SLIP OP. 05-142

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

______________________________

:

WUHAN BEE HEALTHY CO., LTD., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge 

v. : Court No. 03-00806

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

and :

:

SIOUX HONEY ASSOC. and :

AMERICAN HONEY PRODUCERS :

ASSOC., :

:

Def.-Intervenors. :

:

______________________________:

MEMORANDUM OPINION

[Commerce’s Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand

affirmed]

Dated: November 2, 2005 

Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP

(Mark E. Pardo, Adam M. Dambrov, and Paul G. Figueroa) for

plaintiff.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil

Division, United States Department of Justice; David M. Cohen,

Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United

States Department of Justice; Jeanne E. Davidson, Deputy

Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United

States Department of Justice (David S. Silverbrand) for

defendant.

Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC (Michael J. Coursey) for

defendant-intervenors. 
Court No. 03-00806 Page 2

Eaton, Judge: On June 10, 2005, the court remanded to the 

United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or the

“Department”) its determination regarding coal prices in Honey

from the People’s Republic of China, 68 Fed. Reg. 62,053 (ITA

Oct. 31, 2003) (final results) (“Final Determination”). See

Wuhan Bee Healthy Co., Ltd. v. United States, 29 CIT __, 374 F.

Supp. 2d 1299 (2005) (“Wuhan I”). On September 7, 2005, Commerce

timely released its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to

Remand (“Remand Results”). The court has jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2000) and 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii)

(2000). For the reasons set forth below, the court affirms

Commerce’s Remand Results. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court “shall hold unlawful any determination, finding,

or conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by substantial

evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with

law . . . .” 19 U.S.C. §1515a(b)(1)(B)(i). “Substantial

evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Huaiyin Foreign

Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir.

2003) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229

(1938)). The existence of substantial evidence is determined “by

considering the record as a whole, including evidence that
Court No. 03-00806 Page 3

supports as well as evidence that ‘fairly detracts from the

substantiality of the evidence.’” Id. (citing Atl. Sugar, Ltd.

v. United States, 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “As

long as the agency’s methodology and procedures are reasonable

means of effectuating the statutory purpose, and there is

substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency’s

conclusions, the court will not impose its own views as to the

sufficiency of the agency’s investigation or question the

agency’s methodology.” Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United

States, 10 CIT 399, 404–05, 636 F. Supp. 961, 966 (1986), aff’d

810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984); Abbott

v. Donovan, 6 CIT 92, 97, 570 F. Supp. 41, 47 (1983)). 

DISCUSSION

In its Final Determination, Commerce valued coal using

Indian import values published in the Monthly Statistics of the

Foreign Trade of India (“MSFTI”), which included international

freight charges for shipping the coal to India. See Wuhan I, 29

CIT at __, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1309–10. Plaintiff Wuhan Bee

Healthy Co., Ltd. (“Wuhan”) argued that Commerce should have used

domestic Indian coal prices, which are published in the TERI

Energy Data Directory and Yearbook for 2000/2001 (“Teri Data”). 

See id. at __, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1310. Commerce maintained that
Court No. 03-00806 Page 4

it specifically considered but rejected the Teri Data because it

was “derived from a single producer in India, CIL [Coal India

Ltd.].” Id. (internal citation omitted). In other words,

Commerce rejected the Teri Data for valuing coal because it

believed the data was unrepresentative of a country-wide price. 

After reviewing the parties’ arguments, the Court in Wuhan I

found that 

Commerce determined that the MSFTI data was the best

available information to value coal because “it is

quality, country-wide data specific to steam coal

prices imported into India during the [period of

review], and is representative of competitive market

prices.” Yet, there is no reason given as to why

imported coal provides the best surrogate value. In

addition, it appears that Wuhan is correct that many

regions of India are represented in the Teri Data. 

Thus, Commerce has not demonstrated that the value used

is the best available information or that the Teri Data

is unrepresentative of competitive market prices

throughout India. 

Id. at __, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 1310–11 (internal citation

omitted). On remand, the Court directed Commerce to provide an

explanation that reasonably supported its decision to use import

prices instead of domestic prices. Id. at 1311 (citing Hebei

Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 29 CIT

__, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1266 (2005)(ordering Commerce to either

“adhere to its conditional preference for domestic surrogate data

or . . . state that it is deviating from this practice and

provide a rational explanation for doing so.”)). 
Court No. 03-00806 Page 5

1 It should be noted that Wuhan declined to file comments

on the Remand Results because the only issue addressed therein,

valuation of coal, was resolved to its satisfaction. 

In its Remand Results,1 Commerce explains that it conducted

independent research for its Final Results of Redetermination

Pursuant to Remand for Hebei Metals & Minerals Import & Export

Corp. v. United States (“Hebei Metals Remand”), which it issued

on July 20, 2005. Based on the results of that research,

Commerce determined that “the TERI data are the best data

available for valuing the coal input for purposes of Wuhan’s new

shipper review.” Remand Results at 7. Commerce explains that

the Teri Data 

states that the prices in its database are obtained

directly from Coal India Limited, which produces more

than 80 percent of India’s coal. TERI further states

that the prices represent coal prices from Coal India

Limited’s eight subsidiaries located throughout India. 

Although the Department has some concerns about the

monopolistic structure of the coal industry in India,

the Department determines that the TERI steam coal

pricing data are the best quality data because not only

are they published, publicly-available data, but also

because they are representative of the coal industry

throughout India. Thus, the TERI data, as they are

currently presented, are credible as a country-wide

source of data. 

Id. at 8–9. Commerce found the steam coal values listed in the

Teri Data to be specific, as they are derived from actual sale

prices of steam coal in India, and it adjusted for inflation

where the Teri Data values were not contemporaneous with the

period of review. 
Court No. 03-00806 Page 6

Having reviewed Commerce’s research and its reasons for

selecting the Teri Data as the best source of data for valuing

coal, the court finds that Commerce has complied with the court’s

remand instructions and that its determination is supported by

substantial evidence and is otherwise in accordance with law. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Commerce’s Remand Results are

affirmed. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 

 /s/ Richard K. Eaton 

 Richard K. Eaton

Dated: November 2, 2005

New York, New York