# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO., LT D., 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 Internatio nal Trade in No. 10

- CV

- 0304, Judge Richard K. Eaton.

______________________
Decided: September 10, 2014

______________________

R OBERT T. H UME , Hume & Associates LLC, of Ojai, California, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

R ICHARD P. S CHROEDER , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depar t-QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 2

ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant

appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Dire ctor, and R EGINALD T. B LADES , J R

. , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was W HITNEY M. R OLIG , Attorney, United States Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration, of Washington, DC.

M ICHAEL J. C OURSEY , Kelley Drye & Warren LLP , of Washington, DC, argued for defendants

- appellees. With him on the brief was J OHN M. H ERRMANN

.

______________________

Before N EWMAN , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges.

R EYNA , Circuit Judge. Qingdao Sea

- line Trading Company (“ Sea- line ”) a ppeals a decision of the Court of International Trade a ffirming 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. N EW S HIPPER R EVIEW
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 anti dumping duty as part of a new shipper review initiated at Sea

- line’s request on an outstanding 1994 antidumping order on fresh garlicQINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 3

imports from China. 1 A new shipper review covers i mports by an importer or producer that was not subject to the initial antidumping duty investigation and believes it is entitled to an individual antidumpin g 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.

Co mmerce conducted Sea

- line’s new shipper review for the period of Novem ber 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009. Because China is a n on- market economy, Co mmerce calculate d the factors of production of Sea- line’s fresh whole garlic using surrogate values from a comp arable market econo my

. 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1)

. Co mmerce 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 i nstead 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 .” G arlic bulbs are divided into four grades based on size: grade Super A (greater than 55 mm); grade A ( 40

- 55 mm); gr ade 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 in to the United States during the period of review, placing its garlic bulbs in the grade S uper A category. The APMC Bulletin, however, did not report any prices for grade S uper A bulbs for the period of review

. Commerce thus averaged the closest available data points for grade S uper A garlic in the APMC Bull e1 See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China, 59 Fed. Reg. 59,209 ( Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 16, 1994).QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 4

tin, which was for November 2007 through April 2 008. To make this value contemporaneous with the period of review and acc ount 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 S uper A garlic, even though the prices liste d in the APMC Bulletin for the other garlic grades drop ped just before the period of review

. In addition to calculating surrogate values for Sealine’s fresh garlic , Commerce also calculat ed a “surro gate 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 stat ements. 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 fr om Limtex and Tata Tea because tea is comparable
to whole and peeled garlic, and each company’s produ ction process is s imilar 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 A ugust 6, 2010

. First, Sea- line argued that Comme rce should not have reli ed on non

- contemporaneous grade Super A garlic prices or use d 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 , becaus e Tata Tea’s produ ction process is not sufficiently comparable to the produ ction of fresh whole garlic.

Commerce considered and rejected Sea- line’s cha llenge s 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 info rmation 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. Mo reover, Qingdao Sea

- line’s own arguments about the relative scarcity of large

- bulb garlic ( i.e.

, Super- A grade) in India r esulting in higher prices for large

- bulb garlic co ntradict 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 itQINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 6

has used the same index in prior reviews. Commerce refused to use either of two alternative methods that Sea

line claimed would have result ed in a more accurate garlic surrogate value. Commerce rejected a “ garlic

- sp ecific WPI” index calculated by Sea

- line after noting that Sea

line did not provide any information on the price data that presumably underpinned the proposed index

. Co mmerce 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. Co mmerce 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 pri ce ratio.” J.A. 211. Commerce thus co ntinued to adjust the grade S uper A garlic prices using the IMF WPI index

. Finally, Commerce continued to rely on Tata Tea’s financials to calculate a surrogate financial ratio. Co mmerce rejected Sea

- line’s argumen t that Commerce’s decision is inconsistent with prior reviews, noting that prior reviews had also concluded that tea i s 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 rec ord. Based on its calculations, Commerce imposed on Sea

line an antidumping margin of 155.33% and a per

- unit cash deposit rate of $1.28 per kilogram. 3 Sea

- line a ppealed Commerce’s final results to the Court of Intern ational 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. F IRST A PPEAL TO THE T RADE C OURT
In its pleadings before the Trade Court

, Sea- line rei terated its challenge s to Commerce’s calculations , taking i ssue with Commerce’s (i) reliance on non

contemporaneous 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 out side the period of review. The Trade Court noted that Commerce’s statement that “garlic size is an important price factor” is insuf ficient to explain why garlic siz e 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
statement s 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 s ufficiently justifie s its use of garlic prices outside the period of review. T he Trade Court determined that Commerce reasonably rejected both of Sea- line’s proposed alternative method s for obtaining contempor a4 Qingdao Sea

- Line Trading Co. v. United States

, No . 10

- 00304, 2012 WL 990904 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 21, 2012) (“ Qingdao I ”).QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 8

neous grade Super A prices

. First, t he Trade Court noted that Commerce re fused to use Sea- line’s proposed garlic

specific WPI index after concluding that Sea- line failed to provide sufficient data to veri fy the index

. Sea- line crea ted 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

- spe cific WPI, noting that it “is particularly the duty of a party to co mplete 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, t he Trade Court held that Commerce reaso nably rejected Sea

- line’s proposed method of calculat ing a price ratio between grade S uper A and grade A garlic prices to arrive at a contemporaneous surrogate value

. To support this method, Sea

- line noted that it could “pr esume” that the prices between grade Super A and grade A garlic remain “relatively constant.” T he Trade Court noted, however, that Commerce concluded that one year of data on the price differences between grade Supe r 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. C OMMERCE ’ S R EMAND R ESULTS On remand, Commerce further explained its calcul ations and reaffirmed its decision s to (i) focus on garlic size

over con temporaneity; (ii) rely on th e Tata Tea financial statements; and (iii) exclude Garlico’s financial stat e-QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 9

ments from consideration. Commerce first noted that it “has consistently determined that the size o f garlic bulb is the most important factor in determining garlic prices.” J.A. 343. Commerce supplemented the record with add itional documents showing that purchasers pay a premium for large

- bulb garlic and that India coined “grade S uper A” garlic as a way to separate new varieties of large

- bulb garlic from the more traditional grade A garlic. Co mmerce further noted that Sea

- line’s own information indicates that its customers rely primarily on size when purchasing garlic. Commerce t herefore continued to rely

on non -contemporaneous grade S uper 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 c oncluding that Tata Tea was primarily involved in producing highly

- processed or preserved products

. First, Commerce noted that previous admini strative review s relied on a financial statement from 2003

- 04, whereas the current review relies on a statement f rom 2008

- 09. Commerce reviewed the 2008

- 09 financial
statement and found little evidence that Tata Tea’s pr oduction process for this period was heavily focused on processed products. Commerce noted that 89 percent of Tata Tea’s sale s were of branded products, but refused to conclude that “branded products” implies “highly

processed goods.” Commerce further noted that instant tea sales , which are highly processed, represented only about 1.3 percent of Tata Te a’s total tea sales and that no additional evid ence indicate d that the remainder of Tata Tea’s sales involve d 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 wa s not comparable to the production of fresh whole garlic. Finally, Commerce reaffirmed its rejection of Garlico’s financial statements after finding inconsistences andQINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 10

calculation errors in the underlying data

. Commerce also found that about 91 percent of Gar lico’s sales were of non

fresh 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 surr ogate finan cial ratio calculation.

D. S ECOND A PPEAL TO THE T RADE C OURT
Sea- line again appealed to the Trade Court , and the
court affirmed. 5 The Trade Court held that Commerce reasonably explained why gar lic 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 Garl ico. According to t he Trade Court

, Commerce reasonably concluded t hat Tata Tea’s 2008

- 09 financial state ment revealed that only a small amount o f Tata Tea’s produ ction involved highly

- processed products and that the 2008

- 09 statement differ ed from those relied upon in previous reviews. The Trade Court also held that su bstantial evidence supported Commerce’s conclusion to reject Garlico’s financial statement on the basis that it contained numerical errors and w as not reliable and because Garlico’s products were highly processed and thus not comparable to Sea

- line ’ s produc tion 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 403 8 618 (Ct. Int’l Trade Aug, 8, 2013) (“ Qingdao II ” ).QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 11

(ii) using the Tata Tea financial state ment instead of Garlico’s financial state ment 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 b y th e Trade Court

. 6 Commerce’s antidumping determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence. 19 U.S.C . § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Su bstantial evidence is de fined as “more than a mere scinti ll a,” 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 partic ular 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 I NDEX
Sea- line argues that Commerce’s decision to use non

contemporaneous grade Super A garlic prices and to inflate those prices using the IMF WPI index i s not su pported by substantial evidence. Sea

- line argues that the record shows that Indian garlic prices f ell 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. 201 1) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(2)(A)).

9 Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n , 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 12

period of review and that Commerce’s use of the IMF index resulted in a distorted and inaccurate surrogate value for Sea -l ine’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 info rmation .” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c) (1)

. Commerce has broad discretion to determine what constitutes the best avail able information , as this term is not defined by statute. 10 Commerce generally selects, to the extent practicable, surrogate values that are publicly available, are product

specifi c, reflect a broad market average, and are conte mporaneous with the period of review. 11

S ubstantial evidence supports Commerce ’s surrogate value calculation for Sea

- line’s whole garlic bulb s. Sealine does n ot 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 contempor aneity . C onsumers often pay a premium for large

- bulb garlic

, and th e information submitted by Sea

- line shows that its own customers rely primarily on size when purchasing garlic. Commerce thus

reasona bly 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 non

10 QVD Food Co.

, 658 F.3d at 1323.

11 QVD Food Co. v. United States , 721 F. Supp. 2d 1 311, 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 price s. Commerce further found that Sea- line failed to provide sufficient evidence show ing that either of its proposed alternative methods would yield a more accurate result. Commerce reasonably rejected Sea

l ine’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 reje cted Sea

line’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 establish in g that its proposed ratio remained

c onstant over a period of years. Accordingly, Commerce reasonably concluded that the IMF index consti tuted the best available information i n 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

. T he burden of creating an ade quate record lies with the interested parties, not withQINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 14

Com merce. 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 i s reasonable and supported by substantial evidence

. B. S URROGATE F INANCIAL R ATIO
Sea- line argues that Commerce should not have used Tata Tea’s 2008

- 09 financial state ment to calculate the surrogat e financial ratio because Tata Tea produces highly

- processed products and is thus not reasonably comparable to Sea- line’s production of fresh whole garlic. W e do not agree.

Commerce’s reliance on Tata Tea’s 2008

- 09 financial statement as a reasonable comparison to Sea

- line’ s pr oduction process is supported by substantial evidence

. Commerce reviewed Tata Tea’s financial state ment and found little evidence that Tata Tea’s production process for this period was heavily focused on processed or pr eserved products. Commerce noted that , while 89 percent of Tata Tea’s sale s were of branded products, neither the financial statement nor any other evidence shows that branded prod ucts are highly

- processed goods. Commerce further noted that sales of instant tea, which are highly processed, represented only about 1.3 percen t of Tata Tea’s total tea sales and that the record contained no additional evidence that the remainder of Tata Tea’s sales involve d 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 fina ncial statement in previous administrative reviews

, Co mmerce 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

s tatements and concluded that , unlike the 2003

- 04 fina ncial statement, the 2008

- 09 financial statement supports a finding that highly

- processed products represent ed a small portion of Tata Tea’s total production for the period of review

. We also hold th at Commerce may chang e its concl usions from one review to the next based on new info rmation 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 admini strative review is a separate exercise of Co mmerce’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 comp arable 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 ha ve been used instead of Tata Tea ’s financial statement. Commerce refused to use Garlico’s financial statement after finding several mater ial errors that called into question the statement’s overall quality and reliability. These errors include d discrepa ncies in the underlying figures and we re not attributable to accounting system differences. Commerce also found that about 91 percent of Garlico’s sales involved highly pr ocessed 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).QINGDAO SEA

- LINE TRADING CO

. v. US 16

Sea- line does not show error in Commerce’s con cl usion that Garlico’s statement contains inaccuracies and reflects a high percentage of highly

- processed products. Sea- line’s arg ument 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 det ailed 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

. Final ly, Sea

- line raises before us arguments not pr esent ed in its case briefs to Commerce. Commerce regul ations 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 A ccordingly, we refuse to consider those arguments not present ed in the underlying administrative proceedings.

III
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the decision of the Trad e Court

. AFFIRMED

14 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2); Dorbest , 604 F.3d at 1375.