United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

FRESH GARLIC PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION,

CHRISTOPHER RANCH L.L.C., THE GARLIC 

COMPANY, VALLEY GARLIC, AND VESSEY AND 

COMPANY, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2013-1581

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 10-CV-0304, Judge Richard K. Eaton.

______________________ 

Decided: September 10, 2014

______________________ 

ROBERT T. HUME, Hume & Associates LLC, of Ojai, 

California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

RICHARD P. SCHROEDER, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart-
2 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendantappellee. With him on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, 

Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and REGINALD T. BLADES, JR., Assistant Director. Of 

counsel on the brief was WHITNEY M. ROLIG, Attorney, 

United States Department of Commerce, Office of the 

Chief Counsel for Import Administration, of Washington, 

DC. 

MICHAEL J. COURSEY, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. With 

him on the brief was JOHN M. HERRMANN. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Qingdao Sea-line Trading Company (“Sea-line”) appeals a decision of the Court of International Trade affirming the Department of Commerce’s final remand 

results in a new shipper review and assignment of an 

antidumping duty on Sea-line’s imports of fresh whole 

garlic bulbs from the People’s Republic of China. For the 

reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

I 

A. NEW SHIPPER REVIEW

Sea-line challenges the Department of Commerce’s 

(“Commerce”) calculation of its antidumping duty, which 

it contends is not supported by substantial evidence. 

Commerce calculated the antidumping duty as part of a 

new shipper review initiated at Sea-line’s request on an 

outstanding 1994 antidumping order on fresh garlic 
QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US 3

imports from China.1 A new shipper review covers imports by an importer or producer that was not subject to 

the initial antidumping duty investigation and believes it 

is entitled to an individual antidumping duty margin. 

19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(B). New shipper reviews cover 

imports made during a period subsequent to the period of 

review for the initial investigation. 

Commerce conducted Sea-line’s new shipper review 

for the period of November 1, 2008 through April 30, 

2009. Because China is a non-market economy, Commerce calculated the factors of production of Sea-line’s 

fresh whole garlic using surrogate values from a comparable market economy. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). Commerce chose India as the primary comparable market 

economy for this review and sought to identify a surrogate 

value for the “fresh garlic bulb” intermediate input instead of calculating values for the individual factors of 

production used to produce that input. Commerce relied 

on price data from the Azadpur Agricultural Produce 

Marketing Committee’s Market Information Bulletin 

(“APMC Bulletin”), which reports daily prices in India for

garlic bulbs of various “grades.” Garlic bulbs are divided 

into four grades based on size: grade Super A (greater 

than 55 mm); grade A (40-55 mm); grade B (30-40 mm); 

and grade C (less than 30 mm). 

Sea-line reported a bulb size of over 55 millimeters for 

the garlic imported into the United States during the 

period of review, placing its garlic bulbs in the grade 

Super A category. The APMC Bulletin, however, did not 

report any prices for grade Super A bulbs for the period of 

review. Commerce thus averaged the closest available 

data points for grade Super A garlic in the APMC Bulle1 See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 Fed. Reg. 59,209 (Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 16, 

1994).

 
4 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

tin, which was for November 2007 through April 2008. To 

make this value contemporaneous with the period of 

review and account for inflation, Commerce applied the 

Wholesale Price Index (“WPI”) for India published by the 

International Monetary Fund (“IMF”). Applying the IMF 

index resulted in a slight increase in the price for grade 

Super A garlic, even though the prices listed in the APMC 

Bulletin for the other garlic grades dropped just before 

the period of review. 

In addition to calculating surrogate values for Sealine’s fresh garlic, Commerce also calculated a “surrogate 

financial ratio” to account for general expenses, factory 

overhead, and profit. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). This 

ratio is determined using financial statements and other 

non-proprietary information from producers of identical or 

comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. 

19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(4). If financial statements are 

available from multiple producers, Commerce averages 

the financial ratios derived from all the financial statements.2 

Commerce calculated a surrogate financial ratio for 

Sea-line by averaging financial statements from two 

Indian tea producers, Limtex Tea Limited (“Limtex”) and 

Tata Tea Limited (“Tata Tea”). Commerce noted that 

“tea, rice, and vegetable processing is similar to garlic 

because each is not highly processed or preserved prior to 

sale.” J.A. 137. Commerce thus decided to use financial 

data from Limtex and Tata Tea because tea is comparable 

to whole and peeled garlic, and each company’s production process is similar to that of Sea-line’s garlic producer, 

Jinxiang County Juxinyan Trading Co. 

2 Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1368 

(Fed. Cir. 2010).

 
QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US 5

Commerce published its preliminary results on May 5, 

2010, and Sea-line challenged those results in two case 

briefs submitted to Commerce on June 4, 2010 and August 6, 2010. First, Sea-line argued that Commerce 

should not have relied on non-contemporaneous grade 

Super A garlic prices or used the IMF WPI index to inflate 

those prices. Second, Sea-line argued that Tata Tea’s 

financials should not have been used to calculate the 

surrogate financial ratio in lieu of those from a different 

company, Garlico Industries, because Tata Tea’s production process is not sufficiently comparable to the production of fresh whole garlic. 

Commerce considered and rejected Sea-line’s challenges in its final results. Commerce continued to rely on 

prices from outside the period of review for grade Super A 

garlic after concluding that size-specific price information 

was preferable because “size is an important price factor.” 

J.A. 208. Commerce also rejected Sea-line’s argument 

that a consistent relationship existed between the prices 

for grade Super A garlic and grade A garlic: 

[W]e note that there is no historical price information on the record of this review to support 

Qingdao Sea-line’s apparent contention that price 

trends for Super-A grade would mirror those of 

the A grade price. Moreover, Qingdao Sea-line’s 

own arguments about the relative scarcity of 

large-bulb garlic (i.e., Super-A grade) in India resulting in higher prices for large-bulb garlic contradict its contention that prices for Super-A 

grade (the largest Indian variety) would mirror 

those of smaller sized garlic.

Id. (emphasis original). Commerce thus continued to rely 

on non-contemporaneous prices for grade Super A garlic 

in its final results. 

Commerce also continued to use the IMF WPI index 

to inflate the older Super A garlic prices, noting that it 
6 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

has used the same index in prior reviews. Commerce 

refused to use either of two alternative methods that Sealine claimed would have resulted in a more accurate garlic 

surrogate value. Commerce rejected a “garlic-specific 

WPI” index calculated by Sea-line after noting that Sealine did not provide any information on the price data 

that presumably underpinned the proposed index. Commerce also rejected Sea-line’s alternative proposal to 

adjust the non-contemporaneous prices using a calculated 

ratio between grade Super A and grade A prices. Commerce concluded that “there is insufficient historical 

Azadpur APMC price data (Super-A grade and A grade) 

on the record of this review to serve as the basis for a 

meaningful price ratio.” J.A. 211. Commerce thus continued to adjust the grade Super A garlic prices using the 

IMF WPI index. 

Finally, Commerce continued to rely on Tata Tea’s financials to calculate a surrogate financial ratio. Commerce rejected Sea-line’s argument that Commerce’s 

decision is inconsistent with prior reviews, noting that 

prior reviews had also concluded that tea is comparable to 

garlic. Commerce further noted that the majority of Tata 

Tea’s sales are comprised of tea. Commerce therefore 

concluded that Tata Tea’s financials reflect the best 

available information on the record. 

Based on its calculations, Commerce imposed on Sealine an antidumping margin of 155.33% and a per-unit 

cash deposit rate of $1.28 per kilogram.3 Sea-line appealed Commerce’s final results to the Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”). 

3 Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: 

New Shipper Review, 75 Fed. Reg. 61,130, 61,131 (Dep’t 

of Commerce Oct. 4, 2010) (final results). 

 
QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US 7

B. FIRST APPEAL TO THE TRADE COURT

In its pleadings before the Trade Court, Sea-line reiterated its challenges to Commerce’s calculations, taking

issue with Commerce’s (i) reliance on noncontemporaneous prices and use of the IMF WPI index to 

inflate those prices; and (ii) use of Tata Tea’s financials in 

lieu of Garlico’s financials. 

On March 21, 2012, the Trade Court granted-in-part 

Sea-line’s motion for judgment on the administrative 

record and remanded Commerce’s final results for further 

clarification.4 The Trade Court agreed with Sea-line that 

Commerce failed to sufficiently explain why garlic size is 

such an important price factor that it justified using 

prices outside the period of review. The Trade Court

noted that Commerce’s statement that “garlic size is an 

important price factor” is insufficient to explain why 

garlic size trumps contemporaneity in its choice of prices. 

The Trade Court also concluded that Commerce did not 

adequately explain why it was reasonable to use Tata Tea 

financials given findings in prior reviews that Tata Tea’s 

production process was not comparable to whole garlic, as 

well as why it was reasonable to not consider the financial 

statements of Garlico Industries. The Trade Court thus 

remanded for Commerce to more adequately explain its 

conclusions. 

The Trade Court, however, affirmed Commerce’s use 

of the IMF WPI index as an inflator in the event that 

Commerce sufficiently justifies its use of garlic prices 

outside the period of review. The Trade Court determined 

that Commerce reasonably rejected both of Sea-line’s 

proposed alternative methods for obtaining contempora4 Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 

No. 10-00304, 2012 WL 990904 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 21, 

2012) (“Qingdao I”).

 
8 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

neous grade Super A prices. First, the Trade Court noted 

that Commerce refused to use Sea-line’s proposed garlicspecific WPI index after concluding that Sea-line failed to 

provide sufficient data to verify the index. Sea-line created the garlic-specific WPI in its case brief to Commerce 

and provided no explanation or context for how the Indian 

government compiled the underlying data. Sea-line also 

provided an erroneous website address as the source of 

the data and otherwise failed to provide a verifiable

source to Commerce. The Trade Court thus affirmed 

Commerce’s refusal to use Sea-line’s garlic-specific WPI,

noting that it “is particularly the duty of a party to complete the record when, as here, plaintiff is proffering data 

that it claims is the ‘best available information.’” Qingdao I, 2012 WL 990904 at *7.

Second, the Trade Court held that Commerce reasonably rejected Sea-line’s proposed method of calculating a 

price ratio between grade Super A and grade A garlic 

prices to arrive at a contemporaneous surrogate value. To 

support this method, Sea-line noted that it could “presume” that the prices between grade Super A and grade A 

garlic remain “relatively constant.” The Trade Court

noted, however, that Commerce concluded that one year 

of data on the price differences between grade Super A 

and grade A garlic was insufficient to show a consistent 

ratio over time, and Sea-line failed to provide additional 

evidence establishing that its proposed ratio remained 

constant over a period of years. The Trade Court thus 

concluded that Sea-line failed to show that its proposed 

ratio would be more accurate than using the IMF WPI 

index to adjust the older Super A prices. 

C. COMMERCE’S REMAND RESULTS

On remand, Commerce further explained its calculations and reaffirmed its decisions to (i) focus on garlic size 

over contemporaneity; (ii) rely on the Tata Tea financial 

statements; and (iii) exclude Garlico’s financial state-
QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US 9

ments from consideration. Commerce first noted that it 

“has consistently determined that the size of garlic bulb is 

the most important factor in determining garlic prices.” 

J.A. 343. Commerce supplemented the record with additional documents showing that purchasers pay a premium 

for large-bulb garlic and that India coined “grade Super 

A” garlic as a way to separate new varieties of large-bulb 

garlic from the more traditional grade A garlic. Commerce further noted that Sea-line’s own information 

indicates that its customers rely primarily on size when 

purchasing garlic. Commerce therefore continued to rely 

on non-contemporaneous grade Super A prices. 

Commerce also reaffirmed its reliance on Tata Tea’s 

2008-09 financial statement despite deciding in previous 

administrative reviews to reject the use of Tata Tea’s 

financials after concluding that Tata Tea was primarily 

involved in producing highly-processed or preserved 

products. First, Commerce noted that previous administrative reviews relied on a financial statement from 2003-

04, whereas the current review relies on a statement from 

2008-09. Commerce reviewed the 2008-09 financial 

statement and found little evidence that Tata Tea’s production process for this period was heavily focused on 

processed products. Commerce noted that 89 percent of 

Tata Tea’s sales were of branded products, but refused to 

conclude that “branded products” implies “highlyprocessed goods.” Commerce further noted that instant 

tea sales, which are highly processed, represented only 

about 1.3 percent of Tata Tea’s total tea sales and that no 

additional evidence indicated that the remainder of Tata 

Tea’s sales involved highly-processed merchandise. 

Commerce therefore rejected Sea-line’s claim that reliance 

on Tata Tea’s financial statement was improper because 

Tata Tea’s production process was not comparable to the 

production of fresh whole garlic. 

Finally, Commerce reaffirmed its rejection of Garlico’s 

financial statements after finding inconsistences and 
10 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

calculation errors in the underlying data. Commerce also 

found that about 91 percent of Garlico’s sales were of nonfresh products produced through extensive drying and 

processing and were thus not comparable to Sea-line’s

production of fresh garlic. Commerce therefore continued 

to disregard Garlico’s financial statements in its surrogate financial ratio calculation.

D. SECOND APPEAL TO THE TRADE COURT

Sea-line again appealed to the Trade Court, and the 

court affirmed.5 The Trade Court held that Commerce 

reasonably explained why garlic size was more important 

than contemporaneity for purposes of establishing garlic 

prices. The Trade Court further held that substantial 

evidence supported Commerce’s decision to rely on the 

financial statements of Tata Tea in lieu of those of Garlico. According to the Trade Court, Commerce reasonably 

concluded that Tata Tea’s 2008-09 financial statement

revealed that only a small amount of Tata Tea’s production involved highly-processed products and that the 

2008-09 statement differed from those relied upon in 

previous reviews. The Trade Court also held that substantial evidence supported Commerce’s conclusion to 

reject Garlico’s financial statement on the basis that it 

contained numerical errors and was not reliable and 

because Garlico’s products were highly processed and 

thus not comparable to Sea-line’s production of fresh 

garlic. 

On appeal, Sea-line asks us to reverse the Trade 

Court’s decision and hold that Commerce erred in (i) 

relying on non-contemporaneous grade Super A garlic 

prices and the IMF WPI index to adjust those prices; and 

5 Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 

No. 10-00304, 2013 WL 4038618 (Ct. Int’l Trade Aug, 8, 

2013) (“Qingdao II”). 

 
QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US 11

(ii) using the Tata Tea financial statement instead of 

Garlico’s financial statement to calculate the surrogate 

financial ratio. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).

II

We review decisions of the Trade Court de novo and 

apply anew the same standard used by the Trade Court.6 

Commerce’s antidumping determinations are reviewed for 

substantial evidence. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Substantial evidence is defined as “more than a mere scintilla,” as well as evidence that a “reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”7 Our review 

is limited to the record before Commerce in the particular 

review proceeding at issue and includes all evidence that 

supports or detracts from Commerce’s conclusion.8 An 

agency finding may still be supported by substantial 

evidence even if two inconsistent conclusions can be 

drawn from the evidence.9

A. IMF WPI INDEX

 Sea-line argues that Commerce’s decision to use noncontemporaneous grade Super A garlic prices and to 

inflate those prices using the IMF WPI index is not supported by substantial evidence. Sea-line argues that the

record shows that Indian garlic prices fell just before the 

6 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 548 

F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

7 Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 

229 (1938).

8 Sango Int’l L.P. v. United States, 567 F.3d 1356, 

1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also QVD Food Co. v. United 

States, 658 F.3d 1318, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing 19 

U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(A)).

9 Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 

(1966).

 
12 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

period of review and that Commerce’s use of the IMF 

index resulted in a distorted and inaccurate surrogate 

value for Sea-line’s garlic. We disagree. 

In an administrative review of a non-market economy, 

Commerce is required to calculate surrogate values for 

the subject merchandise using the “best available information.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1). Commerce has broad 

discretion to determine what constitutes the best available information, as this term is not defined by statute.10 

Commerce generally selects, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values that are publicly available, are productspecific, reflect a broad market average, and are contemporaneous with the period of review.11 

 Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s surrogate 

value calculation for Sea-line’s whole garlic bulbs. Sealine does not dispute that its garlic bulb imports are of the

grade Super A size, and the record shows that the APMC 

Bulletin did not report any prices for Super A bulbs 

during the period of review. The record further supports 

Commerce’s conclusion that garlic bulb size is a more 

important factor than contemporaneity. Consumers often 

pay a premium for large-bulb garlic, and the information 

submitted by Sea-line shows that its own customers rely 

primarily on size when purchasing garlic. Commerce thus 

reasonably concluded that the best available information

consisted of non-contemporaneous grade Super A prices. 

The record further supports Commerce’s decision to

use the IMF WPI index to adjust the non10 QVD Food Co., 658 F.3d at 1323. 11 QVD Food Co. v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 2d 

1311, 1315 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010); see also Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China: New Shipper Review, 

75 Fed. Reg. 24,578, 24,581 (Dep’t of Commerce May 5, 

2010) (prelim. results). 

 
QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US 13

contemporaneous garlic prices. Commerce first noted 

that it has used the IMF index in prior administrative 

reviews to adjust prices. Commerce further found that 

Sea-line failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that 

either of its proposed alternative methods would yield a 

more accurate result. Commerce reasonably rejected Sealine’s proposed garlic-specific inflation index on the 

grounds that Sea-line failed to provide any explanation or 

context for the underlying data. Commerce was unable to 

verify the index because Sea-line did not provide the 

correct source of the data. Commerce also rejected Sealine’s price-ratio method after concluding there was 

insufficient historical data in the record to establish a 

reliable ratio between grade Super A and grade A prices. 

Commerce found that Sea-line failed to provide additional 

evidence establishing that its proposed ratio remained 

constant over a period of years. Accordingly, Commerce

reasonably concluded that the IMF index constituted the

best available information in the record. 

We disagree with Sea-line that Commerce’s decision

to inflate the Super A garlic prices is inconsistent with 

evidence showing that the prices for grades A, B, and C 

fell just before the period of review. Commerce’s decision 

to use the IMF WPI index is not inconsistent with the 

record. As discussed above, Sea-line failed to show that 

Super A prices closely follow changes in other garlic 

prices. Once Commerce selected the IMF WPI index as 

the best available adjustment method, Sea-line had the 

duty to submit verifiable evidence showing that use of the 

index was not the best available method of adjusting the 

non-contemporaneous prices. The burden of creating an 

adequate record lies with the interested parties, not with 
14 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

Commerce.12 Sea-line failed to provide such evidence. As 

a result, we conclude that Commerce’s decision to rely on 

bulb size and the IMF index is reasonable and supported 

by substantial evidence. 

B. SURROGATE FINANCIAL RATIO

Sea-line argues that Commerce should not have used 

Tata Tea’s 2008-09 financial statement to calculate the

surrogate financial ratio because Tata Tea produces 

highly-processed products and is thus not reasonably 

comparable to Sea-line’s production of fresh whole garlic. 

We do not agree. 

Commerce’s reliance on Tata Tea’s 2008-09 financial 

statement as a reasonable comparison to Sea-line’s production process is supported by substantial evidence. 

Commerce reviewed Tata Tea’s financial statement and 

found little evidence that Tata Tea’s production process 

for this period was heavily focused on processed or preserved products. Commerce noted that, while 89 percent 

of Tata Tea’s sales were of branded products, neither the 

financial statement nor any other evidence shows that

branded products are highly-processed goods. Commerce 

further noted that sales of instant tea, which are highly 

processed, represented only about 1.3 percent of Tata 

Tea’s total tea sales and that the record contained no 

additional evidence that the remainder of Tata Tea’s sales 

involved highly-processed merchandise. 

Commerce also explained why its reliance on the 

2008-09 financial statement was reasonable. Commerce 

noted that although it rejected Tata Tea’s 2003-04 financial statement in previous administrative reviews, Commerce examined the differences between the two financial 

12 QVD Food Co., 658 F.3d at 1324; see also Jinan 

Yipin Corp. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1314 

(Ct. Int’l Trade 2014).

 
QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US 15

statements and concluded that, unlike the 2003-04 financial statement, the 2008-09 financial statement supports 

a finding that highly-processed products represented a 

small portion of Tata Tea’s total production for the period 

of review. 

We also hold that Commerce may change its conclusions from one review to the next based on new information and arguments, as long as it does not act 

arbitrarily and it articulates a reasonable basis for the 

change. Indeed, the Trade Court has recognized that each 

administrative review is a separate exercise of Commerce’s authority that allows for different conclusions 

based on different facts in the record.13 Here, Commerce 

explained the differences between the two financial 

statements and reasonably concluded that the 2008-09 

financial statement, as the only Tata Tea statement on 

the record, supports a finding that Tata Tea’s production 

process is sufficiently comparable to Sea-line’s process. 

Hence, Commerce’s decision to rely on Tata Tea’s 2008-09 

financial statement to calculate Sea-line’s surrogate 

financial ratio was not improper. 

We also reject Sea-line’s argument that Garlico’s financial statement should have been used instead of Tata 

Tea’s financial statement. Commerce refused to use 

Garlico’s financial statement after finding several material errors that called into question the statement’s overall 

quality and reliability. These errors included discrepancies in the underlying figures and were not attributable to 

accounting system differences. Commerce also found that 

about 91 percent of Garlico’s sales involved highly processed vegetable products that were not sufficiently 

comparable to Sea-line’s sales of fresh whole garlic. 

13 Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 966 F. Supp. 

1230, 1238 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1997).

 
16 QINGDAO SEA-LINE TRADING CO. v. US

Sea-line does not show error in Commerce’s conclusion that Garlico’s statement contains inaccuracies and 

reflects a high percentage of highly-processed products. 

Sea-line’s argument in response is that because Garlico 

sells garlic-based products, its production process must 

necessarily be more comparable to Sea-line’s production of 

fresh whole garlic. This general assertion, however, is not 

sufficient to overcome Commerce’s detailed findings. As a 

result, we find that Commerce’s conclusion that Garlico’s 

financial statement is not the best available information

for purposes of calculating the surrogate financial ratio is 

reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. 

Finally, Sea-line raises before us arguments not presented in its case briefs to Commerce. Commerce regulations require the presentation of all issues and arguments 

in a party’s case brief, and we have held that a party’s 

failure to raise an argument before Commerce constitutes 

a failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.14 Accordingly, we refuse to consider those arguments not 

presented in the underlying administrative proceedings. 

III

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision 

of the Trade Court. 

AFFIRMED

14 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2); Dorbest, 604 F.3d at

1375.