W. Sim. 

Meen Geu Oh, Senior Trial Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, DC, 

for Defendant United States. With him on the brief were Brendan S. Saslow and 

Kenneth G. Kays, Of Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Daniel L. Schneiderman, King & Spalding, LLP of Washington, DC, for DefendantIntervenors Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee; Hilex Poly Co., LLC; and 

Superbag Corp. With him on the brief was J. Michael Taylor. 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 2 

Vaden, Judge: Plaintiff Euro SME Sdn Bhd (Euro SME or Plaintiff), a 

Malaysian manufacturer of packaging products, comes before the Court to challenge 

the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) 2019-2020 Administrative Review of its 

antidumping duty order on retail bags from Malaysia. Retail Carrier Bags from 

Malaysia, 87 Fed. Reg. 12,933 (Dep’t of Com. Mar. 8, 2022). In its Motion for 

Judgment on the Agency Record, Plaintiff argues that Commerce’s Final Results 

must be remanded because substantial evidence does not support its findings. See 

generally Pl.’s Br., ECF No 23. Euro SME alleges that the agency unlawfully relied 

on facts available to adjust the actual weight quantities in Euro SME’s data. Id. at 

7–11. It further contests Commerce’s reliance on an adverse inference to determine 

certain inland freight expense data for U.S. sales that the agency deemed 

unverifiable. Id. at 2–3. Finally, Euro SME contends that the agency should have 

corrected a ministerial error that Plaintiff brought to its attention but that Commerce 

rejected as untimely. Id. at 15–17. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Judgment on the Agency Record is DENIED; and Commerce’s Final Results are 

SUSTAINED. 

BACKGROUND 

In August 2004, Commerce published an antidumping duty order on retail 

carrier bags imported from Malaysia. Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 69 Fed. 

Reg. 48,203 (Dept. of Com. Aug. 9, 2004) (Order). The Order primarily covers the 

ubiquitous plastic grocery bags that help shepherd our purchases home. Commerce 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 3 

published its annual notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 

Order in August 2020. Notice of Opportunity, J.A. at 1,003–04, ECF No. 33; see also

19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(1). In response, Defendant-Intervenor, the Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bag Committee (the Committee), requested an administrative review of Euro 

SME alleging that the company “may have produced or exported subject merchandise 

that was sold into the United States at less than fair value during the period of 

review.” Req. for Admin. Review, J.A. at 1,000–02, ECF No. 33. Commerce confirmed 

that it would conduct an administrative review of Euro SME’s activities between 

August 1, 2019 and July 31, 2020. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Admin. Reviews, 85 Fed. Reg. 63,081–94 (Dep’t of Com. Oct. 6, 2020). 

On October 26, 2020, Commerce sent a letter to Euro SME informing the 

company that it was initiating an investigation into whether it had imported or 

produced merchandise that was then sold in the United States for less than fair value. 

Notice of Investigation at 1–4, J.A. at 1,050–53, ECF No. 33. Commerce explained 

that a failure to respond to the request for information “may result in the application 

of partial or total facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, which may 

include adverse inferences, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.” Id. at 3–4, J.A. at 

1,052–53. Attached to the letter was a questionnaire, comprised of five parts, which 

Commerce requested Euro SME complete as part of the review. Initial 

Questionnaire, J.A. at 1,050–1,207, ECF No. 33. The questions reflected the type of 

information the agency would need in order to conduct a comparison of Euro SME’s 

sales in its home market of Malaysia and the United States. 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 4 

The method that Commerce used to run that analysis was the “average-toaverage method.” Prelim. Determination Memo at 3, J.A. at 1,845, ECF No. 33; see 

also 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(b)(1). The average-to-average method is one of the three 

approved methodologies for Commerce to compare subject companies’ sales in their 

home market and in the United States. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(b). The purpose of the 

comparison is to determine whether the subject merchandise is being sold in the 

United States for less than fair value. Of the three approved methods, the agency 

employs the average-to-average approach “unless [Commerce] determines another 

method is appropriate in a particular case.” 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(c)(1); see also 

Dillinger France S.A. v. United States, 981 F.3d 1318, 1324 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The 

average-to-average method is conducted by “compar[ing] the weighted average of the 

respondent’s sales prices in its home country during the investigation period to the 

weighted average of the respondent’s sales prices in the United States during the 

same period.” Stupp Corp. v. United States, 5 F.4th 1341, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see 

also 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(d)(1). To perform the calculation, Commerce must first 

collect the company’s cost and sales data for both the home market and the United 

States. 

Commerce sent its initial questionnaire on October 26, 2020. Notice of 

Investigation at 1–4, J.A. at 1,050–53, ECF No. 33. Section B focused on the data 

related to Euro SME’s home market sales; Section C posed the same questions 

concerning the company’s sales in the United States; and Section D inquired about 

the costs associated with the production of the subject merchandise. Id. at 1,055–57. 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 5 

Initial Questionnaire Section B, C, D, J.A. at 1,080, 1,113, 1,149, ECF No. 33. In both 

Sections B and C, Commerce instructed Euro SME to report “the sale quantity for 

[each] transaction” and explained that the entry should be “the quantity of the 

specific shipment or invoice line” of each corresponding sale. Id. at B-16, C-15, J.A. 

at 1,097, 1,127. For all the data Euro SME submitted, Commerce also required the 

company to provide supporting documentation. Id. at G-4, J.A. at 1,059. On the 

instructions sheet, Commerce stated that the company was to “identify all units of 

measurement” used in its “narrative response, worksheets, or other appendices” and 

that it must “complete Appendix VII, which is a template providing a standard format 

for reporting the units of measurement, currencies, and conversion factors.” Id. The 

instructions also noted that “all information submitted may be subject to verification” 

and that a “failure to allow full and complete verification of any information may 

affect the consideration accorded to that or any other verified or non-verified item in 

the responses.” Id. at G-9, J.A. at 1,064.

Euro SME provided timely responses to the questionnaire, submitting its 

response to Section A on November 23, 2020, and to Sections B, C, and D on December 

11, 2020. Euro SME Sect. A Resp., J.A. at 80,000, ECF No. 31; Euro SME Secs. BCD 

Resps., J.A. at 80,307, ECF No. 31. In its narrative response explaining the 

quantities and units of measurement for its sales data, Euro SME stated that it was 

reporting both standard and actual weights in kilograms and that they included “both 

for reconciliation purposes[.]” Secs. BCD Resp. at 14, J.A. at 80,326, ECF No. 31. 

Euro SME added that it “also reported quantity in cartons ... and quantity in 1,000 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 6 

bags[.]” Id. The company provided the same narrative explanation in Section C when 

asked about the quantities of its sales in the United States. Id. at 34, J.A. at 80,346. 

At oral argument, counsel for Euro SME explained the difference between the figures. 

“Standard weight” refers to an approximated weight of the bags “based on the 

thickness, the length, the width, the depth of the bag” and other metrics; while “actual 

weight” refers to exactly that — the weight of the bags when those bags are weighed. 

Oral Arg. Tr. at 18:4–8, 21:15–18, ECF No. 46. However, Euro SME explained that 

the “actual weights” it submitted were not based on a literal weighing of each carton, 

as the definition of the term would suggest. Instead, the company weighed a single 

carton from each shipment and then multiplied the weight of that one carton by the 

total number of cartons in the sale to arrive at the “actual weight.” Id. at 22:8-16. 

The data Plaintiff proffered as “actual weight” was therefore an average based on a 

random sampling rather than the actual weight of the product for each sale. 

When supplying its standard weight and “actual weight” data, Euro SME did 

not make any objection to Commerce’s request for “the quantity of the specific 

shipment[,]” nor did it express any concern about its ability to provide the requested 

data. Sec. BCD Resp. at 14, 34, J.A. at 80,326, 80,346, ECF No. 31; see also Issues 

and Decision Memo (IDM) at 8, J.A. at 2,165, ECF No. 33 (“At Commerce’s request, 

Euro SME reported the actual weight for each transaction even though it does not 

record that information during the ordinary course of business. There was no 

indication in the record prior to verification that there may be an issue with Euro 

SME’s reporting[.]”). At the end of the narrative portion of Section BCD of the 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 7 

questionnaire, Euro SME provided Commerce with a series of attachments and 

supporting documentation. Exhibit 1 contained Euro SME’s Home Market Sales 

Listing, and Exhibit 8 contained its U.S. Sales Listing. In both exhibits, it provided 

four measurements for the quantity of sales in the respective markets: standard 

weight, actual weight, number of cartons, and per 1,000 bags. Sec. BCD Resp. at Ex. 

1, Ex. 8, J.A. at 80,396–403, 80,439–53, ECF No. 31. On September 2, 2021, 

Commerce published its Preliminary Results and Preliminary Decision Memo (PDM). 

Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia, 86 Fed. Reg. 49,309 (Dep’t of Com. Sept. 2, 2021) 

(Preliminary Results); Preliminary Issues and Decision Memo (Dep’t of Com. Aug. 

27, 2021), J.A. 1,843–53, ECF No. 33. It calculated a dumping margin of 0.00% and 

concluded that “sales of polyethylene retail carrier bags ... were not made at less than 

normal value during the period of review[.]” Preliminary Results, 86 Fed. Reg. at 

49,309. 

In lieu of performing an on-site verification, Commerce sent Euro SME a 

verification questionnaire (ILOV) on October 21, 2021, requesting documentation to 

support the information the company had reported earlier, including the quantities 

of its merchandise sold and its freight costs. ILOV Request for Information, J.A. at 

81,836–42, ECF No. 31. To verify the sales data, Commerce randomly selected six 

transactions — three from the Unites States and three from Malaysia — and 

requested Euro SME provide supporting documents and a narrative explanation for 

each transaction to verify the data that it had already submitted related to those 

sales. Id. at 81,838–40. To verify the freight costs, Commerce requested supporting 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 8 

documentation to explain how the company recorded its freight expenses in two 

different selected U.S. sales and two different Malaysian sales. Id. at 81,840. Euro 

SME submitted its response on October 28, 2021. ILOV Resp., J.A. at 81,843–82,224, 

ECF No. 31. It stated that the attached invoices contained the quantity information 

in terms of the number of cartons and per one thousand bags. Another attachment, 

labeled “loading advice,” provided “support for quantity in kilograms (actual 

weight)[.]” Id. at 3, J.A. at 81,851. The company similarly explained that another 

“loading advice” document contained quantity information about the relevant 

merchandise “with actual weight,” in response to questions about its freight expenses. 

Id. at 6, J.A. at 81,854. The attachments included handwritten calculations. Id. at 

Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, J.A. at 81,889, 81,934, 81,972, 82,015, 82,036, 82,061, ECF No. 31. 

Although the documents themselves did not explain how the weights of each sale 

broke down within the shipment, the handwritten calculations attempted to do so. 

Id. Once again, Euro SME did not express a concern about its ability to provide the 

requested information. See generally ILOV Resp., J.A. at 81,843–82,224, ECF No. 

31. Plaintiff’s counsel explained at oral argument that those loading documents were 

where the employee in charge of calculating the actual weight recorded the weight of 

each shipment. She clarified that the handwritten notations were the employee’s 

calculations “extrapolating” from the weight of a single box in the shipment the 

weight of the entire sale by multiplying the weight of the box by the total number of 

boxes. Oral Arg. Tr. at 25:11–26:20, ECF No. 46. 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 9 

For five of the six documents, the weight of the overall shipment listed on the 

document differed from what Euro SME had originally told Commerce in its 

questionnaire response. See IDM at 6, J.A. at 2,163, ECF No. 33; ILOV Resp. at Ex. 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, J.A. at 81,889, 81,934, 81,972, 82,015, 82,036, 82,061, ECF No. 31. In 

those five cases, the handwritten notes attributed the entirety of the discrepancy to 

the sales in the shipment that Commerce was not spot-checking. See IDM at 6–7, 

J.A. at 2,163–64, ECF No. 33; ILOV Resp. at Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, J.A. at 81,889, 81,934, 

81,972, 82,015, 82,036, 82,061, ECF No. 31. For the sales Commerce was spotchecking, the handwritten numbers matched what Euro SME originally told 

Commerce down to the hundredth of a kilogram; but the sales Commerce was not 

spot-checking were off by tens or hundreds of kilograms. See IDM at 6, J.A. at 2,163, 

ECF No. 33; ILOV Resp. at Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, J.A. at 81,889, 81,934, 81,972, 82,015, 

82,036, 82,061, ECF No. 31; Pet’r’s Case Br. at Att. 1, J.A. at 82,239–40, ECF No. 31 

(chart comparing reported figures to verification exhibits). 

The story was similar when Commerce tried to verify Euro SME’s inland 

freight expenses. Commerce chose to spot-check the same six sales it used to verify 

actual weight, plus an additional two home market sales. IDM at 9, J.A. at 2,166, 

ECF No. 33. All five home market sales differed between the verification 

documentation and what Euro SME originally reported to Commerce. Id. at 10–11, 

J.A. at 2,167–68; Pet’r’s Case Br. at Att. 2, J.A. at 82,241–43, ECF No. 31 (chart 

comparing reported figures to verification exhibits). Again, the verification 

documents attributed all discrepancies to sales Commerce was not spot-checking and 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 10 

reported a perfect match for the transactions Commerce was spot-checking. IDM at 

10–11, J.A. at 2,167–68; Pet’r’s Case Br. at Att. 2, J.A. at 82,241–43, ECF No. 31 

(chart comparing reported figures to verification exhibits). However, for four of the 

five sales, the discrepancies were negligible and possibly attributable to rounding 

decisions. IDM at 10–11, J.A. at 2,167–68. 

Euro SME declined to submit a case brief in response to the Preliminary 

Results. Def.’s Br. at 28 n.9, ECF No. 25. However, on December 13, 2021, the 

Committee sent Commerce a case brief arguing that (1) “Commerce should apply 

partial adverse facts available (‘AFA’) as a result of Euro SME’s inability to 

substantiate reported sales quantities and inland freight expenses” and (2) 

“Commerce should also correct a ministerial error in the preliminary margin program 

by which freight revenue was double counted.” Pet’r’s Case Br., J.A. at 2,097–110, 

ECF No. 33. 

Euro SME then submitted a rebuttal brief, arguing that Commerce had 

committed a ministerial error in its freight revenue cap calculation. J.A. at 82,244, 

ECF No. 31. Because that issue had not been raised in the Committee’s brief, 

Commerce “rejected that segment of Euro SME’s rebuttal brief on the ground that 

the challenge was a standalone argument and not rebutting anything petitioners had 

said.” Def.’s Resp. Br. at 28 n.9, ECF No. 25. On January 7, 2022, Euro SME 

submitted a revised rebuttal brief focusing instead on its claim that the company 

“ha[d] submitted ample and accurate information” and that “the discrepancies noted 

by the Petitioners with regard to actual weight, which also affect[] Malaysian inland 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 11 

freight, are small and immaterial.” Pl.’s Rebuttal Case Br. at 1, J.A. at 2,130, ECF 

No. 33. Euro SME argued that any revisions to the Preliminary Results would be 

“either unnecessary or should be limited in scope.” Id. It also asserted that, in the 

absence of the verifiable actual weight data that the agency requested, Commerce 

could have performed its calculation with the standard weight or number of bags data 

that the company did provide. Id. at 10–15, J.A. at 2,139–44. 

After consideration of both parties’ briefs, Commerce published its Final 

Results and its accompanying Issues and Decision Memo. See IDM, J.A. at 2,158–

172, ECF No. 33; Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of the Admin. 

Dumping Review; 2019-2020, 87 Fed. Reg. 12,933–12,935 (Dep’t of Com. Sept. 2, 

2021), J.A. at 2,173–75, ECF No. 33 (Final Results). The Final Results differed 

significantly from the Preliminary Results, most notably in the conclusion that “Euro 

SME Sdn. Bhd. made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) 

during the period of review (POR).” Final Results at 12,934, J.A. at 2,174, ECF No. 

33. Commerce concluded that there was a 6.47% weighted dumping margin. Id. In 

the accompanying Issues and Decision Memo, Commerce explained the three 

adjustments that it made. See generally IDM, J.A. at 2,158–72, ECF No. 33. 

The first adjustment concerned the calculation of Euro SME’s sales weight 

data and the discrepancy that Commerce observed when it attempted to verify the 

data. For those figures, Commerce decided that “it is appropriate to use facts 

otherwise available in relation to Euro SME’s reporting of actual weight and for gross 

unit price and sales expenses, which are reported on a per-kilogram actual weight 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 12 

basis across both the home market and U.S. sales databases[.]” IDM at 7, J.A. at 

2,164, ECF No. 33. This was because “there were discrepancies between the reported 

actual weights and the ‘loading advice’ document for five of the six sales traces. Euro 

SME did not explain how it allocated the total weight across the transactions covered 

by the ‘loading advice’ documents.” Id. Commerce declined to draw any adverse 

inference here. Despite the discrepancies, Commerce did not feel “that Euro SME 

[had] failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with 

Commerce’s request for information.” Id. 

The second adjustment pertained to freight costs. IDM at 9, J.A. at 2,166. 

Those figures fell into two categories: (1) inland freight expenses in the home market 

of Malaysia (INLFTCH), incurred when merchandise moved from the manufacturer 

to the distribution warehouse, and (2) U.S. inland freight expenses (DINLFTPU), 

incurred between the manufacturing plant and the port of exportation. Id. For each 

category, Commerce requested documentation to verify the figures that Euro SME 

initially submitted. ILOV Questionnaire, J.A. at 81,838–40, ECF No. 31. The 

documents it provided failed to explain how the company allocated the costs between 

those sales and why certain deductions appeared on the company’s summary pages. 

IDM at 9–10, J.A. at 2,166–67, ECF No. 33. Commerce also asked for supporting 

documentation on two additional Malaysian sales, and Euro SME’s response to that 

request contained the same shortcomings. In both cases, Euro SME provided 

handwritten notations on the supporting documents that attempted to attribute all 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 13 

discrepancies in the data to sales that the agency had not selected for verification. 

Id. at 10, J.A. at 2,167. 

Despite those discrepancies, Commerce once again declined to apply adverse 

inferences against Euro SME when filling the gaps related to home market inland 

freight expenses associated with the three transactions it selected for spot-checking. 

It explained, “[i]n the three home market sales traces, the variance between what 

was reported in the database and the supporting documentation is very small, and 

we find that the variance could plausibly be the result of rounding.” Id. at 10, J.A. at 

2,167. Commerce also found “no basis to apply facts available to [the inland freight 

expenses] throughout the home market database because the variances between the 

supporting documentation and what was reported in the database appear largely 

immaterial.” Id. at 11, J.A. at 2,168. However, with regard to one of the two 

additional home market transactions, the agency did “find it appropriate to apply 

facts available to the transactions ... given that the size of that variance cannot be 

explained by rounding, and there is no explanation regarding that variance on the 

record.” Id. Though Commerce opted to apply facts available to that single sale, it 

once again did “not find that Euro SME failed to cooperate to the best of its ability” 

and therefore did “not find that the application of an adverse inference [was] 

warranted[.]” Id. 

For inland freight costs for U.S. sales, however, Commerce agreed with the 

Committee’s position and applied an adverse inference. The agency justified this 

because “Euro SME failed to cooperate to the best of its abilities” by (1) continuing 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 14 

“to report domestic inland freight expenses that did not correspond to the underlying 

documentation on the record even after Commerce notified Euro SME that there were 

discrepancies in its reporting” and (2) not properly explaining how it allocated the 

charges on its freight invoices among the selected transactions. Id. at 14, J.A. at 

2,171. Commerce therefore “increased all reported domestic inland freight expenses 

... by the largest percent variance calculated on an exhibit-wide basis among the 

three U.S. sales traces.” Id. 

The third adjustment that Commerce made between the Preliminary and Final 

Results was the correction of a ministerial error highlighted by the Committee in its 

case brief. Pet’r’s Case Br. at 12, J.A. at 2,108, ECF No. 33. Commerce agreed that, 

in calculating its Preliminary Results, it had “double-counted freight revenue in the 

calculation of net U.S. price[.]” IDM at 14, J.A. at 2,171, ECF No. 33. The agency 

corrected its mistake, replacing the gross unit price variable that was inclusive of 

freight revenue to one that excluded freight revenue. Id. 

After Commerce published the Final Results, Euro SME filed its own 

ministerial error allegation. Allegation of Ministerial Error at 1, J.A. at 82,766, ECF 

No. 31. Euro SME repeated the claim it originally made in its rebuttal brief, arguing 

that Commerce had mistakenly excluded certain logistic expenses from its U.S. 

freight revenue expense cap. Id. at 2, J.A. at 82,767. In its letter to Commerce, Euro 

SME asserted that “setting the cap at just international freight ... would erroneously 

omit [a large percentage] of the freight costs associated with moving the product to 

the U.S. customer[.]” Id. at 4, J.A. at 82,797. Because Commerce had “performed the 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 15 

same freight revenue cap calculation” in its Preliminary Results and Euro SME failed 

to raise the issue until after publication of the Final Results, Commerce rejected the 

allegation as untimely. Commerce Resp. to Ministerial Error Allegation at 3–4, J.A. 

at 2,226–27, ECF No. 33. Citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(c)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 

351.309(c)(2), it explained that the alleged error was “discoverable earlier in the 

proceeding” and therefore should have been raised in Plaintiff’s case brief. Id. Euro 

SME’s decision to not submit a case brief forfeited the issue. Id. at 3. 

The Court held oral argument on May 12, 2023. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff clarified 

that it did not challenge Commerce’s use of a verification questionnaire in lieu of an 

on-site verification despite extensive discussion of that decision in its briefs. Oral 

Arg. Tr. 7:3-22, ECF No. 46 (stating that “we do not contest the use of the ILOV ... 

questionnaire”). The Committee confirmed that it had not filed a cross-complaint or 

in any other way challenged Commerce’s decision to resort to facts available rather 

than draw an adverse inference. Id. at 8:15-20. Plaintiff’s counsel also clarified that 

she was not challenging Commerce’s inland freight calculations for Euro SME’s home 

market sales. Id. at 58:7-14 (when asked to confirm that Euro SME was “not objecting 

to what [Commerce] did” in calculating one of the home market freight expenses, 

responding “we are not.”). Finally, the parties gave their consent for the Court to 

consider prior administrative reviews of Euro SME despite those reviews not being 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 16 

formally admitted into the record. Id. at 11:7-16; see also 44 U.S.C. § 1507 (“The 

contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed[.]”).1 

On the issue of Euro SME’s quantity data, however, the parties were not able 

to agree on (1) whether Euro SME’s standard weight submissions had been verified; 

(2) whether it would have been possible for Commerce to perform its calculations with 

the standard weights that Plaintiff submitted; and (3) whether there was a “gap” in 

the record for Commerce to fill. On those questions, the Court ordered the parties to 

submit supplemental briefing. ECF No. 38. 

Euro SME submitted its letter brief on June 5, 2023. Pl.’s Supp. Br., ECF No. 

41. It first asserted that its standard weights had been verified because neither 

Commerce nor the Committee challenged the data. Id. at 3. Next, Euro SME argued 

that the verified standard weights could have been used in Commerce’s entire 

calculation because the agency already used standard weights in its below cost test, 

disproving Commerce’s claim that “it was impossible or impractical to use standard 

weights in its calculations.” Id. at 3–5. Euro SME concluded that, under the Federal 

Circuit’s opinion in Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States, Commerce 

could not resort to facts available because there was no “gap” to be filled. Id. at 8 

(citing 652 F.3d 1333, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The use of facts otherwise available ... 

1 The parties agreed that the Court could take judicial notice of the existence of prior 

administrative investigations to which Euro SME had been subject, as those documents are 

publicly available. However, the full administrative records associated with the 

investigations were not formally placed onto the record and are not considered in this matter. 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 17 

is only appropriate to fill gaps when Commerce must rely on other sources of 

information to complete the factual record.”)) (internal citations omitted). 

The Government submitted its response on June 22, 2023. Def.’s Supp. Br., 

ECF No. 44. It argued that standard weight figures were not provided for all the data 

points that were requested and were necessary to complete Commerce’s calculation. 

Commerce claimed that Euro SME reported its sales expenses in both the Malaysian 

and U.S. markets only on an actual weight basis — figures that proved to be 

unverifiable. Id. at 4. With “no other usable metrics available on the record” for those 

data points, the Government argued that Commerce faced a “gap” and lawfully relied 

on facts available. Id. at 5. In its brief, the Committee added that a “conversion” of 

all the figures to standard weights — as Plaintiff proposed — would have been 

impossible without “an actual quantity field,” which Commerce had determined “at 

verification to be unreliable.” Def.-Int.’s Supp. Br. at 2, ECF No. 47. With these 

clarifications, the Court applies the law. 

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s challenge of Commerce’s Final 

Results in its Administrative Review under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1581(c). The Court must sustain Commerce’s “determinations, findings, or 

conclusions” unless they are “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or 

otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Where they 

fail to meet that standard, the Court must “hold unlawful any determination, finding, 

or conclusion found.” Id. As this Court has articulated, “the question is not whether 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 18 

the Court would have reached the same decision on the same record[;] rather, it is 

whether the administrative record as a whole permits Commerce’s conclusion.” See 

New American Keg v. United States, No. 20–00008, 2021 WL 1206153, at *6 (CIT 

Mar. 23, 2021). Furthermore, “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions 

from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being 

supported by substantial evidence.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 

F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

In 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); see also Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951) (“The 

substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly 

detracts from its weight.”). The Federal Circuit has described “substantial evidence” 

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 (1938)). 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff Euro SME argues that Commerce’s Final Results should be remanded 

based on the agency’s unlawful application of facts otherwise available and adverse 

inferences. First, Euro SME challenges Commerce’s adjustment of the actual weight 

figures. Pl.’s Br. at 7, ECF No. 23. Second, Plaintiff claims that Commerce’s 

application of adverse inferences to the domestic inland freight costs for U.S. sales 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 19 

was unlawful. Id. at 10. Third, Euro SME alleges that Commerce’s calculation of the 

company’s domestic freight costs reflected a ministerial error. Id. at 15. Euro SME 

claims that it fully cooperated with the agency’s requests throughout the 

investigation and that any discrepancies in its data were because the company does 

not maintain records in the form that the agency requested. Id. at 7; Pl.’s Reply Br. 

at 1–3, ECF No. 28. Euro SME further explains that the agency’s decision to forego 

an on-site verification and instead issue a verification questionnaire hampered its 

ability to clarify any discrepancies. Pl.’s Reply Br. at 9–10, ECF No. 28. Nonetheless, 

the company does not challenge the legality of Commerce’s use of a questionnaire. 

Oral Arg. Tr. 7:3-22, ECF No. 46. Finally, Euro SME disputes Commerce’s finding 

that there was a “gap” in the record to fill with either facts otherwise available or an 

adverse inference. Though some of its figures may have contained errors, the 

company maintains that the same information was provided in different units of 

measurement and that Commerce could have used that data to complete its 

calculation. Pl.’s Br. at 12–15, ECF No. 23; see also Pl.’s Supp. Br. at 3–8, ECF No. 

41. 

I. SUMMARY 

To determine whether Euro SME was selling its subject merchandise at less 

than fair value in the United States, Commerce conducted its investigation using the 

“average-to-average” method. PDM at 3, J.A. at 1,845, ECF No. 33. That method is 

essentially calculating and then comparing the “weighted average” of the company’s 

home market and U.S. sales. 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(d). The data that Commerce draws 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 20 

from in performing its calculation is the data that it receives from responding 

companies. The questionnaires that Commerce sends companies under investigation 

identify what data it needs and in what form. Companies that have been subject to 

regular administrative reviews become familiar with the types of information they 

are expected to keep and provide to the agency. Euro SME and its predecessor 

company, Euro Plastics, have been subject to regular administrative reviews since 

2007.2 

When Commerce determines that parties have failed to provide information 

necessary for its analysis such that information is missing from the record, federal 

law provides a two-part process for the agency to fill the resulting gap. See 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1677e(a). First, Commerce may use “facts otherwise available” in place of the 

missing information if: 

(1) Necessary information is not available on the record, or 

(2) An interested party or any other person — 

(A) Withholds information that has been requested by [Commerce], 

(B) Fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission 

of the information or in the form and manner requested, ... 

(C) Significantly impedes a proceeding under this subtitle, or 

2 Although these prior administrative reviews were not formally entered onto the record, the 

parties agreed at oral argument that the Court could take judicial notice of them for the 

limited purpose of confirming Plaintiff’s participation in prior reviews. Oral Arg. Tr. at 9:15–

11:16, ECF No. 46; see, eg., Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 2005-2006, 72 Fed. Reg. 44,825 (Dep’t of Com. Aug. 

9, 2007) through Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 2018-2019, 86 Fed. Reg. 22,019 (Dep’t of Com. Apr. 

26, 2021). 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 21 

(D) Provides such information but the information cannot be 

verified[.] 

Id. Second, 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) permits those facts otherwise available to be chosen 

with an adverse inference if “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from [Commerce].” 

Although § 1677e(a) and § 1677e(b) are often collapsed into “adverse facts available” 

or “AFA,” the two statutory processes require distinct analyses rather than the single 

analysis implied by the term “AFA.” Commerce first must determine that it is 

missing necessary information; and, if it wishes to fill the resulting gap with facts 

that reflect an adverse inference against an interested party, Commerce must 

secondarily determine that the party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best 

of its ability. See Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co., 652 F.3d at 1346. The Federal 

Circuit has explained that acting to the best of one’s ability involves using “maximum 

effort to provide Commerce with full and complete answers to all inquiries in [its] 

investigation.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 

2003). It also requires companies to “take reasonable steps to keep and maintain full 

and complete records” of their transactions in anticipation of Commerce’s 

administrative reviews. Id.; see also Qingdao Sea-Line Int’l Trading Co. v. United 

States, 503 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1371 (CIT 2021). A company that has been subject to 

many investigations becomes familiar with the types of information Commerce needs, 

making it more difficult to justify a failure to provide the requested information in 

the manner Commerce has consistently requested it. Compare Def.’s Br. at 15, ECF 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 22 

No. 25 (describing the number of annual administrative reviews Euro SME has been 

subject to and, in turn, the company’s familiarity with the process), with Nippon Steel 

Corp., 337 F.3d at 1382 (stating that “inattentiveness, carelessness, or inadequate 

record keeping” all constitute non-compliance and that the standard “assumes that 

importers are familiar with the rules and regulations that apply to the import 

activities undertaken and requires that importers ... take reasonable steps to keep 

and maintain full and complete records documenting the information that a 

reasonable importer should anticipate being called upon to produce[.]”). 

 In response to Commerce’s initial questionnaire and each of its subsequent 

requests for information, Euro SME proffered timely submissions that appeared 

responsive. Only at verification did it emerge that the data Euro SME submitted 

contained errors and discrepancies. After determining that Euro SME’s actual 

weight and inland freight data were unverifiable, Commerce was left with numerous 

gaps in the record. Commerce gave Euro SME opportunities to provide it with 

verifiable data, but Euro SME failed to do so. The agency’s reliance on facts available 

therefore was lawful under the statute. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). 

Commerce then had to consider whether it would go the further step of 

applying an adverse inference based on a finding of non-cooperation. As Commerce 

explained in its Issues and Decision Memo, it found that most discrepancies in Euro 

SME’s data did not “rise to the level of warranting an adverse inference.” IDM at 8, 

J.A. at 2,165, ECF No. 33. However, with one set of figures — the inland freight costs 

for United States sales — the agency found otherwise. The divergence between the 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 23 

data from the company’s records and its verification responses combined with an 

apparent effort to mask those discrepancies constituted a “fail[ure] to cooperate” 

warranting the application of an adverse inference. Id. at 11–14, J.A. at 2,168–71; 

see 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1) (allowing the drawing of an adverse inference where a 

party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information”). Commerce’s limited finding of non-cooperation regarding 

specific discrepancies in Euro SME’s submission was similarly lawful. It adequately 

explained in the Issues and Decision Memo what distinguished those discrepancies 

from others where it declined to apply an adverse inference. IDM at 13, J.A. at 2,170, 

ECF No. 33. Because Commerce’s actions were supported by substantial evidence, 

the Court will SUSTAIN Commerce’s determination. 

II. COMMERCE’S RELIANCE ON FACTS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE 

Under the statute, Commerce may “use the facts otherwise available” in an 

administrative review if information is not available on the record or if a party 

withholds requested information, fails to provide information “in the form and 

manner requested,” significantly impedes the review, or if the information cannot be 

verified. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a). The existence of a “gap” in the record, such that 

Commerce must look elsewhere for the information, is a prerequisite for the use of 

facts otherwise available. Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co., 652 F.3d at 1346. 

Euro SME argues that none of the preconditions required by the statute are 

present here because the data that the company provided, though imperfect, could 

have been used to calculate the company’s margins. Pl.’s Reply Br. at 8–9, ECF No. 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 24 

28; Oral Arg. Tr. at 29:6-10, ECF No. 46. According to Euro SME, “there were no 

gaps in the data, just several different versions of the data presented in different 

forms in accordance with Commerce’s various requirements” so that Commerce was 

not permitted to use facts otherwise available. Pl.’s Reply Br. at 8–9, ECF No. 28. At 

oral argument, Plaintiff conceded that “there’s a gap on the record with regard to 

actual weight” but maintained that, because it provided the same information in 

other forms, i.e., in standard weight and number of bags, “the Department could have 

used that information and avoided” any gap. Oral Arg. Tr. at 29:6-10, ECF No. 46. 

The Government responds that Plaintiff’s unverifiable data created a gap that needed 

to be filled by the agency in order to complete its calculations. Id. at 31:4–32:8. 

Both parties reiterate these positions in their supplemental briefing. Euro 

SME argues that it is in the same position as the plaintiff in Zhejiang and that no 

“gap” existed for Commerce to fill. See Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co., 652 F.3d 

at 1348. The Government contests that claim, arguing that several data sets, such 

as sales expenses in both the Malaysian and U.S. markets, were reported only on an 

actual weight basis and proved unverifiable. Def.’s Supp. Br. at 4–5, ECF No. 44. 

The Government explains: 

[F]or sales expenses, Euro SME reported its relevant 

numbers ... solely on a per-kilogram actual weight basis .... 

That is similarly true for the gross unit price variable, 

which Euro SME reported only on an actual weight and per 

carton basis .... The consistent metric unifying these salesrelated variables is that Euro SME reported those 

expenses to Commerce using actual weight .... Thus, when 

Commerce was unable to verify the actual weight data that 

Euro SME had provided in support of these responses, it 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 25 

concluded that there was a gap in the record that prevented 

it from conducting its calculations[.] 

Id. (emphasis in the original); see also IDM at 5–8, J.A. at 2,162–2,165, ECF No. 33. 

In Zhejiang, the Federal Circuit held that Commerce’s reliance on facts 

available was unlawful — despite the discrepancies in the company’s records — 

because the data Commerce needed in verifiable form was available elsewhere in the 

record. Thus, the Federal Circuit held there was no “gap” to fill; the agency simply 

had to look elsewhere in the company’s submissions to find the data it needed. 

Zhejiang, 652 F.3d at 1348. Here, as the agency explained in its Issues and Decision 

Memo, its reliance on facts available was a result of its inability to perform the margin 

calculation because of an absence of verifiable data. 

In its initial questionnaire, Commerce requested data related to the quantities 

of merchandise Euro SME sold in the United States and in the company’s Malaysian 

home market. Initial Questionnaire, J.A. at 1,050–1,207, ECF No. 33. Euro SME 

responded with various documents from both markets, including sample invoices and 

packing lists. Euro SME Sec. A Resp. at Ex. 1, 6, 7, J.A. at 80,028, 80,046–63, ECF 

No. 31. What the invoices reflect is that Euro SME quantifies its merchandise by the 

number of units (bags), the number of cartons, and the number of units in each carton. 

Euro SME Sec. A Resp. at Ex. 6, 7, J.A. at 80,047, 80,053, ECF No. 31; see also Pl.’s 

Brief at 8, ECF No. 23. Weight does not appear on the invoices because “Euro SME 

does not sell to the customer by weight in any way[.]” Pl.’s Br. at 8, ECF No. 23. 

However, weight does appear on the company’s packing lists. Plaintiff explains that 

the weights that appear on those documents are calculated by multiplying the 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 26 

“standard weight per carton” by the number of cartons in the sale — not by 

individually weighing each carton. Id. Standard weight therefore represents, at best, 

an average. Euro SME provided Commerce with actual weights, but those actual 

weights also were more of an average. It weighed one carton from each sale shipment 

and multiplied that weight by the total number of cartons in the shipment to arrive 

at the “actual weight.” Id. at 10; Oral Arg. Tr. at 22:8-16, ECF No. 46. Euro SME 

concedes that “variations between standard weight and actual weight can result in 

discrepancies to some degree, since actual weights and standard weights may 

differ[.]” Pl.’s Br. at 11, ECF No. 23. However, the company insists that “on an 

aggregate basis” those discrepancies are “immaterial” and do not evince any “attempt 

by Euro SME to manipulate or misrepresent its reported quantity information[.]” Id. 

Although it may be true that Commerce could have conducted its calculation 

with a full and verifiable dataset of either the actual or standard weight, it had 

neither. Instead, the agency had some data in the form of standard and actual weight 

and other data only in terms of actual weight, which proved impossible to verify. IDM 

at 6–8, J.A. at 2,163–65, ECF No. 33 (discussing which units Commerce had for each 

data set, and which of those data sets the agency was able to verify). No conversion 

ratio appears in the record, meaning that Commerce could not convert unverifiable 

data into a different measurement unit such as standard weight or number of bags. 

Id. at 8, J.A. at 2,165; Def.’s Br. at 14–15, ECF No. 25; see also Oral Arg. Tr. at 44:13–

45:1, ECF No. 46. Euro SME is an experienced participant in administrative reviews. 

That is why it sought to proffer its data in terms of actual weight without being 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 27 

prompted by Commerce: It was the same metric requested and used in past reviews. 

Def.’s Br. at 15, ECF No. 25. Compare Initial Questionnaire at B-16–17, J.A. at 

1,097–98, ECF No. 33 (Commerce requesting quantity data without any further 

specification), with Initial Questionnaire Resp. at 14, J.A. 1,352, ECF No. 33 (Euro 

SME providing the data in “actual weight”). Experienced respondents are expected 

to maintain their books in a manner that permits Commerce to glean the necessary 

data for its analysis. Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003). By its own admission, Euro SME failed to do so and instead sought to 

use averages instead of actual weights. Oral Arg. Tr. at 25:11–26:20, ECF No. 46 

(Plaintiff’s counsel explaining how the “actual weights” were calculated by 

extrapolating from a single carton’s weight rather than weighing each carton.). 

When Euro SME’s actual weight data failed to verify, Commerce had a gap to fill. See 

19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)(2)(D) (failure of information to verify permits Commerce to 

resort to facts available). Because the actual weight figures proffered by Euro SME 

proved unverifiable and no other complete data set appeared on the record that would 

allow Commerce to convert the data into a consistent unit of measurement, 

Commerce lawfully resorted to the use of facts available to adjust the actual weight 

data. IDM at 6–8, J.A. at 2,163–65, ECF No. 33. 

III. COMMERCE’S APPLICATION OF ADVERSE INERENCES TO 

DOMESTIC INLAND FREIGHT COSTS FOR U.S. SALES 

Under the statute, Commerce may only apply an adverse inference against a 

party after first determining that there is a gap in the record and then separately 

finding that the party has “failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 28 

to comply with a request for information.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b). The inference 

that Commerce draws must be selected “from among the facts otherwise available.” 

Id. Commerce is not required to make any determination or adjustment “based on 

any assumptions about information the interested party would have provided if the 

interested party had complied with the request for information.” Id. § 1677e(b)(1)(B). 

The Government argues that Euro SME’s repeated failure to provide verifiable 

data for its inland freight costs associated with its United States sales justified its 

application of an adverse inference under the statute. Commerce recalls that “Euro 

SME’s domestic inland freight data for U.S. sales could not be verified” and that “Euro 

SME had repeatedly failed to act to the best of its ability and seemingly tried to mask 

material discrepancies between the figures it reported and its own back-up 

documents.” Def.’s Br. at 7, ECF No. 25. Those allegations refer to Euro SME’s 

response to the verification questionnaire and the supporting documents the 

company offered to explain the data. Commerce found that the figures Euro SME 

offered to support its data for the randomly selected sales did not match the numbers 

the company proffered in its initial questionnaire response. IDM at 10, J.A. at 2,167, 

ECF No. 33. Though the company offered “some narrative discussion of how the 

documents supported what was reported in the database[,]” that explanation “fail[ed] 

to explain how the freight costs were allocated to the associated transactions[.]” Id. 

Commerce found that Euro SME attempted to mask material discrepancies with 

handwritten notations that appeared on the attached supporting documents. Those 

notations “assigned any variance to non-selected transactions so that the selected 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 29 

transaction would appear consistent with Euro SME’s freight invoices[.]” Id. The 

agency argues that the application of an adverse inference was appropriate because 

Commerce had sent Euro SME “clear and repeated requests ... to correct noted 

discrepancies,” and Euro SME “made no serious effort” to do so. Def.’s Br. at 21–22, 

ECF No. 25. 

Euro SME disputes the allegation, claiming that “the administrative record is 

replete with evidence that Euro SME cooperated to the best of its ability at all times 

in the underlying administrative review[.]” Pl.’s Reply Br. at 3, ECF No. 28. It insists 

that the circumstances surrounding the Covid-19 Pandemic, which prevented an onsite verification, deprived the company of the opportunity to participate in a process 

with the agency whereby “those gaps [in the record] could have been fully explained 

and digested by Commerce officials[.]” Id. at 4. Plaintiff argues that “pre-verification 

preparations routinely involve making notations (handwritten or otherwise) on 

photocopies of sales and/or other internal records highlighting reconciling figures for 

ease of reference and to expedite the on-site verification process.” Id. at 6. The 

Government’s claims that the notations are indicative of an attempt to “mask” issues 

in the company’s data reveals, according to Euro SME, “a fundamental 

misunderstanding about how the on-site verification process usually works.” Id. at 5. 

At oral argument, Euro SME clarified that it did not object to the agency’s use 

of a verification questionnaire in lieu of an on-site verification but rather wanted to 

highlight the inherent shortcomings of that alternative verification method. Oral 

Arg. Tr. 7:3-22, ECF No. 46. It also clarified that its primary objection to the 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 30 

application of adverse inferences to the U.S. sales data was the inconsistency with 

Commerce’s finding that other, similar discrepancies that appeared in the home 

market sales data did not demonstrate a failure to cooperate. Id. at 55:11-15; see also 

id. at 57:24–58:23 (responding “[c]orrect” when asked if it was true that the company 

highlighted the agency’s action to demonstrate that “the calculations for inland 

freight expenses in the home market and what [they] did with domestic inland freight 

expenses for United States sales [were] apples to apples ... and yet [were] being 

treated differently”). Plaintiff argues that this differential treatment — whereby one 

discrepancy is found not to demonstrate a lack of cooperation while a similar 

discrepancy with another data set warrants the drawing of an adverse inference — 

constitutes an arbitrary and unlawful application of adverse inferences. Id.

In its Issues and Decision Memo, Commerce adequately explained the basis for 

its differential treatment of the discrepancies that appeared in Euro SME’s inland 

freight expenses for home market sales and the larger inconsistency that it found in 

the U.S. sales data. Commerce explained, “Unlike the variances relating to inland 

freight in the home market, which were generally very small or could be explained by 

rounding differences, the variance between the supporting documentation and the 

domestic inland freight expenses reported in the database for the three U.S. sales 

traces were not immaterial.” IDM at 13, J.A. at 2,170, ECF No. 33. “Under the 

arbitrary and capricious standard, the court ... determine[s] whether an agency’s 

decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has 

been a clear error of judgment.” Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 31 

States, 38 CIT 448, 456 n.27 (2014) (internal citations omitted). Here, Commerce 

explained the basis for its differential treatment of the various discrepancies that 

appeared in Euro SME’s data. Where discrepancies were small and could potentially 

be explained by rounding, Commerce found drawing an adverse inference was 

unwarranted. IDM at 10– 11, J.A. at 2,167– 68, ECF No. 33. Where the discrepancy 

was larger, could not be explained by rounding, and included handwritten notations 

that appeared designed to obscure the discrepancy’s origin, Commerce did apply an 

adverse inference. Id. at 11–14, J.A. at 2,168–71. The Court finds that Commerce 

considered all relevant factors, drew a rational distinction based on the relative size 

of the discrepancies, and supported its determination with substantial evidence. 

Consequently, the Court will not second guess Commerce’s application of an adverse 

inference to the largest discrepancy within the U.S. freight expense data set. 

IV. MINISTERIAL ERROR 

The final issue for the Court’s review is Euro SME’s ministerial error 

allegation. Pl.’s Br. at 15, ECF No. 23. 19 U.S.C. § 1675(h) requires Commerce to 

“establish procedures for the correction of ministerial errors ... [which] shall ensure 

opportunity for interested parties to present their views regarding any such errors.” 

The same statute defines a ministerial error as “an error in addition, subtraction, or 

other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error[.]” Id.; see 

also 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(f). Commerce’s regulations implementing the statute 

mandate that “[c]omments concerning ministerial errors made in the preliminary 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 32 

results of a review should be included in a party’s case brief.” 19 C.F.R. § 

351.224(c)(1). Parties may submit case briefs to the agency “30 days after the date of 

publication of the preliminary results of review[.]” 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(1)(ii). “The 

case brief must present all arguments that continue in the submitter’s view to be 

relevant to the [agency’s] final determination[.]” Id. § (c)(2). Requiring ministerial 

errors that appear in the preliminary results to be raised in the party’s case brief 

ensures that other parties have an opportunity to respond to the allegation and that 

Commerce is able to “analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any 

significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination or ... the 

final determination[.]” 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(e). 

Euro SME declined to submit a case brief after Commerce’s publication of the 

preliminary results. Def.’s Resp. Br. at 28 n.9, ECF No. 25. After the Committee 

submitted a brief to the agency, however, Euro SME submitted a rebuttal brief in 

which it responded to issues raised in the Committee’s brief and attempted to raise 

for the first time its allegation of a ministerial error. Id.; see also J.A. at 82,244, ECF 

No. 31. Because rebuttal briefs “may respond only to arguments raised in case briefs” 

and are barred from raising new issues, Commerce rejected Euro SME’s submission 

and required it to resubmit its rebuttal with the ministerial error allegation redacted. 

See 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(d)(2). Following Commerce’s publication of the Final Results, 

Euro SME again tried to raise its ministerial error allegation. On March 7, 2022, the 

company submitted a brief alleging that Commerce erred in its Final Results by 

capping the company’s freight revenue expenses. Commerce had only included the 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 33 

international freight expenses associated with the reviewed transactions. Euro SME 

Ministerial Error Memo at 2, J.A. at 82,767, ECF No. 31. Euro SME argued that it 

should have also included the freight expenses incurred within the United States to 

transport the goods to their final destination. Plaintiff’s data had included those 

United States transportation expenses, and omitting the expenses resulted in a 

deceptively low expense calculation from which to compare Plaintiff’s production 

expenses. The result is a potentially inaccurately high dumping margin. Id. 

Commerce filed its response to the allegation on March 29, 2022, arguing that 

Euro SME failed to raise the issue in a timely fashion and thereby forfeited the 

objection. Commerce Resp. to Ministerial Error at 3–4, J.A. 2,226–27, ECF No. 33. 

Citing 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(c)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2), Commerce found that 

parties alleging ministerial error in the preliminary results must do so in their case 

briefs to the agency. Id. at 3, J.A. at 2,226. Euro SME declined to submit any initial 

case brief following the agency’s publication of its Preliminary Results. That left Euro 

SME only the post-Final Results process to raise its objection. Once again, the 

complaint was untimely because 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(c)(1) requires parties to raise 

any issues that are detectable in the Preliminary Results in their initial case briefs. 

The Committee agrees with the Government that Euro SME’s failure to timely 

raise its allegation constitutes forfeiture, but it also presents an alternative basis on 

which to uphold Commerce’s decision. It argues that “the alleged error is not 

‘ministerial’ in nature” but is instead “a factual and methodological question.” Def.-

Int.’s Br. at 10, ECF No. 27. Noting that ministerial errors can only be errors “in 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 34 

addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from 

inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like[,]” the Committee posits that Commerce’s 

decision not to include certain categories of expenses cannot be a ministerial error. 

See 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(f). Methodological choices are not unintentional errors and 

therefore cannot be raised using the ministerial error process. 

The Court agrees that the allegation was both untimely and not properly 

characterized as “ministerial.” When faced with a similar question, the Federal 

Circuit has held that the inclusion or exclusion of certain figures in a calculation that 

are “not an arithmetic or clerical error or similar inadvertent mistake ... do[] not fall 

within the statutory definition of ‘ministerial error.’” QVD Food Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 658 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In QVD Food, the plaintiff filed a 

ministerial error allegation following the publication of Commerce’s Final Results, 

alleging that the agency had mistakenly “double counted” certain expenses in its 

calculations. Id. at 1322. On appeal, the court rejected its allegation on two separate 

grounds. First, the Federal Circuit held that, by failing to raise its concern regarding 

Commerce’s calculation before the publication of the Final Results, QVD had forfeited 

the issue. Id. at 1328. “[W]hen the alleged mistake was discoverable during earlier 

proceedings but was not pointed out to Commerce during the time period specified by 

regulation,” it may not be raised after the publication of the Final Results as a 

ministerial error. See id. (noting that the alleged error was “necessarily present in 

the preliminary results,” yet the plaintiff did not object in its case brief). Second, even 

if QVD had not forfeited its claim, the Federal Circuit explained that the alleged error 
Court No. 1:22-cv-00108 (SAV) Page 35 

was not ministerial. Citing the statutory definition, it held that Commerce’s decision 

to include certain figures in its calculation “is not an arithmetic or clerical error or 

similar inadvertent mistake” and therefore could not qualify as a “ministerial error.” 

Id.

The present case is on all fours with QVD Foods. Like QVD, Euro SME 

forfeited its allegation by opting not to file a case brief following Commerce’s 

publication of the Preliminary Results. See id. (holding that, where an error is 

discoverable in the Preliminary Results, parties must raise it in their brief to 

Commerce). However, even if Euro SME had timely field its allegation, its claim 

would still fail because the methodological decision made by Commerce to exclude 

certain costs in its calculations is not “an arithmetic or clerical error or similar 

inadvertent mistake[.]”3 See id. (holding that “methodological” choices are not 

ministerial errors). As both grounds support Commerce’s rejection of Euro SME’s 

allegation, the Court SUSTAINS Commerce’s determination. 

CONCLUSION 

Euro SME alleges that Commerce threw the book at it. Instead, Commerce 

acted with deliberation, patience, and arguably stayed its hand when it could have 

drawn adverse inferences more broadly against such a seasoned respondent. For the 

reasons set forth above, the Court SUSTAINS Commerce’s Final Results as 

3 Consideration of whether the allegation made by Euro SME constitutes a “ministerial error” 

is resolvable as a pure question of law because the question is purely legal in nature, requires 

no further development of the record or any additional agency action, and it does not result 

in undue delay or expenditure of resources. See Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 605 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1366 (CIT 2022); see also Husteel Co. v. United States, 426 F. 

Supp 3d 1376, 1382 n.5 (CIT 2020). 

6OLS2S1R

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

(85260(6'1%+'

Plaintiff

Y

81,7('67$7(6

Defendant, 

and 

32/<(7+</(1( 5(7$,/ &$55,(5

%$*&200,77((+,/(;32/<&2

//&DQG683(5%$*&253

Defendant-Intervenors

%HIRUH6WHSKHQ$OH[DQGHU9DGHQ

-XGJH

&RXUW1RFY6$9

OPINION 

>6XVWDLQLQJ&RPPHUFH·V)LQDO'HWHUPLQDWLRQ@

         'DWHG)HEUXDU\

Kelly Slater $SSOHWRQ/XII3WH/WGRI:DVKLQJWRQ'&IRU3ODLQWLII(XUR60(6GQ

%KG:LWKKHURQWKHEULHIZHUHJay Y. NeeDQGEdmund W. Sim

Meen Geu Oh6HQLRU7ULDO&RXQVHO86'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFHRI:DVKLQJWRQ'&

IRU 'HIHQGDQW 8QLWHG 6WDWHV:LWK KLP RQ WKH EULHI ZHUHBrendan S. Saslow DQG

Kenneth G. Kays2I&RXQVHO86'HSDUWPHQWRI&RPPHUFH

Daniel L. Schneiderman.LQJ	6SDOGLQJ//3RI:DVKLQJWRQ'&IRU'HIHQGDQW

,QWHUYHQRUV3RO\HWK\OHQH5HWDLO&DUULHU%DJ&RPPLWWHH+LOH[3RO\&R//&DQG

6XSHUEDJ&RUS:LWKKLPRQWKHEULHIZDVJ. Michael Taylor
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

Vaden, Judge 3ODLQWLII (XUR 60( 6GQ %KG (XUR 60( RU 3ODLQWLII D

0DOD\VLDQPDQXIDFWXUHURISDFNDJLQJSURGXFWVFRPHVEHIRUHWKH&RXUWWRFKDOOHQJH

WKH'HSDUWPHQWRI&RPPHUFH·V&RPPHUFH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH5HYLHZRILWV

DQWLGXPSLQJ GXW\ RUGHU RQ UHWDLO EDJV IURP 0DOD\VLD  Retail Carrier Bags from 

Malaysia  )HG 5HJ  'HS·W RI &RP 0DU    ,Q LWV 0RWLRQ IRU

-XGJPHQW RQ WKH $JHQF\ 5HFRUG 3ODLQWLII DUJXHV WKDW &RPPHUFH·V )LQDO 5HVXOWV

PXVWEHUHPDQGHGEHFDXVHVXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHGRHVQRWVXSSRUWLWVILQGLQJVSee 

generally3O·V%U(&)1R(XUR60(DOOHJHVWKDWWKHDJHQF\XQODZIXOO\UHOLHG

RQIDFWVDYDLODEOHWRDGMXVWWKHDFWXDOZHLJKWTXDQWLWLHVLQ(XUR60(·VGDWDId.DW

2,WIXUWKHUFRQWHVWV&RPPHUFH·VUHOLDQFHRQDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHWRGHWHUPLQH

FHUWDLQ LQODQG IUHLJKW H[SHQVH GDWD IRU 86 VDOHV WKDW WKH DJHQF\ GHHPHG

XQYHULILDEOHId.DW2)LQDOO\(XUR60(FRQWHQGVWKDWWKHDJHQF\VKRXOGKDYH

FRUUHFWHGDPLQLVWHULDOHUURUWKDW3ODLQWLIIEURXJKWWRLWVDWWHQWLRQEXWWKDW&RPPHUFH

UHMHFWHGDVXQWLPHO\Id.DW2)RUWKHUHDVRQVVHWIRUWKEHORZ3ODLQWLII·V0RWLRQ

IRU-XGJPHQWRQWKH$JHQF\5HFRUGLVDENIEDDQG&RPPHUFH·V)LQDO5HVXOWVDUH

SUSTAINED

BACKGROUND 

,Q $XJXVW  &RPPHUFH SXEOLVKHG DQ DQWLGXPSLQJ GXW\ RUGHU RQ UHWDLO

FDUULHUEDJV LPSRUWHG IURP0DOD\VLDRetail Carrier Bags from Malaysia)HG

5HJ 'HSW RI&RP$XJ 2UGHU7KH2UGHUSULPDULO\FRYHUV WKH

XELTXLWRXVSODVWLFJURFHU\EDJVWKDWKHOSVKHSKHUGRXUSXUFKDVHVKRPH&RPPHUFH
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

SXEOLVKHGLWVDQQXDOQRWLFHRIRSSRUWXQLW\WRUHTXHVWDQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZRIWKH

2UGHULQ$XJXVW1RWLFHRI2SSRUWXQLW\-$DW2(&)1Rsee also

86&D,QUHVSRQVH'HIHQGDQW,QWHUYHQRUWKH3RO\HWK\OHQH5HWDLO

&DUULHU%DJ&RPPLWWHHWKH&RPPLWWHHUHTXHVWHGDQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZRI(XUR

60(DOOHJLQJWKDWWKHFRPSDQ\ ́PD\KDYHSURGXFHGRUH[SRUWHGVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVH

WKDW ZDV VROG LQWR WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DW OHVV WKDQ IDLU YDOXH GXULQJ WKH SHULRG RI

UHYLHZμ5HTIRU$GPLQ5HYLHZ-$DW2(&)1R&RPPHUFHFRQILUPHG

WKDW LW ZRXOG FRQGXFW DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ RI (XUR 60(·V DFWLYLWLHV EHWZHHQ

$XJXVW   DQG -XO\   Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Admin. Reviews)HG5HJ2'HS·WRI&RP2FW

2Q 2FWREHU   &RPPHUFH VHQW D OHWWHU WR (XUR 60( LQIRUPLQJ WKH

FRPSDQ\ WKDW LW ZDV LQLWLDWLQJ DQ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR ZKHWKHU LW KDG LPSRUWHG RU

SURGXFHGPHUFKDQGLVHWKDWZDVWKHQVROGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVIRUOHVVWKDQIDLUYDOXH

1RWLFHRI,QYHVWLJDWLRQDW2-$DW2(&)1R&RPPHUFHH[SODLQHG

WKDWDIDLOXUHWRUHVSRQGWRWKHUHTXHVWIRULQIRUPDWLRQ ́PD\UHVXOWLQWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ

RISDUWLDORUWRWDO IDFWVDYDLODEOHSXUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQDRIWKH$FWZKLFKPD\

LQFOXGHDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHVSXUVXDQWWRVHFWLRQERIWKH$FWμId.DW2-$DW

2$WWDFKHGWRWKHOHWWHUZDVDTXHVWLRQQDLUHFRPSULVHGRIILYHSDUWVZKLFK

&RPPHUFH UHTXHVWHG (XUR 60( FRPSOHWH DV SDUW RI WKH UHYLHZ  ,QLWLDO

4XHVWLRQQDLUH-$ DW2(&)1R7KHTXHVWLRQVUHIOHFWHGWKHW\SHRI

LQIRUPDWLRQWKHDJHQF\ZRXOGQHHGLQRUGHUWRFRQGXFWDFRPSDULVRQRI(XUR60(·V

VDOHVLQLWVKRPHPDUNHWRI0DOD\VLDDQGWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

7KHPHWKRG WKDW &RPPHUFH XVHG WR UXQ WKDW DQDO\VLV ZDV WKH  ́DYHUDJHWR

DYHUDJHPHWKRGμ3UHOLP'HWHUPLQDWLRQ0HPRDW-$DW(&)1Rsee 

also &)5  E7KH DYHUDJHWRDYHUDJHPHWKRG LV RQH RI WKH WKUHH

DSSURYHGPHWKRGRORJLHVIRU&RPPHUFHWRFRPSDUHVXEMHFWFRPSDQLHV·VDOHVLQWKHLU

KRPHPDUNHWDQGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV&)5E7KHSXUSRVHRIWKH

FRPSDULVRQ LV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH VXEMHFW PHUFKDQGLVH LV EHLQJ VROG LQ WKH

8QLWHG6WDWHVIRU OHVVWKDQIDLUYDOXH2IWKHWKUHHDSSURYHGPHWKRGVWKHDJHQF\

HPSOR\V WKH DYHUDJHWRDYHUDJH DSSURDFK  ́XQOHVV >&RPPHUFH@ GHWHUPLQHV DQRWKHU

PHWKRG LV DSSURSULDWH LQ D SDUWLFXODU FDVHμ   &)5  F see also 

Dillinger France S.A. v. United States)GQ)HG&LU7KH

DYHUDJHWRDYHUDJHPHWKRGLVFRQGXFWHGE\ ́FRPSDU>LQJ@WKHZHLJKWHGDYHUDJHRIWKH

UHVSRQGHQW·VVDOHVSULFHVLQLWVKRPHFRXQWU\GXULQJWKHLQYHVWLJDWLRQSHULRGWRWKH

ZHLJKWHG DYHUDJH RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW·V VDOHV SULFHV LQ WKH8QLWHG 6WDWHV GXULQJ WKH

VDPHSHULRGμStupp Corp. v. United States,)WK)HG&LU see 

also  &)5  G  7R SHUIRUP WKH FDOFXODWLRQ &RPPHUFH PXVW ILUVW

FROOHFWWKHFRPSDQ\·VFRVWDQGVDOHVGDWDIRUERWKWKHKRPHPDUNHWDQGWKH8QLWHG

6WDWHV

&RPPHUFH VHQW LWV LQLWLDO TXHVWLRQQDLUH RQ 2FWREHU    1RWLFH RI

,QYHVWLJDWLRQDW2-$DW2(&)1R6HFWLRQ%IRFXVHGRQWKHGDWD

UHODWHG WR (XUR 60(·V KRPH PDUNHW VDOHV 6HFWLRQ & SRVHG WKH VDPH TXHVWLRQV

FRQFHUQLQJWKHFRPSDQ\·VVDOHVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQG6HFWLRQ'LQTXLUHGDERXW

WKHFRVWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHSURGXFWLRQRIWKHVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVHId.DW2 
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

,QLWLDO4XHVWLRQQDLUH6HFWLRQ%&'-$DW(&)1R,QERWK

6HFWLRQV%DQG&&RPPHUFH LQVWUXFWHG(XUR60(WRUHSRUW ́WKHVDOHTXDQWLW\ IRU

>HDFK@ WUDQVDFWLRQμ DQG H[SODLQHG WKDW WKH HQWU\ VKRXOG EH  ́WKH TXDQWLW\ RI WKH

VSHFLILFVKLSPHQWRULQYRLFHOLQHμRIHDFKFRUUHVSRQGLQJVDOH Id.DW%&-$

DW )RUDOOWKHGDWD(XUR60(VXEPLWWHG&RPPHUFHDOVRUHTXLUHGWKH

FRPSDQ\ WR SURYLGH VXSSRUWLQJ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ Id. DW * -$ DW  2Q WKH

LQVWUXFWLRQVVKHHW&RPPHUFHVWDWHGWKDWWKHFRPSDQ\ZDVWR ́LGHQWLI\DOOXQLWVRI

PHDVXUHPHQWμXVHGLQLWV ́QDUUDWLYHUHVSRQVHZRUNVKHHWVRURWKHUDSSHQGLFHVμDQG

WKDWLWPXVW ́FRPSOHWH$SSHQGL[9,,ZKLFKLVDWHPSODWHSURYLGLQJDVWDQGDUGIRUPDW

IRUUHSRUWLQJWKHXQLWVRIPHDVXUHPHQWFXUUHQFLHVDQGFRQYHUVLRQIDFWRUVμId. 7KH

LQVWUXFWLRQVDOVRQRWHGWKDW ́DOOLQIRUPDWLRQVXEPLWWHGPD\EHVXEMHFWWRYHULILFDWLRQμ

DQG WKDW D  ́IDLOXUH WR DOORZ IXOO DQG FRPSOHWH YHULILFDWLRQ RIDQ\ LQIRUPDWLRQPD\

DIIHFWWKHFRQVLGHUDWLRQDFFRUGHGWRWKDWRUDQ\RWKHUYHULILHGRUQRQYHULILHGLWHPLQ

WKHUHVSRQVHVμId.DW*-$DW

(XUR 60( SURYLGHG WLPHO\ UHVSRQVHV WR WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH VXEPLWWLQJ LWV

UHVSRQVHWR6HFWLRQ$RQ1RYHPEHUDQGWR6HFWLRQV%&DQG'RQ'HFHPEHU

(XUR60(6HFW$5HVS-$DW(&)1R(XUR60(6HFV%&'

5HVSV -$ DW  (&) 1R   ,Q LWV QDUUDWLYH UHVSRQVH H[SODLQLQJ WKH

TXDQWLWLHVDQGXQLWVRIPHDVXUHPHQWIRULWVVDOHVGDWD(XUR60(VWDWHGWKDWLWZDV

UHSRUWLQJERWKVWDQGDUGDQGDFWXDOZHLJKWVLQNLORJUDPVDQGWKDWWKH\LQFOXGHG ́ERWK

IRUUHFRQFLOLDWLRQSXUSRVHV>@μ6HFV%&'5HVSDW-$DW(&)1R

(XUR60(DGGHGWKDWLW ́DOVRUHSRUWHGTXDQWLW\LQFDUWRQV«DQGTXDQWLW\LQ
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

EDJV>@μId.7KHFRPSDQ\SURYLGHGWKHVDPHQDUUDWLYHH[SODQDWLRQLQ6HFWLRQ&ZKHQ

DVNHGDERXWWKHTXDQWLWLHVRILWVVDOHVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVId.DW-$DW

$WRUDODUJXPHQWFRXQVHOIRU(XUR60(H[SODLQHGWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHILJXUHV

 ́6WDQGDUG ZHLJKWμ UHIHUV WR DQ DSSUR[LPDWHG ZHLJKW RI WKH EDJV  ́EDVHG RQ WKH

WKLFNQHVVWKHOHQJWKWKHZLGWKWKHGHSWKRIWKHEDJμDQGRWKHUPHWULFVZKLOH ́DFWXDO

ZHLJKWμUHIHUVWRH[DFWO\WKDW3WKHZHLJKWRIWKHEDJVZKHQWKRVHEDJVDUHZHLJKHG

2UDO$UJ7UDW22(&)1R+RZHYHU(XUR60(H[SODLQHGWKDW

WKH ́DFWXDOZHLJKWVμLWVXEPLWWHGZHUHQRWEDVHGRQDOLWHUDOZHLJKLQJRIHDFKFDUWRQ

DVWKHGHILQLWLRQRIWKHWHUPZRXOGVXJJHVW,QVWHDGWKHFRPSDQ\ZHLJKHGDVLQJOH

FDUWRQIURPHDFKVKLSPHQWDQGWKHQPXOWLSOLHGWKHZHLJKWRIWKDWRQHFDUWRQE\WKH

WRWDOQXPEHURIFDUWRQVLQWKHVDOHWRDUULYHDWWKH ́DFWXDOZHLJKWμId.DW

7KHGDWD3ODLQWLIISURIIHUHGDV ́DFWXDOZHLJKWμZDVWKHUHIRUHDQDYHUDJHEDVHGRQD

UDQGRPVDPSOLQJUDWKHUWKDQWKHDFWXDOZHLJKWRIWKHSURGXFWIRUHDFKVDOH

:KHQVXSSO\LQJLWVVWDQGDUGZHLJKWDQG ́DFWXDOZHLJKWμGDWD(XUR60(GLG

QRW PDNH DQ\ REMHFWLRQ WR &RPPHUFH·V UHTXHVW IRU  ́WKH TXDQWLW\ RI WKH VSHFLILF

VKLSPHQW>@μQRUGLGLWH[SUHVVDQ\FRQFHUQDERXWLWVDELOLW\WRSURYLGHWKHUHTXHVWHG

GDWD6HF%&'5HVSDW-$DW(&)1Rsee also,VVXHV

DQG'HFLVLRQ0HPR,'0DW-$DW(&)1R ́$W&RPPHUFH·VUHTXHVW

(XUR60(UHSRUWHGWKHDFWXDOZHLJKW IRUHDFKWUDQVDFWLRQHYHQWKRXJK LWGRHVQRW

UHFRUG WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ GXULQJ WKH RUGLQDU\ FRXUVH RI EXVLQHVV  7KHUH ZDV QR

LQGLFDWLRQ LQ WKHUHFRUGSULRU WRYHULILFDWLRQ WKDW WKHUHPD\EHDQ LVVXHZLWK(XUR

60(·V UHSRUWLQJ>@μ  $W WKH HQG RI WKH QDUUDWLYH SRUWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ %&' RI WKH
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

TXHVWLRQQDLUH (XUR 60( SURYLGHG &RPPHUFH ZLWK D VHULHV RI DWWDFKPHQWV DQG

VXSSRUWLQJ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ  ([KLELW  FRQWDLQHG (XUR 60(·V +RPH 0DUNHW 6DOHV

/LVWLQJDQG([KLELWFRQWDLQHGLWV866DOHV/LVWLQJ,QERWKH[KLELWVLWSURYLGHG

IRXUPHDVXUHPHQWV IRU WKH TXDQWLW\ RI VDOHV LQ WKH UHVSHFWLYHPDUNHWV  VWDQGDUG

ZHLJKWDFWXDOZHLJKWQXPEHURIFDUWRQVDQGSHUEDJV6HF%&'5HVSDW([

 ([  -$ DW 2 2 (&) 1R   2Q 6HSWHPEHU  

&RPPHUFHSXEOLVKHGLWV3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWVDQG3UHOLPLQDU\'HFLVLRQ0HPR3'0

Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia)HG5HJ'HS·WRI&RP6HSW

3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWV3UHOLPLQDU\ ,VVXHVDQG'HFLVLRQ0HPR 'HS·W RI&RP$XJ

-$2(&)1R,WFDOFXODWHGDGXPSLQJPDUJLQRIDQG

FRQFOXGHGWKDW ́VDOHVRISRO\HWK\OHQHUHWDLOFDUULHUEDJV«ZHUHQRWPDGHDWOHVVWKDQ

QRUPDO YDOXHGXULQJ WKHSHULRG RIUHYLHZ>@μ3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWV)HG5HJDW



,Q OLHX RI SHUIRUPLQJ DQ RQVLWH YHULILFDWLRQ &RPPHUFH VHQW (XUR 60( D

YHULILFDWLRQTXHVWLRQQDLUH,/29RQ2FWREHUUHTXHVWLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQWR

VXSSRUWWKHLQIRUPDWLRQWKHFRPSDQ\KDGUHSRUWHGHDUOLHULQFOXGLQJWKHTXDQWLWLHV

RILWVPHUFKDQGLVHVROGDQGLWVIUHLJKWFRVWV,/295HTXHVWIRU,QIRUPDWLRQ-$DW

2(&)1R7RYHULI\WKHVDOHVGDWD&RPPHUFHUDQGRPO\VHOHFWHGVL[

WUDQVDFWLRQV 3 WKUHH IURP WKH 8QLWHV 6WDWHV DQG WKUHH IURP 0DOD\VLD 3 DQG

UHTXHVWHG(XUR60(SURYLGHVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWVDQGDQDUUDWLYHH[SODQDWLRQIRU

HDFK WUDQVDFWLRQ WR YHULI\ WKH GDWD WKDW LW KDG DOUHDG\ VXEPLWWHG UHODWHG WR WKRVH

VDOHVId.DW27RYHULI\WKHIUHLJKWFRVWV&RPPHUFHUHTXHVWHGVXSSRUWLQJ
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

GRFXPHQWDWLRQ WR H[SODLQ KRZ WKH FRPSDQ\ UHFRUGHG LWV IUHLJKW H[SHQVHV LQ WZR

GLIIHUHQWVHOHFWHG86VDOHVDQGWZRGLIIHUHQW0DOD\VLDQVDOHVId.DW(XUR

60(VXEPLWWHGLWVUHVSRQVHRQ2FWREHU,/295HVS-$DW2

(&)1R,WVWDWHGWKDWWKHDWWDFKHGLQYRLFHVFRQWDLQHGWKHTXDQWLW\LQIRUPDWLRQ

LQWHUPVRIWKHQXPEHURIFDUWRQVDQGSHURQHWKRXVDQGEDJV$QRWKHUDWWDFKPHQW

ODEHOHG  ́ORDGLQJ DGYLFHμ SURYLGHG  ́VXSSRUW IRU TXDQWLW\ LQ NLORJUDPV DFWXDO

ZHLJKW>@μId.DW-$DW7KHFRPSDQ\VLPLODUO\H[SODLQHGWKDWDQRWKHU

 ́ORDGLQJ DGYLFHμ GRFXPHQW FRQWDLQHG TXDQWLW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH UHOHYDQW

PHUFKDQGLVH ́ZLWKDFWXDOZHLJKWμLQUHVSRQVHWRTXHVWLRQVDERXWLWVIUHLJKWH[SHQVHV

Id.DW-$DW7KHDWWDFKPHQWVLQFOXGHGKDQGZULWWHQFDOFXODWLRQVId.DW

([-$DW(&)1R

$OWKRXJK WKH GRFXPHQWV WKHPVHOYHV GLG QRW H[SODLQ KRZ WKH ZHLJKWV RI HDFK VDOH

EURNHGRZQZLWKLQWKHVKLSPHQWWKHKDQGZULWWHQFDOFXODWLRQVDWWHPSWHGWRGRVR

Id.2QFHDJDLQ(XUR60(GLGQRWH[SUHVVDFRQFHUQDERXWLWVDELOLW\WRSURYLGHWKH

UHTXHVWHG LQIRUPDWLRQSee generally,/295HVS-$DW2(&)1R

3ODLQWLII·VFRXQVHOH[SODLQHGDWRUDODUJXPHQWWKDWWKRVHORDGLQJGRFXPHQWVZHUH

ZKHUHWKHHPSOR\HHLQFKDUJHRIFDOFXODWLQJWKHDFWXDOZHLJKWUHFRUGHGWKHZHLJKWRI

HDFK VKLSPHQW 6KH FODULILHG WKDW WKH KDQGZULWWHQ QRWDWLRQV ZHUH WKH HPSOR\HH·V

FDOFXODWLRQV  ́H[WUDSRODWLQJμ IURP WKH ZHLJKW RI D VLQJOH ER[ LQ WKH VKLSPHQW WKH

ZHLJKWRIWKHHQWLUHVDOHE\PXOWLSO\LQJWKHZHLJKWRIWKHER[E\WKHWRWDOQXPEHURI

ER[HV2UDO$UJ7UDW2(&)1R
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

)RUILYHRIWKHVL[GRFXPHQWVWKHZHLJKWRIWKHRYHUDOOVKLSPHQWOLVWHGRQWKH

GRFXPHQW GLIIHUHG IURP ZKDW (XUR 60( KDG RULJLQDOO\ WROG &RPPHUFH LQ LWV

TXHVWLRQQDLUHUHVSRQVHSee ,'0DW-$DW(&)1R,/295HVSDW([

-$DW(&)1R,Q

WKRVHILYHFDVHVWKHKDQGZULWWHQQRWHVDWWULEXWHGWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHGLVFUHSDQF\WR

WKHVDOHV LQWKHVKLSPHQWWKDW&RPPHUFHZDVnotVSRWFKHFNLQJSee ,'0DW2

-$DW2(&)1R,/295HVSDW([-$DW

    (&) 1R   )RU WKH VDOHV &RPPHUFH ZDV VSRW

FKHFNLQJ WKH KDQGZULWWHQ QXPEHUV PDWFKHG ZKDW (XUR 60( RULJLQDOO\ WROG

&RPPHUFHGRZQ WR WKHKXQGUHGWK RIDNLORJUDPEXW WKHVDOHV&RPPHUFHZDVQRW

VSRWFKHFNLQJZHUHRIIE\WHQVRUKXQGUHGVRINLORJUDPVSee ,'0DW-$DW

(&)1R,/295HVSDW([-$DW

(&)1R3HW·U·V&DVH%UDW$WW-$DW2(&)1R

FKDUWFRPSDULQJUHSRUWHGILJXUHVWRYHULILFDWLRQH[KLELWV

7KH VWRU\ ZDV VLPLODU ZKHQ &RPPHUFH WULHG WR YHULI\ (XUR 60(·V LQODQG

IUHLJKWH[SHQVHV&RPPHUFHFKRVHWRVSRWFKHFNWKHVDPHVL[VDOHVLWXVHGWRYHULI\

DFWXDOZHLJKWSOXVDQDGGLWLRQDOWZRKRPHPDUNHWVDOHV,'0DW-$DW

(&) 1R   $OO ILYH KRPH PDUNHW VDOHV GLIIHUHG EHWZHHQ WKH YHULILFDWLRQ

GRFXPHQWDWLRQDQGZKDW(XUR60(RULJLQDOO\UHSRUWHGWR&RPPHUFHId. DW2

-$ DW 2 3HW·U·V &DVH %U DW $WW  -$ DW 2 (&) 1R  FKDUW

FRPSDULQJ UHSRUWHG ILJXUHV WR YHULILFDWLRQ H[KLELWV  $JDLQ WKH YHULILFDWLRQ

GRFXPHQWVDWWULEXWHGDOOGLVFUHSDQFLHVWRVDOHV&RPPHUFHZDVQRWVSRWFKHFNLQJDQG
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

UHSRUWHGDSHUIHFWPDWFKIRUWKHWUDQVDFWLRQV&RPPHUFHZDVVSRWFKHFNLQJ,'0 DW

2 -$ DW 23HW·U·V &DVH %U DW $WW  -$ DW 2 (&)1R 

FKDUWFRPSDULQJUHSRUWHGILJXUHVWRYHULILFDWLRQH[KLELWV+RZHYHUIRUIRXURIWKH

ILYH VDOHV WKH GLVFUHSDQFLHV ZHUH QHJOLJLEOH DQG SRVVLEO\ DWWULEXWDEOH WR URXQGLQJ

GHFLVLRQV,'0DW2-$DW2

(XUR 60( GHFOLQHG WR VXEPLW D FDVH EULHI LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH 3UHOLPLQDU\

5HVXOWV  'HI·V %U DW  Q (&) 1R   +RZHYHU RQ 'HFHPEHU   WKH

&RPPLWWHH VHQW &RPPHUFH D FDVH EULHI DUJXLQJ WKDW   ́&RPPHUFH VKRXOG DSSO\

SDUWLDO DGYHUVH IDFWV DYDLODEOH ¶$)$· DV D UHVXOW RI (XUR 60(·V LQDELOLW\ WR

VXEVWDQWLDWH UHSRUWHG VDOHV TXDQWLWLHV DQG LQODQG IUHLJKW H[SHQVHVμ DQG 

 ́&RPPHUFHVKRXOGDOVRFRUUHFWDPLQLVWHULDOHUURULQWKHSUHOLPLQDU\PDUJLQSURJUDP

E\ZKLFKIUHLJKWUHYHQXHZDVGRXEOHFRXQWHGμ3HW·U·V&DVH%U-$DW2

(&)1R

(XUR 60( WKHQ VXEPLWWHG D UHEXWWDO EULHI DUJXLQJ WKDW &RPPHUFH KDG

FRPPLWWHGDPLQLVWHULDOHUURULQLWVIUHLJKWUHYHQXHFDSFDOFXODWLRQ-$DW

(&) 1R   %HFDXVH WKDW LVVXH KDG QRW EHHQ UDLVHG LQ WKH &RPPLWWHH·V EULHI

&RPPHUFH ́UHMHFWHGWKDWVHJPHQWRI(XUR60(·VUHEXWWDOEULHIRQWKHJURXQGWKDW

WKHFKDOOHQJHZDVDVWDQGDORQHDUJXPHQWDQGQRWUHEXWWLQJDQ\WKLQJSHWLWLRQHUVKDG

VDLGμ  'HI·V 5HVS %U DW  Q (&) 1R   2Q -DQXDU\   (XUR 60(

VXEPLWWHG D UHYLVHG UHEXWWDO EULHI IRFXVLQJ LQVWHDG RQ LWV FODLP WKDW WKH FRPSDQ\

 ́KD>G@VXEPLWWHGDPSOHDQGDFFXUDWHLQIRUPDWLRQμDQGWKDW ́WKHGLVFUHSDQFLHVQRWHG

E\WKH3HWLWLRQHUVZLWKUHJDUGWRDFWXDOZHLJKWZKLFKDOVRDIIHFW>@0DOD\VLDQLQODQG
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

IUHLJKWDUHVPDOODQGLPPDWHULDOμ3O·V5HEXWWDO&DVH%UDW-$DW(&)

1R(XUR60(DUJXHGWKDWDQ\UHYLVLRQVWRWKH3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWVZRXOGEH

 ́HLWKHUXQQHFHVVDU\RUVKRXOGEHOLPLWHGLQVFRSHμId. ,WDOVRDVVHUWHGWKDWLQWKH

DEVHQFH RI WKH YHULILDEOH DFWXDOZHLJKWGDWD WKDW WKH DJHQF\ UHTXHVWHG&RPPHUFH

FRXOGKDYHSHUIRUPHGLWVFDOFXODWLRQZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGZHLJKWRUQXPEHURIEDJVGDWD

WKDWWKHFRPSDQ\GLGSURYLGHId.DW2-$DW2

$IWHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI ERWK SDUWLHV· EULHIV &RPPHUFH SXEOLVKHG LWV )LQDO

5HVXOWVDQGLWVDFFRPSDQ\LQJ,VVXHVDQG'HFLVLRQ0HPRSee ,'0-$DW2

(&)1RRetail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of the Admin. 

Dumping Review; 2019-2020  )HG 5HJ 2 'HS·W RI &RP 6HSW 

, -$ DW 2 (&) 1R  )LQDO 5HVXOWV  7KH )LQDO 5HVXOWV GLIIHUHG

VLJQLILFDQWO\IURPWKH3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWVPRVWQRWDEO\LQWKHFRQFOXVLRQWKDW ́(XUR

60(6GQ%KGPDGHVDOHVRIVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVHDW OHVVWKDQQRUPDOYDOXH 19

GXULQJWKHSHULRGRIUHYLHZ325μ)LQDO5HVXOWVDW-$DW(&)1R

&RPPHUFHFRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHUHZDVDZHLJKWHGGXPSLQJPDUJLQId.,Q

WKH DFFRPSDQ\LQJ ,VVXHV DQG 'HFLVLRQ 0HPR &RPPHUFH H[SODLQHG WKH WKUHH

DGMXVWPHQWVWKDWLWPDGHSee generally ,'0-$DW2(&)1R

7KH ILUVW DGMXVWPHQW FRQFHUQHG WKH FDOFXODWLRQ RI (XUR 60(·V VDOHV ZHLJKW

GDWDDQGWKHGLVFUHSDQF\WKDW&RPPHUFHREVHUYHGZKHQ LWDWWHPSWHGWRYHULI\WKH

GDWD  )RU WKRVH ILJXUHV &RPPHUFH GHFLGHG WKDW  ́LW LV DSSURSULDWH WR XVH IDFWV

RWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOHLQUHODWLRQWR(XUR60(·VUHSRUWLQJRIDFWXDOZHLJKWDQGIRUJURVV

XQLWSULFHDQGVDOHVH[SHQVHVZKLFKDUHUHSRUWHGRQDSHUNLORJUDPDFWXDOZHLJKW
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

EDVLVDFURVVERWK WKHKRPHPDUNHWDQG86VDOHVGDWDEDVHV>@μ ,'0DW-$DW

(&)1R7KLVZDVEHFDXVH ́WKHUHZHUHGLVFUHSDQFLHVEHWZHHQWKHUHSRUWHG

DFWXDOZHLJKWVDQGWKH¶ORDGLQJDGYLFH·GRFXPHQWIRUILYHRIWKHVL[VDOHVWUDFHV(XUR

60(GLGQRWH[SODLQKRZLWDOORFDWHGWKHWRWDOZHLJKWDFURVVWKHWUDQVDFWLRQVFRYHUHG

E\ WKH ¶ORDGLQJ DGYLFH· GRFXPHQWVμ  Id.  &RPPHUFH GHFOLQHG WR GUDZ DQ\ DGYHUVH

LQIHUHQFHKHUH'HVSLWHWKHGLVFUHSDQFLHV&RPPHUFHGLGQRW IHHO ́WKDW(XUR60(

>KDG@ IDLOHG WR FRRSHUDWH E\ QRW DFWLQJ WR WKH EHVW RI LWV DELOLW\ WR FRPSO\ ZLWK

&RPPHUFH·VUHTXHVWIRULQIRUPDWLRQμId.

7KH VHFRQG DGMXVWPHQW SHUWDLQHG WR IUHLJKW FRVWV ,'0 DW  -$ DW 

7KRVHILJXUHVIHOOLQWRWZRFDWHJRULHVLQODQGIUHLJKWH[SHQVHVLQWKHKRPHPDUNHW

RI0DOD\VLD,1/)7&+LQFXUUHGZKHQPHUFKDQGLVHPRYHGIURPWKHPDQXIDFWXUHU

WR WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ ZDUHKRXVH DQG  86 LQODQG IUHLJKW H[SHQVHV ',1/)738

LQFXUUHGEHWZHHQWKHPDQXIDFWXULQJSODQWDQGWKHSRUWRIH[SRUWDWLRQId. )RUHDFK

FDWHJRU\&RPPHUFHUHTXHVWHGGRFXPHQWDWLRQWRYHULI\WKH ILJXUHVWKDW(XUR60(

LQLWLDOO\ VXEPLWWHG  ,/29 4XHVWLRQQDLUH -$ DW 2 (&) 1R   7KH

GRFXPHQWVLWSURYLGHGIDLOHGWRH[SODLQKRZWKHFRPSDQ\DOORFDWHGWKHFRVWVEHWZHHQ

WKRVHVDOHVDQGZK\FHUWDLQGHGXFWLRQVDSSHDUHGRQWKHFRPSDQ\·VVXPPDU\SDJHV

,'0DW2-$DW2(&)1R&RPPHUFHDOVRDVNHGIRUVXSSRUWLQJ

GRFXPHQWDWLRQRQWZRDGGLWLRQDO0DOD\VLDQVDOHVDQG(XUR60(·VUHVSRQVHWRWKDW

UHTXHVW FRQWDLQHG WKH VDPH VKRUWFRPLQJV  ,Q ERWK FDVHV (XUR 60( SURYLGHG

KDQGZULWWHQQRWDWLRQVRQWKHVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWVWKDWDWWHPSWHGWRDWWULEXWHDOO
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

GLVFUHSDQFLHV LQWKHGDWDWRVDOHVWKDWWKHDJHQF\KDGQRWVHOHFWHG IRUYHULILFDWLRQ

Id.DW-$DW

'HVSLWHWKRVHGLVFUHSDQFLHV&RPPHUFHRQFHDJDLQGHFOLQHGWRDSSO\DGYHUVH

LQIHUHQFHVDJDLQVW(XUR60(ZKHQ ILOOLQJWKHJDSVUHODWHGWRKRPHPDUNHW LQODQG

IUHLJKWH[SHQVHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHWKUHHWUDQVDFWLRQVLWVHOHFWHGIRUVSRWFKHFNLQJ

,W H[SODLQHG  ́>L@Q WKH WKUHHKRPHPDUNHWVDOHV WUDFHV WKH YDULDQFH EHWZHHQZKDW

ZDVUHSRUWHGLQWKHGDWDEDVHDQGWKHVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQLVYHU\VPDOODQG

ZHILQGWKDWWKHYDULDQFHFRXOGSODXVLEO\EHWKHUHVXOWRIURXQGLQJμId.DW-$DW

&RPPHUFHDOVRIRXQG ́QREDVLVWRDSSO\IDFWVDYDLODEOHWR>WKHLQODQGIUHLJKW

H[SHQVHV@WKURXJKRXWWKHKRPHPDUNHWGDWDEDVHEHFDXVHWKHYDULDQFHVEHWZHHQWKH

VXSSRUWLQJ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ DQG ZKDW ZDV UHSRUWHG LQ WKH GDWDEDVH DSSHDU ODUJHO\

LPPDWHULDOμ  Id. DW  -$ DW   +RZHYHU ZLWK UHJDUG WR RQH RI WKH WZR

DGGLWLRQDO KRPHPDUNHW WUDQVDFWLRQV WKH DJHQF\ GLG  ́ILQG LW DSSURSULDWH WR DSSO\

IDFWVDYDLODEOHWRWKHWUDQVDFWLRQV«JLYHQWKDWWKHVL]HRIWKDWYDULDQFHFDQQRWEH

H[SODLQHGE\URXQGLQJDQGWKHUH LVQRH[SODQDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKDWYDULDQFHRQWKH

UHFRUGμId.7KRXJK&RPPHUFHRSWHGWRDSSO\IDFWVDYDLODEOHWRWKDWVLQJOHVDOHLW

RQFHDJDLQGLG ́QRWILQGWKDW(XUR60(IDLOHGWRFRRSHUDWHWRWKHEHVWRILWVDELOLW\μ

DQG WKHUHIRUH GLG  ́QRW ILQG WKDW WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI DQ DGYHUVH LQIHUHQFH >ZDV@

ZDUUDQWHG>@μId.

)RU LQODQG IUHLJKW FRVWV IRU86 VDOHV KRZHYHU &RPPHUFH DJUHHGZLWK WKH

&RPPLWWHH·V SRVLWLRQ DQG DSSOLHG DQ DGYHUVH LQIHUHQFH  7KH DJHQF\MXVWLILHG WKLV

EHFDXVH ́(XUR60(IDLOHGWRFRRSHUDWHWRWKHEHVWRILWVDELOLWLHVμE\FRQWLQXLQJ
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

 ́WRUHSRUWGRPHVWLFLQODQGIUHLJKWH[SHQVHVWKDWGLGQRWFRUUHVSRQGWRWKHXQGHUO\LQJ

GRFXPHQWDWLRQRQWKHUHFRUGHYHQDIWHU&RPPHUFHQRWLILHG(XUR60(WKDWWKHUHZHUH

GLVFUHSDQFLHV LQ LWVUHSRUWLQJμDQG QRWSURSHUO\ H[SODLQLQJKRZ LWDOORFDWHG WKH

FKDUJHV RQ LWV IUHLJKW LQYRLFHV DPRQJ WKH VHOHFWHG WUDQVDFWLRQV Id. DW  -$ DW

&RPPHUFHWKHUHIRUH ́LQFUHDVHGDOOUHSRUWHGGRPHVWLFLQODQGIUHLJKWH[SHQVHV

« E\ WKH ODUJHVW SHUFHQW YDULDQFH FDOFXODWHG RQ DQ H[KLELWZLGH EDVLV DPRQJ WKH

WKUHH86VDOHVWUDFHVμId. 

7KHWKLUGDGMXVWPHQWWKDW&RPPHUFHPDGHEHWZHHQWKH3UHOLPLQDU\DQG)LQDO

5HVXOWVZDVWKHFRUUHFWLRQRIDPLQLVWHULDOHUURUKLJKOLJKWHGE\WKH&RPPLWWHHLQLWV

FDVHEULHI3HW·U·V&DVH%UDW-$DW(&)1R&RPPHUFHDJUHHGWKDW

LQFDOFXODWLQJLWV3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWVLWKDG ́GRXEOHFRXQWHGIUHLJKWUHYHQXHLQWKH

FDOFXODWLRQRIQHW86SULFH>@μ,'0DW-$DW(&)1R7KHDJHQF\

FRUUHFWHG LWVPLVWDNH UHSODFLQJ WKH JURVVXQLW SULFH YDULDEOHWKDWZDV LQFOXVLYH RI

IUHLJKWUHYHQXHWRRQHWKDWH[FOXGHGIUHLJKWUHYHQXHId. 

$IWHU &RPPHUFH SXEOLVKHG WKH )LQDO 5HVXOWV (XUR 60( ILOHG LWV RZQ

PLQLVWHULDOHUURUDOOHJDWLRQ$OOHJDWLRQRI0LQLVWHULDO(UURUDW-$DW(&)

1R(XUR60(UHSHDWHGWKHFODLPLWRULJLQDOO\PDGHLQLWVUHEXWWDOEULHIDUJXLQJ

WKDW &RPPHUFH KDG PLVWDNHQO\ H[FOXGHG FHUWDLQ ORJLVWLF H[SHQVHV IURP LWV 86

IUHLJKWUHYHQXHH[SHQVHFDSId.DW-$DW,QLWVOHWWHUWR&RPPHUFH(XUR

60(DVVHUWHGWKDW ́VHWWLQJWKHFDSDWMXVWLQWHUQDWLRQDOIUHLJKW«ZRXOGHUURQHRXVO\

RPLW>DODUJHSHUFHQWDJH@RIWKHIUHLJKWFRVWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKPRYLQJWKHSURGXFWWR

WKH86FXVWRPHU>@μId.DW-$DW%HFDXVH&RPPHUFHKDG ́SHUIRUPHGWKH
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

VDPHIUHLJKWUHYHQXHFDSFDOFXODWLRQμLQLWV3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWVDQG(XUR60(IDLOHG

WRUDLVHWKHLVVXHXQWLODIWHUSXEOLFDWLRQRIWKH)LQDO5HVXOWV&RPPHUFHUHMHFWHGWKH

DOOHJDWLRQDVXQWLPHO\&RPPHUFH5HVSWR0LQLVWHULDO(UURU$OOHJDWLRQDW2-$

DW 2 (&) 1R   &LWLQJ  &)5  F DQG  &)5 

F LW H[SODLQHG WKDW WKH DOOHJHG HUURU ZDV  ́GLVFRYHUDEOH HDUOLHU LQ WKH

SURFHHGLQJμDQGWKHUHIRUHVKRXOGKDYHEHHQUDLVHGLQ3ODLQWLII·VFDVHEULHIId.(XUR

60(·VGHFLVLRQWRQRWVXEPLWDFDVHEULHIIRUIHLWHGWKHLVVXH Id.DW

7KH&RXUWKHOGRUDODUJXPHQWRQ0D\(&)1R3ODLQWLIIFODULILHG

WKDWLWGLGQRWFKDOOHQJH&RPPHUFH·VXVHRIDYHULILFDWLRQTXHVWLRQQDLUHLQOLHXRIDQ

RQVLWH YHULILFDWLRQGHVSLWH H[WHQVLYHGLVFXVVLRQ RI WKDWGHFLVLRQ LQ LWV EULHIV2UDO

$UJ7U(&)1RVWDWLQJWKDW ́ZHGRQRWFRQWHVWWKHXVHRIWKH,/29«

TXHVWLRQQDLUHμ7KH&RPPLWWHHFRQILUPHGWKDWLWKDGQRWILOHGDFURVVFRPSODLQWRU

LQDQ\RWKHUZD\FKDOOHQJHG&RPPHUFH·VGHFLVLRQWRUHVRUWWRIDFWVDYDLODEOHUDWKHU

WKDQGUDZDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHId.DW3ODLQWLII·VFRXQVHODOVRFODULILHGWKDW

VKHZDVQRWFKDOOHQJLQJ&RPPHUFH·VLQODQGIUHLJKWFDOFXODWLRQVIRU(XUR60(·VKRPH

PDUNHWVDOHVId.DWZKHQDVNHGWRFRQILUPWKDW(XUR60(ZDV ́QRWREMHFWLQJ

WR ZKDW >&RPPHUFH@ GLGμ LQ FDOFXODWLQJ RQH RI WKH KRPHPDUNHW IUHLJKW H[SHQVHV

UHVSRQGLQJ  ́ZHDUHQRWμ)LQDOO\ WKHSDUWLHV JDYH WKHLUFRQVHQW IRU WKH&RXUW WR

FRQVLGHUSULRUDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZVRI(XUR60(GHVSLWHWKRVHUHYLHZVQRWEHLQJ
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

IRUPDOO\ DGPLWWHG LQWR WKH UHFRUG Id. DW  see also 86&    ́7KH

FRQWHQWVRIWKH)HGHUDO5HJLVWHUVKDOOEHMXGLFLDOO\QRWLFHG>@μ

2QWKHLVVXHRI(XUR60(·VTXDQWLW\GDWDKRZHYHUWKHSDUWLHVZHUHQRWDEOH

WRDJUHHRQZKHWKHU(XUR60(·VVWDQGDUGZHLJKWVXEPLVVLRQVKDGEHHQYHULILHG

ZKHWKHULWZRXOGKDYHEHHQSRVVLEOHIRU&RPPHUFHWRSHUIRUPLWVFDOFXODWLRQVZLWK

WKHVWDQGDUGZHLJKWVWKDW3ODLQWLIIVXEPLWWHGDQGZKHWKHUWKHUHZDVD ́JDSμLQ

WKHUHFRUGIRU&RPPHUFHWRILOO2QWKRVHTXHVWLRQVWKH&RXUWRUGHUHGWKHSDUWLHVWR

VXEPLWVXSSOHPHQWDOEULHILQJ(&)1R

(XUR60(VXEPLWWHGLWVOHWWHUEULHIRQ-XQH3O·V6XSS%U(&)1R

  ,W ILUVW DVVHUWHG WKDW LWV VWDQGDUG ZHLJKWV KDG EHHQ YHULILHG EHFDXVH QHLWKHU

&RPPHUFHQRUWKH&RPPLWWHHFKDOOHQJHGWKHGDWD Id.DW1H[W(XUR60(DUJXHG

WKDW WKH YHULILHG VWDQGDUG ZHLJKWV FRXOG KDYH EHHQ XVHG LQ &RPPHUFH·V HQWLUH

FDOFXODWLRQEHFDXVHWKHDJHQF\DOUHDG\XVHGVWDQGDUGZHLJKWVLQLWVEHORZFRVWWHVW

GLVSURYLQJ&RPPHUFH·VFODLPWKDW ́LWZDVLPSRVVLEOHRULPSUDFWLFDOWRXVHVWDQGDUG

ZHLJKWVLQLWVFDOFXODWLRQVμId.DW2(XUR60(FRQFOXGHGWKDWXQGHUWKH)HGHUDO

&LUFXLW·VRSLQLRQ LQZhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States&RPPHUFH

FRXOGQRWUHVRUWWR IDFWVDYDLODEOHEHFDXVHWKHUHZDVQR ́JDSμWREH ILOOHGIdDW

FLWLQJ )G)HG&LU ́7KHXVHRIIDFWVRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOH«

 7KH SDUWLHV DJUHHG WKDW WKH &RXUW FRXOG WDNH MXGLFLDO QRWLFH RI WKH H[LVWHQFH RI SULRU

DGPLQLVWUDWLYHLQYHVWLJDWLRQVWRZKLFK(XUR60(KDGEHHQVXEMHFWDVWKRVHGRFXPHQWVDUH

SXEOLFO\ DYDLODEOH  +RZHYHU WKH IXOO DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHFRUGV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH

LQYHVWLJDWLRQVZHUHQRWIRUPDOO\SODFHGRQWRWKHUHFRUGDQGDUHQRWFRQVLGHUHGLQWKLVPDWWHU
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

LV RQO\ DSSURSULDWH WR ILOO JDSV ZKHQ &RPPHUFH PXVW UHO\ RQ RWKHU VRXUFHV RI

LQIRUPDWLRQWRFRPSOHWHWKHIDFWXDOUHFRUGμLQWHUQDOFLWDWLRQVRPLWWHG

7KH*RYHUQPHQWVXEPLWWHG LWVUHVSRQVHRQ-XQH'HI·V6XSS%U

(&)1R,WDUJXHGWKDWVWDQGDUGZHLJKWILJXUHVZHUHQRWSURYLGHGIRUDOOWKHGDWD

SRLQWVWKDWZHUHUHTXHVWHGDQGZHUHQHFHVVDU\WRFRPSOHWH&RPPHUFH·VFDOFXODWLRQ

&RPPHUFHFODLPHGWKDW(XUR60(UHSRUWHGLWVVDOHVH[SHQVHVLQERWKWKH0DOD\VLDQ

DQG 86 PDUNHWV RQO\ RQ DQ DFWXDO ZHLJKW EDVLV 3 ILJXUHV WKDW SURYHG WR EH

XQYHULILDEOHId.DW:LWK ́QRRWKHUXVDEOHPHWULFVDYDLODEOHRQWKHUHFRUGμIRUWKRVH

GDWDSRLQWVWKH*RYHUQPHQWDUJXHGWKDW&RPPHUFHIDFHGD ́JDSμDQGODZIXOO\UHOLHG

RQIDFWVDYDLODEOHId.DW,QLWVEULHIWKH&RPPLWWHHDGGHGWKDWD ́FRQYHUVLRQμRI

DOO WKH ILJXUHV WR VWDQGDUG ZHLJKWV 3 DV 3ODLQWLII SURSRVHG 3 ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ

LPSRVVLEOHZLWKRXW ́DQDFWXDOTXDQWLW\ILHOGμZKLFK&RPPHUFHKDGGHWHUPLQHG ́DW

YHULILFDWLRQ WR EH XQUHOLDEOHμ 'HI,QW·V 6XSS %U DW  (&)1R :LWK WKHVH

FODULILFDWLRQVWKH&RXUWDSSOLHVWKHODZ

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 

7KLV&RXUWKDVMXULVGLFWLRQRYHUWKH3ODLQWLII·VFKDOOHQJHRI&RPPHUFH·V)LQDO

5HVXOWV LQ LWV $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 5HYLHZ XQGHU  86&  DD%LLL DQG 

86&F7KH&RXUWPXVWVXVWDLQ&RPPHUFH·V ́GHWHUPLQDWLRQVILQGLQJVRU

FRQFOXVLRQVμXQOHVVWKH\DUH ́XQVXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHRQWKHUHFRUGRU

RWKHUZLVHQRWLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHODZμ86&DE%L:KHUHWKH\

IDLOWRPHHWWKDWVWDQGDUGWKH&RXUWPXVW ́KROGXQODZIXODQ\GHWHUPLQDWLRQILQGLQJ

RUFRQFOXVLRQIRXQGμId.$VWKLV&RXUWKDVDUWLFXODWHG ́WKHTXHVWLRQLVQRWZKHWKHU
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

WKH&RXUWZRXOGKDYHUHDFKHGWKHVDPHGHFLVLRQRQWKHVDPHUHFRUG>@UDWKHU LW LV

ZKHWKHUWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUGDVDZKROHSHUPLWV&RPPHUFH·VFRQFOXVLRQμSee 

New American Keg v. United States1R 2 :/  DW 
 &,7

0DU)XUWKHUPRUH ́WKHSRVVLELOLW\RIGUDZLQJWZRLQFRQVLVWHQWFRQFOXVLRQV

IURP WKH HYLGHQFH GRHV QRW SUHYHQW DQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DJHQF\·V ILQGLQJ IURP EHLQJ

VXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHμMatsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States

)G)HG&LU

,Q UHYLHZLQJ DJHQF\ GHWHUPLQDWLRQV ILQGLQJV RU FRQFOXVLRQV IRU VXEVWDQWLDO

HYLGHQFHWKH&RXUWDVVHVVHVZKHWKHUWKHDJHQF\DFWLRQLVUHDVRQDEOHJLYHQWKHUHFRUG

DVDZKROHNippon Steel Corp. v. United States)G2)HG&LU

 see also Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB  86     ́7KH

VXEVWDQWLDOLW\ RI HYLGHQFH PXVW WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW ZKDWHYHU LQ WKH UHFRUG IDLUO\

GHWUDFWVIURPLWVZHLJKWμ7KH)HGHUDO&LUFXLWKDVGHVFULEHG ́VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFHμ

DV ́VXFKUHOHYDQWHYLGHQFHDVDUHDVRQDEOHPLQGPLJKWDFFHSWDVDGHTXDWHWRVXSSRUW

DFRQFOXVLRQμDuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States)G)HG

&LUTXRWLQJConsol. Edison Co. v. NLRB86

DISCUSSION 

3ODLQWLII(XUR60(DUJXHVWKDW&RPPHUFH·V)LQDO5HVXOWVVKRXOGEHUHPDQGHG

EDVHGRQWKHDJHQF\·VXQODZIXODSSOLFDWLRQRIIDFWVRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOHDQGDGYHUVH

LQIHUHQFHV)LUVW(XUR60(FKDOOHQJHV&RPPHUFH·VDGMXVWPHQWRIWKHDFWXDOZHLJKW

ILJXUHV  3O·V %U DW  (&) 1R   6HFRQG 3ODLQWLII FODLPV WKDW &RPPHUFH·V

DSSOLFDWLRQRIDGYHUVH LQIHUHQFHVWRWKHGRPHVWLF LQODQGIUHLJKWFRVWVIRU86VDOHV
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

ZDVXQODZIXOId.DW7KLUG(XUR60(DOOHJHVWKDW&RPPHUFH·VFDOFXODWLRQRIWKH

FRPSDQ\·VGRPHVWLFIUHLJKWFRVWVUHIOHFWHGDPLQLVWHULDOHUURUId.DW(XUR60(

FODLPV WKDW LW IXOO\ FRRSHUDWHG ZLWK WKH DJHQF\·V UHTXHVWV WKURXJKRXW WKH

LQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGWKDWDQ\GLVFUHSDQFLHVLQLWVGDWDZHUHEHFDXVHWKHFRPSDQ\GRHV

QRWPDLQWDLQUHFRUGVLQWKHIRUPWKDWWKHDJHQF\UHTXHVWHGId.DW3O·V5HSO\%U

DW2(&)1R(XUR60(IXUWKHUH[SODLQVWKDWWKHDJHQF\·VGHFLVLRQWRIRUHJR

DQ RQVLWH YHULILFDWLRQ DQG LQVWHDG LVVXH D YHULILFDWLRQ TXHVWLRQQDLUH KDPSHUHG LWV

DELOLW\WRFODULI\DQ\GLVFUHSDQFLHV3O·V5HSO\%UDW2(&)1R1RQHWKHOHVV

WKHFRPSDQ\GRHVQRWFKDOOHQJH WKH OHJDOLW\RI&RPPHUFH·VXVHRIDTXHVWLRQQDLUH

2UDO$UJ7U(&)1R)LQDOO\(XUR60(GLVSXWHV&RPPHUFH·VILQGLQJ

WKDWWKHUHZDVD ́JDSμLQWKHUHFRUGWRILOOZLWKHLWKHUIDFWVRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOHRUDQ

DGYHUVH LQIHUHQFH  7KRXJK VRPH RI LWV ILJXUHV PD\ KDYH FRQWDLQHG HUURUV WKH

FRPSDQ\ PDLQWDLQV WKDW WKH VDPH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV SURYLGHG LQ GLIIHUHQW XQLWV RI

PHDVXUHPHQW DQG WKDW &RPPHUFH FRXOG KDYH XVHG WKDW GDWD WR FRPSOHWH LWV

FDOFXODWLRQ3O·V%UDW2(&)1Rsee also3O·V6XSS%UDW2(&)1R



I. SUMMARY 

7RGHWHUPLQHZKHWKHU(XUR60(ZDVVHOOLQJLWVVXEMHFWPHUFKDQGLVHDWOHVV

WKDQIDLUYDOXHLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV&RPPHUFHFRQGXFWHGLWVLQYHVWLJDWLRQXVLQJWKH

 ́DYHUDJHWRDYHUDJHμPHWKRG3'0DW-$DW(&)1R7KDWPHWKRGLV

HVVHQWLDOO\FDOFXODWLQJDQGWKHQFRPSDULQJWKH ́ZHLJKWHGDYHUDJHμRIWKHFRPSDQ\·V

KRPHPDUNHWDQG86VDOHV&)5G7KHGDWDWKDW&RPPHUFHGUDZV
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

IURP LQ SHUIRUPLQJ LWV FDOFXODWLRQ LV WKH GDWD WKDW LW UHFHLYHV IURP UHVSRQGLQJ

FRPSDQLHV7KHTXHVWLRQQDLUHVWKDW&RPPHUFHVHQGVFRPSDQLHVXQGHULQYHVWLJDWLRQ

LGHQWLI\ZKDWGDWDLWQHHGVDQGLQZKDWIRUP&RPSDQLHVWKDWKDYHEHHQVXEMHFWWR

UHJXODUDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZVEHFRPH IDPLOLDUZLWKWKHW\SHVRI LQIRUPDWLRQWKH\

DUH H[SHFWHG WR NHHS DQG SURYLGH WR WKH DJHQF\  (XUR 60( DQG LWV SUHGHFHVVRU

FRPSDQ\(XUR3ODVWLFVKDYHEHHQVXEMHFW WRUHJXODUDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZVVLQFH



:KHQ&RPPHUFHGHWHUPLQHV WKDWSDUWLHVKDYH IDLOHG WRSURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ

QHFHVVDU\IRULWVDQDO\VLVVXFKWKDWLQIRUPDWLRQLVPLVVLQJIURPWKHUHFRUGIHGHUDO

ODZSURYLGHVDWZRSDUWSURFHVVIRUWKHDJHQF\WRILOOWKHUHVXOWLQJJDSSee 86&

 HD  )LUVW &RPPHUFH PD\ XVH  ́IDFWV RWKHUZLVH DYDLODEOHμ LQ SODFH RI WKH

PLVVLQJLQIRUPDWLRQLI

 1HFHVVDU\LQIRUPDWLRQLVQRWDYDLODEOHRQWKHUHFRUGRU

 $QLQWHUHVWHGSDUW\RUDQ\RWKHUSHUVRQ3

$:LWKKROGVLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWKDVEHHQUHTXHVWHGE\>&RPPHUFH@

%)DLOVWRSURYLGHVXFKLQIRUPDWLRQE\WKHGHDGOLQHVIRUVXEPLVVLRQ

RIWKHLQIRUPDWLRQRULQWKHIRUPDQGPDQQHUUHTXHVWHG«

&6LJQLILFDQWO\LPSHGHVDSURFHHGLQJXQGHUWKLVVXEWLWOHRU

$OWKRXJKWKHVHSULRUDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZVZHUHQRWIRUPDOO\HQWHUHGRQWRWKHUHFRUGWKH

SDUWLHV DJUHHG DW RUDO DUJXPHQW WKDW WKH &RXUW FRXOG WDNHMXGLFLDO QRWLFH RI WKHP IRU WKH

OLPLWHGSXUSRVHRIFRQILUPLQJ3ODLQWLII·VSDUWLFLSDWLRQLQSULRUUHYLHZV2UDO$UJ7UDW2

(&)1Rsee, eg.Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 2005-2006)HG5HJ'HS·WRI&RP$XJ

  through Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Malaysia: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 2018-2019)HG5HJ'HS·WRI&RP$SU


&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

'3URYLGHV VXFK LQIRUPDWLRQ EXW WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FDQQRW EH

YHULILHG>@

Id.6HFRQG86&HESHUPLWVWKRVHIDFWVRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOHWREHFKRVHQ

ZLWKDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHLI ́DQLQWHUHVWHGSDUW\KDVIDLOHGWRFRRSHUDWHE\QRWDFWLQJ

WRWKHEHVWRILWVDELOLW\WRFRPSO\ZLWKDUHTXHVWIRULQIRUPDWLRQIURP>&RPPHUFH@μ

$OWKRXJKHDDQGHEDUHRIWHQFROODSVHGLQWR ́DGYHUVHIDFWVDYDLODEOHμ

RU ́$)$μWKHWZRVWDWXWRU\SURFHVVHVUHTXLUHGLVWLQFWDQDO\VHVUDWKHUWKDQWKHVLQJOH

DQDO\VLV LPSOLHG E\ WKH WHUP  ́$)$μ  &RPPHUFH ILUVW PXVW GHWHUPLQH WKDW LW LV

PLVVLQJQHFHVVDU\ LQIRUPDWLRQDQG LI LWZLVKHVWR ILOOWKHUHVXOWLQJJDSZLWK IDFWV

WKDW UHIOHFW DQ DGYHUVH LQIHUHQFH DJDLQVW DQ LQWHUHVWHG SDUW\ &RPPHUFH PXVW

VHFRQGDULO\GHWHUPLQHWKDWWKHSDUW\KDVIDLOHGWRFRRSHUDWHE\QRWDFWLQJWRWKHEHVW

RILWVDELOLW\See Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. )GDW7KH)HGHUDO

&LUFXLWKDVH[SODLQHGWKDWDFWLQJWRWKHEHVWRIRQH·VDELOLW\LQYROYHVXVLQJ ́PD[LPXP

HIIRUW WRSURYLGH&RPPHUFHZLWK IXOODQGFRPSOHWHDQVZHUV WRDOO LQTXLULHV LQ >LWV@

LQYHVWLJDWLRQμNippon Steel Corp. v. United States)G)HG&LU

,WDOVRUHTXLUHVFRPSDQLHVWR ́WDNHUHDVRQDEOHVWHSVWRNHHSDQGPDLQWDLQIXOO

DQG FRPSOHWH UHFRUGVμ RI WKHLU WUDQVDFWLRQV LQ DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI &RPPHUFH·V

DGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZVId.see also Qingdao Sea-Line Int’l Trading Co. v. United 

States)6XSSG&,7$FRPSDQ\WKDWKDVEHHQVXEMHFWWR

PDQ\LQYHVWLJDWLRQVEHFRPHVIDPLOLDUZLWKWKHW\SHVRILQIRUPDWLRQ&RPPHUFHQHHGV

PDNLQJLWPRUHGLIILFXOWWRMXVWLI\DIDLOXUHWRSURYLGHWKHUHTXHVWHGLQIRUPDWLRQLQ

WKHPDQQHU&RPPHUFHKDVFRQVLVWHQWO\UHTXHVWHGLWCompare 'HI·V%UDW(&)
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

1RGHVFULELQJWKHQXPEHURIDQQXDODGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZV(XUR60(KDVEHHQ

VXEMHFWWRDQGLQWXUQWKHFRPSDQ\·VIDPLOLDULW\ZLWKWKHSURFHVVwith Nippon Steel 

Corp.)GDW VWDWLQJ WKDW  ́LQDWWHQWLYHQHVVFDUHOHVVQHVV RU LQDGHTXDWH

UHFRUGNHHSLQJμDOOFRQVWLWXWHQRQFRPSOLDQFHDQGWKDWWKHVWDQGDUG ́DVVXPHVWKDW

LPSRUWHUV DUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH UXOHV DQG UHJXODWLRQV WKDW DSSO\ WR WKH LPSRUW

DFWLYLWLHVXQGHUWDNHQDQGUHTXLUHVWKDWLPSRUWHUV«WDNHUHDVRQDEOHVWHSVWRNHHS

DQG PDLQWDLQ IXOO DQG FRPSOHWH UHFRUGV GRFXPHQWLQJ WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW D

UHDVRQDEOHLPSRUWHUVKRXOGDQWLFLSDWHEHLQJFDOOHGXSRQWRSURGXFH>@μ

 ,Q UHVSRQVH WR &RPPHUFH·V LQLWLDO TXHVWLRQQDLUH DQG HDFK RI LWV VXEVHTXHQW

UHTXHVWV IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ (XUR 60( SURIIHUHG WLPHO\ VXEPLVVLRQV WKDW DSSHDUHG

UHVSRQVLYH2QO\ DW YHULILFDWLRQGLG LW HPHUJH WKDW WKHGDWD(XUR60(VXEPLWWHG

FRQWDLQHG HUURUV DQG GLVFUHSDQFLHV  $IWHU GHWHUPLQLQJ WKDW (XUR 60(·V DFWXDO

ZHLJKWDQGLQODQGIUHLJKWGDWDZHUHXQYHULILDEOH&RPPHUFHZDVOHIWZLWKQXPHURXV

JDSV LQ WKH UHFRUG  &RPPHUFH JDYH (XUR 60( RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR SURYLGH LW ZLWK

YHULILDEOHGDWDEXW(XUR60(IDLOHGWRGRVR7KHDJHQF\·VUHOLDQFHRQIDFWVDYDLODEOH

WKHUHIRUHZDVODZIXOXQGHUWKHVWDWXWH. See 86&HD

&RPPHUFH WKHQ KDG WR FRQVLGHU ZKHWKHU LW ZRXOG JR WKH IXUWKHU VWHS RI

DSSO\LQJDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHEDVHGRQDILQGLQJRIQRQFRRSHUDWLRQ$V&RPPHUFH

H[SODLQHGLQLWV,VVXHVDQG'HFLVLRQ0HPRLWIRXQGWKDWPRVWGLVFUHSDQFLHVLQ(XUR

60(·VGDWDGLGQRW ́ULVHWRWKHOHYHORIZDUUDQWLQJDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHμ,'0DW

-$DW(&)1R+RZHYHUZLWKRQHVHWRIILJXUHV3WKHLQODQGIUHLJKWFRVWV

IRU8QLWHG6WDWHVVDOHV3WKHDJHQF\IRXQGRWKHUZLVH7KHGLYHUJHQFHEHWZHHQWKH
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

GDWD IURP WKH FRPSDQ\·V UHFRUGV DQG LWV YHULILFDWLRQ UHVSRQVHV FRPELQHG ZLWK DQ

DSSDUHQW HIIRUW WR PDVN WKRVH GLVFUHSDQFLHV FRQVWLWXWHG D  ́IDLO>XUH@ WR FRRSHUDWHμ

ZDUUDQWLQJWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHId.DW2-$DW2

see 86&  HE DOORZLQJ WKH GUDZLQJ RI DQ DGYHUVH LQIHUHQFHZKHUH D

SDUW\ ́KDVIDLOHGWRFRRSHUDWHE\QRWDFWLQJWRWKHEHVWRILWVDELOLW\WRFRPSO\ZLWKD

UHTXHVWIRULQIRUPDWLRQμ&RPPHUFH·VOLPLWHGILQGLQJRIQRQFRRSHUDWLRQUHJDUGLQJ

VSHFLILFGLVFUHSDQFLHVLQ(XUR60(·VVXEPLVVLRQZDVVLPLODUO\ODZIXO,WDGHTXDWHO\

H[SODLQHGLQWKH,VVXHVDQG'HFLVLRQ0HPRZKDWGLVWLQJXLVKHGWKRVHGLVFUHSDQFLHV

IURPRWKHUVZKHUHLWGHFOLQHGWRDSSO\DQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFH,'0DW-$DW

(&)1R%HFDXVH&RPPHUFH·VDFWLRQVZHUHVXSSRUWHGE\VXEVWDQWLDOHYLGHQFH

WKH&RXUWZLOOSUSTAIN&RPPHUFH·VGHWHUPLQDWLRQ

II. COMMERCE’S RELIANCE ON FACTS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE 

8QGHU WKHVWDWXWH&RPPHUFHPD\  ́XVH WKH IDFWV RWKHUZLVH DYDLODEOHμ LQ DQ

DGPLQLVWUDWLYH UHYLHZ LI LQIRUPDWLRQ LV QRW DYDLODEOH RQ WKH UHFRUG RU LI D SDUW\

ZLWKKROGV UHTXHVWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ IDLOV WR SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ  ́LQ WKH IRUP DQG

PDQQHUUHTXHVWHGμVLJQLILFDQWO\LPSHGHVWKHUHYLHZRULIWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFDQQRWEH

YHULILHG  86&  HD  7KH H[LVWHQFH RI D  ́JDSμ LQ WKH UHFRUG VXFK WKDW

&RPPHUFHPXVWORRNHOVHZKHUHIRUWKHLQIRUPDWLRQLVDSUHUHTXLVLWHIRUWKHXVHRI

IDFWVRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOHZhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co.)GDW

(XUR60(DUJXHVWKDWQRQHRIWKHSUHFRQGLWLRQVUHTXLUHGE\WKHVWDWXWHDUH

SUHVHQWKHUHEHFDXVHWKHGDWDWKDWWKHFRPSDQ\SURYLGHGWKRXJK LPSHUIHFWFRXOG

KDYHEHHQXVHGWRFDOFXODWHWKHFRPSDQ\·VPDUJLQV3O·V5HSO\%UDW2(&)1R
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

2UDO$UJ7UDW(&)1R$FFRUGLQJWR(XUR60(  ́WKHUHZHUHQR

JDSV LQ WKH GDWDMXVW VHYHUDO GLIIHUHQW YHUVLRQV RI WKH GDWD SUHVHQWHG LQ GLIIHUHQW

IRUPVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK&RPPHUFH·VYDULRXVUHTXLUHPHQWVμVRWKDW&RPPHUFHZDV

QRWSHUPLWWHGWRXVHIDFWVRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOH3O·V5HSO\%UDW2(&)1R $W

RUDO DUJXPHQW3ODLQWLII FRQFHGHG WKDW  ́WKHUH·V D JDS RQ WKH UHFRUGZLWK UHJDUG WR

DFWXDO ZHLJKWμ EXW PDLQWDLQHG WKDW EHFDXVH LW SURYLGHG WKH VDPH LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ

RWKHUIRUPVi.e.LQVWDQGDUGZHLJKWDQGQXPEHURIEDJV ́WKH'HSDUWPHQWFRXOGKDYH

XVHGWKDWLQIRUPDWLRQDQGDYRLGHGμDQ\JDS2UDO$UJ7UDW(&)1R

7KH*RYHUQPHQWUHVSRQGVWKDW3ODLQWLII·VXQYHULILDEOHGDWDFUHDWHGDJDSWKDWQHHGHG

WREHILOOHGE\WKHDJHQF\LQRUGHUWRFRPSOHWHLWVFDOFXODWLRQVId.DW2

%RWK SDUWLHV UHLWHUDWH WKHVH SRVLWLRQV LQ WKHLU VXSSOHPHQWDO EULHILQJ  (XUR

60(DUJXHVWKDWLWLVLQWKHVDPHSRVLWLRQDVWKHSODLQWLIILQZhejiangDQGWKDWQR

 ́JDSμH[LVWHGIRU&RPPHUFHWRILOOSee Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co.)G

DW7KH*RYHUQPHQWFRQWHVWVWKDWFODLPDUJXLQJWKDWVHYHUDOGDWDVHWVVXFK

DVVDOHVH[SHQVHVLQERWKWKH0DOD\VLDQDQG86PDUNHWVZHUHUHSRUWHGRQO\RQDQ

DFWXDOZHLJKWEDVLVDQGSURYHGXQYHULILDEOH'HI·V6XSS%UDW2(&)1R

7KH*RYHUQPHQWH[SODLQV

>)@RU VDOHV H[SHQVHV (XUR 60( UHSRUWHG LWV UHOHYDQW

QXPEHUV«solelyRQDSHUNLORJUDPactual weightEDVLV«

7KDW LV VLPLODUO\ WUXH IRU WKH JURVV XQLW SULFH YDULDEOH

ZKLFK(XUR60(UHSRUWHGRQO\RQDQactual weightDQGSHU

FDUWRQEDVLV«7KHFRQVLVWHQWPHWULFXQLI\LQJWKHVHVDOHV

UHODWHG YDULDEOHV LV WKDW (XUR 60( UHSRUWHG WKRVH

H[SHQVHVWR&RPPHUFHXVLQJactual weight«7KXVZKHQ

&RPPHUFHZDVXQDEOHWRYHULI\WKHDFWXDOZHLJKWGDWDWKDW

(XUR60(KDGSURYLGHG LQVXSSRUW RI WKHVHUHVSRQVHV LW
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

FRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHUHZDVDJDSLQWKHUHFRUGWKDWSUHYHQWHG

LWIURPFRQGXFWLQJLWVFDOFXODWLRQV>@

Id.HPSKDVLVLQWKHRULJLQDOsee also ,'0DW2-$DW2(&)1R

,Q Zhejiang, WKH )HGHUDO &LUFXLW KHOG WKDW &RPPHUFH·V UHOLDQFH RQ IDFWV

DYDLODEOH ZDV XQODZIXO 3 GHVSLWH WKH GLVFUHSDQFLHV LQ WKH FRPSDQ\·V UHFRUGV 3

EHFDXVHWKHGDWD&RPPHUFHQHHGHGLQYHULILDEOHIRUPZDVDYDLODEOHHOVHZKHUHLQWKH

UHFRUG7KXVWKH)HGHUDO&LUFXLWKHOGWKHUHZDVQR ́JDSμWRILOOWKHDJHQF\VLPSO\

KDG WR ORRN HOVHZKHUH LQ WKH FRPSDQ\·V VXEPLVVLRQV WR ILQG WKH GDWD LW QHHGHG

Zhejiang )GDW+HUHDVWKHDJHQF\H[SODLQHGLQLWV,VVXHVDQG'HFLVLRQ

0HPRLWVUHOLDQFHRQIDFWVDYDLODEOHZDVDUHVXOWRILWVLQDELOLW\WRSHUIRUPWKHPDUJLQ

FDOFXODWLRQEHFDXVHRIDQabsenceRIYHULILDEOHGDWD

,QLWVLQLWLDOTXHVWLRQQDLUH&RPPHUFHUHTXHVWHGGDWDUHODWHGWRWKHTXDQWLWLHV

RIPHUFKDQGLVH(XUR60(VROGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGLQWKHFRPSDQ\·V0DOD\VLDQ

KRPHPDUNHW,QLWLDO4XHVWLRQQDLUH-$ DW2(&)1R(XUR60(

UHVSRQGHGZLWKYDULRXVGRFXPHQWVIURPERWKPDUNHWVLQFOXGLQJVDPSOHLQYRLFHVDQG

SDFNLQJOLVWV(XUR60(6HF$5HVSDW([-$DW2(&)

1R:KDWWKHLQYRLFHVUHIOHFWLVWKDW(XUR60(TXDQWLILHVLWVPHUFKDQGLVHE\WKH

QXPEHURIXQLWVEDJVWKHQXPEHURIFDUWRQVDQGWKHQXPEHURIXQLWVLQHDFKFDUWRQ

(XUR60(6HF$5HVSDW([-$DW(&)1Rsee also3O·V

%ULHIDW(&)1R:HLJKWGRHVQRWDSSHDURQWKHLQYRLFHVEHFDXVH ́(XUR60(

GRHVQRWVHOO WR WKHFXVWRPHUE\ZHLJKW LQ DQ\ZD\>@μ3O·V%U DW (&)1R 

+RZHYHUZHLJKWGRHVDSSHDURQWKHFRPSDQ\·VSDFNLQJOLVWV3ODLQWLIIH[SODLQVWKDW

WKH ZHLJKWV WKDW DSSHDU RQ WKRVH GRFXPHQWV DUH FDOFXODWHG E\ PXOWLSO\LQJ WKH
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

 ́VWDQGDUG ZHLJKW SHU FDUWRQμ E\ WKH QXPEHU RI FDUWRQV LQ WKH VDOH 3 QRW E\

LQGLYLGXDOO\ZHLJKLQJHDFKFDUWRQId. 6WDQGDUGZHLJKWWKHUHIRUHUHSUHVHQWVDWEHVW

DQ DYHUDJH(XUR60( SURYLGHG&RPPHUFHZLWK DFWXDOZHLJKWV EXW WKRVH DFWXDO

ZHLJKWVDOVRZHUHPRUHRIDQDYHUDJH,WZHLJKHGRQHFDUWRQIURPHDFKVDOHVKLSPHQW

DQGPXOWLSOLHGWKDWZHLJKWE\WKHWRWDOQXPEHURIFDUWRQVLQWKHVKLSPHQWWRDUULYH

DWWKH ́DFWXDOZHLJKWμId.DW2UDO$UJ7UDW(&)1R(XUR60(

FRQFHGHVWKDW ́YDULDWLRQVEHWZHHQVWDQGDUGZHLJKWDQGDFWXDOZHLJKWFDQUHVXOWLQ

GLVFUHSDQFLHV WR VRPH GHJUHH VLQFH DFWXDO ZHLJKWV DQG VWDQGDUG ZHLJKWV PD\

GLIIHU>@μ  3O·V %U DW  (&) 1R   +RZHYHU WKH FRPSDQ\LQVLVWV WKDW  ́RQ DQ

DJJUHJDWHEDVLVμWKRVHGLVFUHSDQFLHVDUH ́LPPDWHULDOμDQGGRQRWHYLQFHDQ\ ́DWWHPSW

E\(XUR60(WRPDQLSXODWHRUPLVUHSUHVHQWLWVUHSRUWHGTXDQWLW\LQIRUPDWLRQ>@μId.

$OWKRXJKLWPD\EHWUXHWKDW&RPPHUFHFRXOGKDYHFRQGXFWHGLWVFDOFXODWLRQ

ZLWK D IXOO DQG YHULILDEOH GDWDVHW RI HLWKHU WKH DFWXDO RU VWDQGDUG ZHLJKW LW KDG

QHLWKHU,QVWHDGWKHDJHQF\KDGVRPHGDWDLQWKHIRUPRIVWDQGDUGDQGDFWXDOZHLJKW

DQGRWKHUGDWDRQO\LQWHUPVRIDFWXDOZHLJKWZKLFKSURYHGLPSRVVLEOHWRYHULI\,'0

DW2-$DW2(&)1RGLVFXVVLQJZKLFKXQLWV&RPPHUFHKDGIRUHDFK

GDWDVHWDQGZKLFKRIWKRVHGDWDVHWVWKHDJHQF\ZDVDEOHWRYHULI\1RFRQYHUVLRQ

UDWLRDSSHDUVLQWKHUHFRUGPHDQLQJWKDW&RPPHUFHFRXOGQRWFRQYHUWXQYHULILDEOH

GDWDLQWRDGLIIHUHQWPHDVXUHPHQWXQLWVXFKDVVWDQGDUGZHLJKWRUQXPEHURIEDJV

Id.DW-$DW'HI·V%UDW2(&)1Rsee also 2UDO$UJ7UDW2

(&)1R(XUR60(LVDQH[SHULHQFHGSDUWLFLSDQWLQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZV

7KDW LV ZK\ LW VRXJKW WR SURIIHU LWV GDWD LQ WHUPV RI DFWXDO ZHLJKW ZLWKRXW EHLQJ
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

SURPSWHGE\&RPPHUFH,WZDVWKHVDPHPHWULFUHTXHVWHGDQGXVHGLQSDVWUHYLHZV

'HI·V %U DW  (&) 1R  Compare ,QLWLDO 4XHVWLRQQDLUH DW %2 -$ DW

2 (&) 1R  &RPPHUFH UHTXHVWLQJ TXDQWLW\ GDWD ZLWKRXW DQ\ IXUWKHU

VSHFLILFDWLRQ with,QLWLDO4XHVWLRQQDLUH5HVSDW-$(&)1R(XUR

60(SURYLGLQJWKHGDWDLQ ́DFWXDOZHLJKWμ([SHULHQFHGUHVSRQGHQWVDUHH[SHFWHG

WRPDLQWDLQWKHLUERRNVLQDPDQQHUWKDWSHUPLWV&RPPHUFHWRJOHDQWKHQHFHVVDU\

GDWDIRULWVDQDO\VLVNippon Steel Corp. v. United States)G)HG

&LU%\LWVRZQDGPLVVLRQ(XUR60(IDLOHGWRGRVRDQGLQVWHDGVRXJKWWR

XVHDYHUDJHV LQVWHDG RIDFWXDOZHLJKWV2UDO$UJ7UDW2(&)1R

3ODLQWLII·V FRXQVHO H[SODLQLQJ KRZ WKH  ́DFWXDO ZHLJKWVμ ZHUH FDOFXODWHG E\

H[WUDSRODWLQJ IURP D VLQJOH FDUWRQ·V ZHLJKW UDWKHU WKDQ ZHLJKLQJ HDFK FDUWRQ

:KHQ(XUR60(·VDFWXDOZHLJKWGDWDIDLOHGWRYHULI\&RPPHUFHKDGDJDSWRILOOSee 

 86&  HD' IDLOXUH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ WR YHULI\ SHUPLWV &RPPHUFH WR

UHVRUWWRIDFWVDYDLODEOH%HFDXVHWKHDFWXDOZHLJKWILJXUHVSURIIHUHGE\(XUR60(

SURYHGXQYHULILDEOHDQGQRRWKHUFRPSOHWHGDWDVHWDSSHDUHGRQWKHUHFRUGWKDWZRXOG

DOORZ &RPPHUFH WR FRQYHUW WKH GDWD LQWR D FRQVLVWHQW XQLW RI PHDVXUHPHQW

&RPPHUFHODZIXOO\UHVRUWHGWRWKHXVHRIIDFWVDYDLODEOHWRDGMXVWWKHDFWXDOZHLJKW

GDWD,'0DW2-$DW2(&)1R

III. COMMERCE’S APPLICATION OF ADVERSE INERENCES TO 

DOMESTIC INLAND FREIGHT COSTS FOR U.S. SALES 

8QGHUWKHVWDWXWH&RPPHUFHPD\RQO\DSSO\DQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHDJDLQVWD

SDUW\DIWHU ILUVWGHWHUPLQLQJ WKDW WKHUH LVDJDS LQ WKHUHFRUGDQG WKHQVHSDUDWHO\

ILQGLQJWKDWWKHSDUW\KDV ́IDLOHGWRFRRSHUDWHE\QRWDFWLQJWRWKHEHVWRILWVDELOLW\
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

WRFRPSO\ZLWKDUHTXHVWIRULQIRUPDWLRQμSee 86&HE7KHLQIHUHQFH

WKDW&RPPHUFHGUDZVPXVWEHVHOHFWHG ́IURPDPRQJWKHIDFWVRWKHUZLVHDYDLODEOH.μ

Id.&RPPHUFHLVQRWUHTXLUHGWRPDNHDQ\GHWHUPLQDWLRQRUDGMXVWPHQW ́EDVHGRQ

DQ\DVVXPSWLRQVDERXWLQIRUPDWLRQWKHLQWHUHVWHGSDUW\ZRXOGKDYHSURYLGHGLIWKH

LQWHUHVWHGSDUW\KDGFRPSOLHGZLWKWKHUHTXHVWIRULQIRUPDWLRQ.μId.HE%

7KH*RYHUQPHQWDUJXHVWKDW(XUR60(·VUHSHDWHGIDLOXUHWRSURYLGHYHULILDEOH

GDWD IRU LWV LQODQG IUHLJKWFRVWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK LWV8QLWHG6WDWHVVDOHVMXVWLILHG LWV

DSSOLFDWLRQRIDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHXQGHUWKHVWDWXWH&RPPHUFHUHFDOOVWKDW ́(XUR

60(·VGRPHVWLFLQODQGIUHLJKWGDWDIRU86VDOHVFRXOGQRWEHYHULILHGμDQGWKDW ́(XUR

60(KDGUHSHDWHGO\IDLOHGWRDFWWRWKHEHVWRILWVDELOLW\DQGVHHPLQJO\WULHGWRPDVN

PDWHULDO GLVFUHSDQFLHV EHWZHHQ WKH ILJXUHV LW UHSRUWHG DQG LWV RZQ EDFNXS

GRFXPHQWVμ  'HI·V %U DW  (&) 1R   7KRVH DOOHJDWLRQV UHIHU WR (XUR 60(·V

UHVSRQVH WR WKH YHULILFDWLRQ TXHVWLRQQDLUH DQG WKH VXSSRUWLQJ GRFXPHQWV WKH

FRPSDQ\RIIHUHG WRH[SODLQ WKHGDWD&RPPHUFH IRXQG WKDW WKH ILJXUHV(XUR60(

RIIHUHGWRVXSSRUWLWVGDWDIRUWKHUDQGRPO\VHOHFWHGVDOHVGLGQRWPDWFKWKHQXPEHUV

WKHFRPSDQ\SURIIHUHGLQLWVLQLWLDOTXHVWLRQQDLUHUHVSRQVH,'0DW-$DW

(&) 1R   7KRXJK WKH FRPSDQ\ RIIHUHG  ́VRPH QDUUDWLYH GLVFXVVLRQ RI KRZ WKH

GRFXPHQWVVXSSRUWHGZKDWZDVUHSRUWHGLQWKHGDWDEDVH>@μWKDWH[SODQDWLRQ ́IDLO>HG@

WRH[SODLQKRZWKHIUHLJKWFRVWVZHUHDOORFDWHGWRWKHDVVRFLDWHGWUDQVDFWLRQV>@μId.

&RPPHUFH IRXQG WKDW (XUR 60( DWWHPSWHG WR PDVN PDWHULDO GLVFUHSDQFLHV ZLWK

KDQGZULWWHQQRWDWLRQVWKDWDSSHDUHGRQWKHDWWDFKHGVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWV7KRVH

QRWDWLRQV  ́DVVLJQHG DQ\ YDULDQFH WR QRQVHOHFWHG WUDQVDFWLRQV VR WKDW WKH VHOHFWHG
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

WUDQVDFWLRQZRXOGDSSHDUFRQVLVWHQWZLWK(XUR60(·V IUHLJKW LQYRLFHV>@μId.7KH

DJHQF\DUJXHVWKDWWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRIDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHZDVDSSURSULDWHEHFDXVH

&RPPHUFH KDG VHQW (XUR 60(  ́FOHDU DQG UHSHDWHG UHTXHVWV « WR FRUUHFW QRWHG

GLVFUHSDQFLHVμDQG(XUR60( ́PDGHQRVHULRXVHIIRUWμWRGRVR'HI·V%UDW2

(&)1R

(XUR60(GLVSXWHVWKHDOOHJDWLRQFODLPLQJWKDW ́WKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHFRUGLV

UHSOHWHZLWKHYLGHQFHWKDW(XUR60(FRRSHUDWHGWRWKHEHVWRILWVDELOLW\DWDOOWLPHV

LQWKHXQGHUO\LQJDGPLQLVWUDWLYHUHYLHZ>@μ3O·V5HSO\%UDW(&)1R,WLQVLVWV

WKDWWKHFLUFXPVWDQFHVVXUURXQGLQJWKH&RYLG3DQGHPLFZKLFKSUHYHQWHGDQRQ

VLWHYHULILFDWLRQGHSULYHGWKHFRPSDQ\RIWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRSDUWLFLSDWHLQDSURFHVV

ZLWKWKHDJHQF\ZKHUHE\ ́WKRVHJDSV>LQWKHUHFRUG@FRXOGKDYHEHHQIXOO\H[SODLQHG

DQGGLJHVWHGE\&RPPHUFHRIILFLDOV>@μId.DW3ODLQWLIIDUJXHVWKDW ́SUHYHULILFDWLRQ

SUHSDUDWLRQV URXWLQHO\ LQYROYH PDNLQJ QRWDWLRQV KDQGZULWWHQ RU RWKHUZLVH RQ

SKRWRFRSLHVRIVDOHVDQGRURWKHULQWHUQDOUHFRUGVKLJKOLJKWLQJUHFRQFLOLQJILJXUHVIRU

HDVH RI UHIHUHQFH DQG WR H[SHGLWH WKH RQVLWH YHULILFDWLRQ SURFHVVμ  Id. DW   7KH

*RYHUQPHQW·VFODLPVWKDWWKHQRWDWLRQVDUHLQGLFDWLYHRIDQDWWHPSWWR ́PDVNμLVVXHV

LQ WKH FRPSDQ\·V GDWD UHYHDOV DFFRUGLQJ WR (XUR 60(  ́D IXQGDPHQWDO

PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJDERXWKRZWKHRQVLWHYHULILFDWLRQSURFHVVXVXDOO\ZRUNVμId.DW

$WRUDODUJXPHQW(XUR60(FODULILHGWKDWLWGLGQRWREMHFWWRWKHDJHQF\·VXVH

RIDYHULILFDWLRQTXHVWLRQQDLUHLQOLHXRIDQRQVLWHYHULILFDWLRQEXWUDWKHUZDQWHGWR

KLJKOLJKW WKH LQKHUHQW VKRUWFRPLQJV RI WKDW DOWHUQDWLYH YHULILFDWLRQPHWKRG 2UDO

$UJ 7U  (&) 1R   ,W DOVR FODULILHG WKDW LWV SULPDU\ REMHFWLRQ WR WKH
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

DSSOLFDWLRQRIDGYHUVH LQIHUHQFHVWRWKH86VDOHVGDWDZDVWKH LQFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWK

&RPPHUFH·V ILQGLQJ WKDW RWKHU VLPLODU GLVFUHSDQFLHV WKDW DSSHDUHG LQ WKH KRPH

PDUNHWVDOHVGDWDGLGnotGHPRQVWUDWHDIDLOXUHWRFRRSHUDWHId.DWsee also 

id.DW2UHVSRQGLQJ ́>F@RUUHFWμZKHQDVNHGLILWZDVWUXHWKDWWKHFRPSDQ\

KLJKOLJKWHG WKH DJHQF\·V DFWLRQ WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW  ́WKH FDOFXODWLRQV IRU LQODQG

IUHLJKWH[SHQVHVLQWKHKRPHPDUNHWDQGZKDW>WKH\@GLGZLWKGRPHVWLFLQODQGIUHLJKW

H[SHQVHV IRU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV VDOHV >ZHUH@ DSSOHV WR DSSOHV « DQG \HW >ZHUH@ EHLQJ

WUHDWHGGLIIHUHQWO\μ3ODLQWLIIDUJXHVWKDWWKLVGLIIHUHQWLDOWUHDWPHQW3ZKHUHE\RQH

GLVFUHSDQF\ LV IRXQG QRW WR GHPRQVWUDWH D ODFN RI FRRSHUDWLRQ ZKLOH D VLPLODU

GLVFUHSDQF\ZLWKDQRWKHUGDWDVHWZDUUDQWVWKHGUDZLQJRIDQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFH3

FRQVWLWXWHVDQDUELWUDU\DQGXQODZIXODSSOLFDWLRQRIDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHVId.

,QLWV,VVXHVDQG'HFLVLRQ0HPR&RPPHUFHDGHTXDWHO\H[SODLQHGWKHEDVLVIRU

LWVGLIIHUHQWLDOWUHDWPHQWRIWKHGLVFUHSDQFLHVWKDWDSSHDUHG LQ(XUR60(·V LQODQG

IUHLJKWH[SHQVHVIRUKRPHPDUNHWVDOHVDQGWKHODUJHULQFRQVLVWHQF\WKDWLWIRXQGLQ

WKH86VDOHVGDWD&RPPHUFHH[SODLQHG ́8QOLNHWKHYDULDQFHVUHODWLQJWRLQODQG

IUHLJKWLQWKHKRPHPDUNHWZKLFKZHUHJHQHUDOO\YHU\VPDOORUFRXOGEHH[SODLQHGE\

URXQGLQJ GLIIHUHQFHV WKH YDULDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH VXSSRUWLQJ GRFXPHQWDWLRQ DQG WKH

GRPHVWLF LQODQG IUHLJKW H[SHQVHV UHSRUWHG LQ WKHGDWDEDVH IRU WKH WKUHH86VDOHV

WUDFHV ZHUH QRW LPPDWHULDOμ ,'0 DW  -$ DW  (&) 1R    ́8QGHU WKH

DUELWUDU\ DQG FDSULFLRXV VWDQGDUG WKH FRXUW« GHWHUPLQH>V@ ZKHWKHU DQ DJHQF\·V

GHFLVLRQZDVEDVHGRQDFRQVLGHUDWLRQRIWKHUHOHYDQWIDFWRUVDQGZKHWKHUWKHUHKDV

EHHQDFOHDUHUURURIMXGJPHQWμBaroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United 
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

States  &,7   Q  LQWHUQDO FLWDWLRQV RPLWWHG+HUH &RPPHUFH

H[SODLQHG WKH EDVLV IRU LWV GLIIHUHQWLDO WUHDWPHQW RI WKH YDULRXV GLVFUHSDQFLHV WKDW

DSSHDUHGLQ(XUR60(·VGDWD:KHUHGLVFUHSDQFLHVZHUHVPDOODQGFRXOGSRWHQWLDOO\

EH H[SODLQHG E\ URXQGLQJ &RPPHUFH IRXQG GUDZLQJ DQ DGYHUVH LQIHUHQFH ZDV

XQZDUUDQWHG,'0DW2-$DW2(&)1R:KHUHWKHGLVFUHSDQF\

ZDVODUJHUFRXOGQRWEHH[SODLQHGE\URXQGLQJDQGLQFOXGHGKDQGZULWWHQQRWDWLRQV

WKDWDSSHDUHGGHVLJQHGWRREVFXUHWKHGLVFUHSDQF\·VRULJLQ&RPPHUFHGLGDSSO\DQ

DGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHId.DW2-$DW27KH&RXUWILQGVWKDW&RPPHUFH

FRQVLGHUHGDOOUHOHYDQWIDFWRUVGUHZDUDWLRQDOGLVWLQFWLRQEDVHGRQWKHUHODWLYHVL]H

RI WKH GLVFUHSDQFLHV DQG VXSSRUWHG LWV GHWHUPLQDWLRQ ZLWK VXEVWDQWLDO HYLGHQFH

&RQVHTXHQWO\WKH&RXUWZLOOQRWVHFRQGJXHVV&RPPHUFH·VDSSOLFDWLRQRIDQDGYHUVH

LQIHUHQFHWRWKHODUJHVWGLVFUHSDQF\ZLWKLQWKH86IUHLJKWH[SHQVHGDWDVHW

IV. MINISTERIAL ERROR 

7KH ILQDO LVVXH IRU WKH &RXUW·V UHYLHZ LV (XUR 60(·V PLQLVWHULDO HUURU

DOOHJDWLRQ3O·V%UDW(&)1R86&KUHTXLUHV&RPPHUFHWR

 ́HVWDEOLVKSURFHGXUHVIRUWKHFRUUHFWLRQRIPLQLVWHULDOHUURUV«>ZKLFK@VKDOOHQVXUH

RSSRUWXQLW\IRULQWHUHVWHGSDUWLHVWRSUHVHQWWKHLUYLHZVUHJDUGLQJDQ\VXFKHUURUVμ

7KHVDPHVWDWXWHGHILQHVDPLQLVWHULDOHUURUDV ́DQHUURULQDGGLWLRQVXEWUDFWLRQRU

RWKHU DULWKPHWLF IXQFWLRQ FOHULFDO HUURU UHVXOWLQJ IURP LQDFFXUDWH FRS\LQJ

GXSOLFDWLRQRUWKHOLNHDQGDQ\RWKHUVLPLODUW\SHRIXQLQWHQWLRQDOHUURU>@μId.; see 

also  &)5  I  &RPPHUFH·V UHJXODWLRQV LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH VWDWXWH

PDQGDWH WKDW  ́>F@RPPHQWV FRQFHUQLQJ PLQLVWHULDO HUURUV PDGH LQWKH SUHOLPLQDU\
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

UHVXOWV RI D UHYLHZ VKRXOG EH LQFOXGHG LQ D SDUW\·V FDVH EULHIμ   &)5 

F3DUWLHVPD\VXEPLWFDVHEULHIVWRWKHDJHQF\ ́GD\VDIWHUWKHGDWHRI

SXEOLFDWLRQRIWKHSUHOLPLQDU\UHVXOWVRIUHYLHZ>@μ&)5FLL ́7KH

FDVH EULHIPXVW SUHVHQW DOO DUJXPHQWV WKDW FRQWLQXH LQ WKH VXEPLWWHU·V YLHZ WR EH

UHOHYDQWWRWKH>DJHQF\·V@ILQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQ>@μId. F5HTXLULQJPLQLVWHULDO

HUURUV WKDW DSSHDU LQ WKHSUHOLPLQDU\ UHVXOWV WR EH UDLVHG LQ WKHSDUW\·V FDVH EULHI

HQVXUHVWKDWRWKHUSDUWLHVKDYHDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRUHVSRQGWRWKHDOOHJDWLRQDQGWKDW

&RPPHUFHLVDEOHWR ́DQDO\]HDQ\FRPPHQWVUHFHLYHGDQGLIDSSURSULDWHFRUUHFWDQ\

VLJQLILFDQWPLQLVWHULDO HUURU E\ DPHQGLQJ WKH SUHOLPLQDU\ GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RU« WKH

ILQDOGHWHUPLQDWLRQ>@μ&)5H

(XUR60(GHFOLQHGWRVXEPLWDFDVHEULHIDIWHU&RPPHUFH·VSXEOLFDWLRQRIWKH

SUHOLPLQDU\UHVXOWV'HI·V5HVS%UDWQ(&)1R$IWHU WKH&RPPLWWHH

VXEPLWWHGDEULHI WR WKHDJHQF\KRZHYHU(XUR60(VXEPLWWHGDUHEXWWDOEULHI LQ

ZKLFKLWUHVSRQGHGWRLVVXHVUDLVHGLQWKH&RPPLWWHH·VEULHIDQGDWWHPSWHGWRUDLVH

IRUWKHILUVWWLPHLWVDOOHJDWLRQRIDPLQLVWHULDOHUURUId.see also-$DW(&)

1R%HFDXVHUHEXWWDOEULHIV ́PD\UHVSRQGRQO\WRDUJXPHQWVUDLVHGLQFDVHEULHIVμ

DQGDUHEDUUHGIURPUDLVLQJQHZLVVXHV&RPPHUFHUHMHFWHG(XUR60(·VVXEPLVVLRQ

DQGUHTXLUHGLWWRUHVXEPLWLWVUHEXWWDOZLWKWKHPLQLVWHULDOHUURUDOOHJDWLRQUHGDFWHG

See &)5G)ROORZLQJ&RPPHUFH·VSXEOLFDWLRQRIWKH)LQDO5HVXOWV

(XUR60(DJDLQWULHGWRUDLVHLWVPLQLVWHULDOHUURUDOOHJDWLRQ2Q0DUFKWKH

FRPSDQ\ VXEPLWWHG D EULHI DOOHJLQJ WKDW &RPPHUFH HUUHG LQ LWV )LQDO 5HVXOWV E\

FDSSLQJWKHFRPSDQ\·VIUHLJKWUHYHQXHH[SHQVHV&RPPHUFHKDGRQO\LQFOXGHGWKH
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

LQWHUQDWLRQDOIUHLJKWH[SHQVHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHUHYLHZHGWUDQVDFWLRQV(XUR60(

0LQLVWHULDO(UURU0HPRDW-$DW(&)1R(XUR60(DUJXHGWKDWLW

VKRXOGKDYHDOVRLQFOXGHGWKHIUHLJKWH[SHQVHVLQFXUUHGZLWKLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWR

WUDQVSRUW WKH JRRGV WR WKHLU ILQDO GHVWLQDWLRQ 3ODLQWLII·V GDWD KDG LQFOXGHG WKRVH

8QLWHG 6WDWHV WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ H[SHQVHV DQG RPLWWLQJ WKH H[SHQVHV UHVXOWHG LQ D

GHFHSWLYHO\ ORZ H[SHQVH FDOFXODWLRQ IURP ZKLFK WR FRPSDUH 3ODLQWLII·V SURGXFWLRQ

H[SHQVHV7KHUHVXOWLVDSRWHQWLDOO\LQDFFXUDWHO\KLJKGXPSLQJPDUJLQId.

&RPPHUFHILOHGLWVUHVSRQVHWRWKHDOOHJDWLRQRQ0DUFKDUJXLQJWKDW

(XUR 60( IDLOHG WR UDLVH WKH LVVXH LQ D WLPHO\ IDVKLRQ DQG WKHUHE\ IRUIHLWHG WKH

REMHFWLRQ&RPPHUFH5HVSWR0LQLVWHULDO(UURUDW2-$2(&)1R

&LWLQJ&)5FDQG&)5F&RPPHUFHIRXQGWKDW

SDUWLHVDOOHJLQJPLQLVWHULDOHUURULQWKHSUHOLPLQDU\UHVXOWVPXVWGRVRLQWKHLUFDVH

EULHIVWRWKHDJHQF\Id.DW-$DW(XUR60(GHFOLQHGWRVXEPLWDQ\LQLWLDO

FDVHEULHIIROORZLQJWKHDJHQF\·VSXEOLFDWLRQRILWV3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWV7KDWOHIW(XUR

60( RQO\ WKH SRVW)LQDO 5HVXOWV SURFHVV WR UDLVH LWV REMHFWLRQ  2QFH DJDLQ WKH

FRPSODLQWZDVXQWLPHO\EHFDXVH&)5FUHTXLUHVSDUWLHVWRUDLVH

DQ\LVVXHVWKDWDUHGHWHFWDEOHLQWKH3UHOLPLQDU\5HVXOWVLQWKHLULQLWLDOFDVHEULHIV

7KH&RPPLWWHHDJUHHVZLWKWKH*RYHUQPHQWWKDW(XUR60(·VIDLOXUHWRWLPHO\

UDLVHLWVDOOHJDWLRQFRQVWLWXWHVIRUIHLWXUHEXWLWDOVRSUHVHQWVDQDOWHUQDWLYHEDVLVRQ

ZKLFK WR XSKROG &RPPHUFH·V GHFLVLRQ  ,W DUJXHV WKDW  ́WKH DOOHJHG HUURU LV QRW

¶PLQLVWHULDO·LQQDWXUHμEXWLVLQVWHDG ́DIDFWXDODQGPHWKRGRORJLFDOTXHVWLRQμ'HI

,QW·V%UDW(&)1R1RWLQJ WKDWPLQLVWHULDO HUURUVFDQ RQO\EHHUURUV  ́LQ
&RXUW1RFY6$9  3DJH

DGGLWLRQ VXEWUDFWLRQ RU RWKHU DULWKPHWLF IXQFWLRQ FOHULFDO HUURU UHVXOWLQJ IURP

LQDFFXUDWHFRS\LQJGXSOLFDWLRQRUWKHOLNH>@μWKH&RPPLWWHHSRVLWVWKDW&RPPHUFH·V

GHFLVLRQQRWWRLQFOXGHFHUWDLQFDWHJRULHVRIH[SHQVHVFDQQRWEHDPLQLVWHULDOHUURU

See &)5I0HWKRGRORJLFDOFKRLFHVDUHQRWXQLQWHQWLRQDOHUURUVDQG

WKHUHIRUHFDQQRWEHUDLVHGXVLQJWKHPLQLVWHULDOHUURUSURFHVV

7KH &RXUW DJUHHV WKDW WKH DOOHJDWLRQ ZDV ERWK XQWLPHO\ DQG QRW SURSHUO\

FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV  ́PLQLVWHULDOμ  :KHQ IDFHG ZLWK D VLPLODU TXHVWLRQ WKH )HGHUDO

&LUFXLWKDVKHOGWKDWWKHLQFOXVLRQRUH[FOXVLRQRIFHUWDLQILJXUHVLQDFDOFXODWLRQWKDW

DUH ́QRWDQDULWKPHWLFRUFOHULFDOHUURURUVLPLODULQDGYHUWHQWPLVWDNH«GR>@QRWIDOO

ZLWKLQWKHVWDWXWRU\GHILQLWLRQRI¶PLQLVWHULDOHUURU·μQVD Food Co., Ltd. v. United 

States  )G   )HG &LU   ,Q QVD Food WKH SODLQWLII ILOHG D

PLQLVWHULDO HUURU DOOHJDWLRQ IROORZLQJ WKHSXEOLFDWLRQ RI&RPPHUFH·V)LQDO5HVXOWV

DOOHJLQJ WKDW WKH DJHQF\ KDG PLVWDNHQO\  ́GRXEOH FRXQWHGμ FHUWDLQ H[SHQVHV LQ LWV

FDOFXODWLRQVId.DW2QDSSHDOWKHFRXUWUHMHFWHGLWVDOOHJDWLRQRQWZRVHSDUDWH

JURXQGV)LUVWWKH)HGHUDO&LUFXLWKHOGWKDWE\IDLOLQJWRUDLVHLWVFRQFHUQUHJDUGLQJ

&RPPHUFH·VFDOFXODWLRQEHIRUHWKHSXEOLFDWLRQRIWKH)LQDO5HVXOWV49'KDGIRUIHLWHG

WKHLVVXHId.DW ́>:@KHQWKHDOOHJHGPLVWDNHZDVGLVFRYHUDEOHGXULQJHDUOLHU

SURFHHGLQJVEXWZDVQRWSRLQWHGRXWWR&RPPHUFHGXULQJWKHWLPHSHULRGVSHFLILHGE\

UHJXODWLRQμ LW PD\ QRW EH UDLVHG DIWHU WKH SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH )LQDO 5HVXOWV DV D

PLQLVWHULDOHUURUSee id. QRWLQJWKDWWKHDOOHJHGHUURUZDV ́QHFHVVDULO\SUHVHQWLQ

WKHSUHOLPLQDU\UHVXOWVμ\HWWKHSODLQWLIIGLGQRWREMHFWLQLWVFDVHEULHI6HFRQGHYHQ

LI49'KDGQRWIRUIHLWHGLWVFODLPWKH)HGHUDO&LUFXLWH[SODLQHGWKDWWKHDOOHJHGHUURU
&RXUW1RFY6$9 3DJH

ZDVQRWPLQLVWHULDO&LWLQJWKHVWDWXWRU\GHILQLWLRQLWKHOGWKDW&RPPHUFH·VGHFLVLRQ

WRLQFOXGHFHUWDLQILJXUHVLQLWVFDOFXODWLRQ ́LVQRWDQDULWKPHWLFRUFOHULFDOHUURURU

VLPLODULQDGYHUWHQWPLVWDNHμDQGWKHUHIRUHFRXOGQRWTXDOLI\DVD ́PLQLVWHULDOHUURUμ

Id.

7KH SUHVHQW FDVH LV RQ DOO IRXUV ZLWK QVD Foods  /LNH 49' (XUR 60(

IRUIHLWHG LWV DOOHJDWLRQ E\ RSWLQJ QRW WR ILOH D FDVH EULHI IROORZLQJ &RPPHUFH·V

SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 3UHOLPLQDU\ 5HVXOWV  See id. KROGLQJ WKDW ZKHUH DQ HUURU LV

GLVFRYHUDEOH LQ WKH 3UHOLPLQDU\ 5HVXOWV SDUWLHV PXVW UDLVH LW LQ WKHLU EULHI WR

&RPPHUFH+RZHYHU HYHQ LI (XUR 60( KDG WLPHO\ ILHOG LWV DOOHJDWLRQ LWV FODLP

ZRXOGVWLOO IDLOEHFDXVH WKHPHWKRGRORJLFDOGHFLVLRQPDGHE\&RPPHUFH WR H[FOXGH

FHUWDLQ FRVWV LQ LWV FDOFXODWLRQV LV QRW  ́DQ DULWKPHWLF RU FOHULFDO HUURU RU VLPLODU

LQDGYHUWHQW PLVWDNH>@μ  See id. KROGLQJ WKDW  ́PHWKRGRORJLFDOμ FKRLFHV DUH QRW

PLQLVWHULDO HUURUV  $V ERWK JURXQGV VXSSRUW &RPPHUFH·V UHMHFWLRQ RI (XUR

60(·V DOOHJDWLRQWKH&RXUWSUSTAINS&RPPHUFH·VGHWHUPLQDWLRQ

CONCLUSION 

(XUR60(DOOHJHVWKDW&RPPHUFHWKUHZWKHERRNDW LW,QVWHDG&RPPHUFHDFWHG

ZLWKGHOLEHUDWLRQSDWLHQFHDQGDUJXDEO\VWD\HGLWVKDQGZKHQLWFRXOGKDYH

GUDZQDGYHUVHLQIHUHQFHVPRUHEURDGO\DJDLQVWVXFKDVHDVRQHGUHVSRQGHQW)RUWKH

UHDVRQV VHW IRUWK DERYH WKH &RXUW SUSTAINS &RPPHUFH·V )LQDO 5HVXOWV DV

&RQVLGHUDWLRQRIZKHWKHUWKHDOOHJDWLRQPDGHE\(XUR60(FRQVWLWXWHVD ́PLQLVWHULDOHUURUμ

LVUHVROYDEOHDVDSXUHTXHVWLRQRIODZEHFDXVHWKHTXHVWLRQLVSXUHO\OHJDOLQQDWXUHUHTXLUHV

QRIXUWKHUGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHUHFRUGRUDQ\DGGLWLRQDODJHQF\DFWLRQDQGLWGRHVQRWUHVXOW

LQXQGXHGHOD\RUH[SHQGLWXUHRIUHVRXUFHVSee Saha Thai Steel Pipe Pub. Co., Ltd. v. United 

States)6XSSG&,7see also Husteel Co. v. United States)

6XSSGQ&,7

ERRATA 

Euro SME Sdn Bhd v. United States, Case No. 22-00108, Slip-Op. 24-16, dated 

February 12, 2024. 

Page 35: In line 9, change “field” to “filed” in the sentence “However, even if 

Euro SME had timely...” 

February 14, 2024