GERBER F OOD (YUNN AN) C O., LTD. and

GREEN FRESH (Z HANG ZHOU) C O., LTD. ,

Pla int if fs , v . UN ITED STA TES ,

Def endant, and CO AL ITI ON F OR

F AI R P RE SER

VE D MUSHROOM TRADE ,

Def endant- Interve nor. Slip Op. 10-2 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 04- 00454

OP IN ION [Affirming, pur suant to voluntary rema nd, the re deter

mination of the final re sults of an antidumping a dminist rative r eview in whic h the United States De partment of Commerc e applied
“ fa c ts o the rw ise ava ila

ble ” and “ a dv e rs e inf

e re nc e s” wi th r e sp e c t to c e rt a in s a le s tr ans a c tio ns ]

Dated: January

5, 2010 Ga rv e ySc hu be rt B ar e r (

Lizbeth R. Levinson and Ro na ld M . W isla ) f or pla int if fs
. Ton yW est , Assistant Attorney

Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice (

Richard P. Schroe der); Scott D. Mc Bride , Offic e of Chief

Counsel for I mpo rt Ad min istratio n, Un ite d St ate s D e pa rtme nt o f C omm e rc e , o f c ouns e l, f or de fe nd ant. Ke lle yDr y e &W arre n LLP

( Michae l J. Coursey and John M. H errmann ) f

or de fe nd antintervenor
.Court No. 04- 00454 P age 2

Stanceu, Judge : The cour t has revie wed the Re deter mination Pursuant to C ourt Remand (“Rema nd Redeter

mination”) filed by

the International Trade Administration, United States Depa rtment of Commerce (“Commerc e” or the “De partment” ) on Jul y 29, 2009. Def

endant soug ht and obtained a

n order for a voluntary

rema nd following plaintiffs’ commenc ement of a n
a c tio n to c on te st the De pa rtme nt’ s f ina l de te rm ina

tio n ( “ F ina l Re su lts ” ) i n th e fo ur th administrative re view of a n antidumping or der on c erta in preser ved mushrooms from China. Or de r, May

5, 20 09 ; see Certain Prese rved M ushrooms From the People ’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sixth Anti dumping Duty New Shipper Rev iew & Final Results & Partial Rescission of the Fourth Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iew , 69 Fe d. Reg . 54,635 (Sept. 9, 2004) (“ Fi na l R esu lts ”). Wit h respe ct to plaintiff Gre en F resh ( Z hang zhou) Co., L td. (“Gr een F resh” ), the Remand Re de te rm inatio n a

nn ounc e s th e De pa

rtme nt’ s d e c isi on

“ to c a lc ulate a

ma rg in f or it f re e of fa c ts otherwise a

vailable.” Remand Redete rmination 7. As to plaintiff Ger ber F ood (Yunna

n) Co., L td. (“ Ge rb e r” ), Comme rc e state s th at it “ ha s li mit e d it s a

pp lic a tio n o f A F A [“ a dv e rs e fa c ts
ava ila ble ” ] to o nly

tho se sa le s tr ans a c tio ns fo r whic h G e rb e r c on tin ue d to us e Gr e e n F re sh invoices in order

to avoid paying the proper antidumping duties duringthe Fourth Mushrooms Rev iewPOR

[ i.e. , the ‘pe riod of re view’].” Id. at 4. Duringthe fourth a dminist rative r eview, Commerce ha d found that those sale s transac tions pertained to twenty -three entries of
me rc ha nd ise su bje c t to the re vie w that G e rb e r m a de us ingGr e e n F re sh ’s inv oic e s, ra the r t ha n it s own invoices. Id. at 3. F ina lly , Co mme rc e c on c lud e s in the Re mand

Re de te rm inatio n th a t a

rate of 121.33% is appr opriate to a pply as an a dverse infere nce be cause it is “derived f rom Ger ber’ s
own ver ified data , submitt ed by that responde nt in the most recent r eview pr ior to the Thi rdCourt No. 04- 00454 P age 3

Mushrooms Rev iewin which it actively participated.” Rema

nd Redeter

mination 5-6. The Remand Redete rmination includes a f inding that Ge rber

“fa iled to cooper ate by

not actingto the best of its ability .” Id. at 6; 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) (2006)

. In the Fina l Results, C ommerce had fo un d th a t G e rb e r d id n ot a c t to the be st o f i ts a bil ity “ in i ts r e po rt ingof

inf or matio n to the U. S. g overnme nt, both at the time of entry of the mer chandise and in its previous submissions to the Depa rtment, relating to the a g ree ment betwee n Ger ber a nd Gre en F resh whic h direc tly perta ined to the transac tions under re view in this POR.” Fi na l R esu lts , 69 Fe d. Reg . at 54,637. Pursuant to the court’s O rder of May 5, 2009, which g rante d defe ndant’s re quest for a voluntary rema nd, plaintiffs wer e provide d the opportunity to file with the court c omments on the Remand Redete rmination within thi rty day s of the filingof the Remand Re deter mination. See Orde r, May

5, 2009. Neither

of the plaintiffs nor

defe ndant-interve nor filed c omments. Under these c ircumstance s, the court r easona bly may infer that the parties c oncur in the Rema nd Redeter mination. See W

uhan BeeHealthy Co., Ltd. v. United States , 3 2 CI T _ _, __ , Sl ip Op. 08-61, at 12 (May

29, 2008) (“ Under

such circ umstances, Commerc e ‘ma y well be e ntitled to assume that the silent party has dec ided, on re flec tion, that it concurs in the ag ency ’s [remand
re s u l t s ] , ’ an d

th e c o urt wi l l u

p h o l d th e p art i es ’ c o n cu rr en ce . ” ( qu o t i n g AL Tech Spec ialty Steel Corp. v. United States , 29 CI T 276, 285, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1245 (2005) )). The c ourt is affir

ming the Re mand Redete rmination on the basis of the a ssumed
concur renc e of the parties a

nd will enter judg ment acc ording ly . In so doing, the court doe s not express or imply

ag ree ment with all of the statements that Commerc e make s in its not ice announcingthe Remand Rede termination. The c ourt disag ree s specific ally with the Depa rtment’s statements in the Remand Re deter mination opining on the scope of theCourt No. 04- 00454 P age 4

Depa rtment’s “inhe rent a

uthority .” Remand Rede termination 7-9. The court c oncludes that these stateme nts pertainingto the scope of inhere nt authority

are not a cor

rec t statement of the law. The statements in question are unnece ssary to the Depa

rtment’s dec isions in t his case a nd
are inconsistent with the rea soning in Gerbe r Food ( Y unnan) Co., Lt d. v. United States , 29 CI T 753, 774-75, 387 F . Supp. 2d 1270, 1289-90 (2005). The y also appe ar to be inconsistent with the Depa

rtment’s statement in the c oncluding para g raph of the Remand Rede termination that, in invoking the use of fa cts otherwise available and an a dverse infere nce a s to Gerbe r, Commerce is a cting under the authority of 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a ) and ( b). SeeRemand Redeter mination 9.
/s/ Timot hy C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d g e Dated: J anuar

y 5, 2010 New Y ork, Ne w York