Slip-Op. 09-120 UNI TED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATI ONAL

TRADE

____________________________________ : PSC VSMPO – AVI SMA CORP ORATI ON : and VSMPA – TI RUS, US, I NC., :

: Pla int if fs , :

: v . : : Be fo re : J u d i thM
. Barz i l ay , J u d ge UNI TED STATES, : Consol. C ourt No. 08-00321 : P ubl ic Ver sion De fe nd ant, : : an d : : US M AG NE SIUM L L C, : : Def endant- Interve nor. : ____________________________________: OPI NI ON & ORDER [P laintiffs’ Motion for Judgment on the Ag ency Record is g rante d in part and de nied in part. The rema ining issues a

re r eser ved for adjudication af

ter re mand.] Dated: Oc tober 20, 2009 Ar e nt F ox LLP ( John M. G urley , Di an a D im itr iucQu aia , Mark P. Lunn ), for the pla int if fs
. Ton yW est , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Jeanne

E. Davidson , D ir e c tor ; Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Jus tice (

David S. Silverbrand

); Daniel J. Calhoun , Offic e of the Chief Counsel for Import Ad min istratio n, U. S. D e pa

rtme nt o f C omm e rc e , o f c ouns e l, f or the de fe nd ant. Kin g &Sp ald

ing LLP ( Stephen A. J

ones , Jeffrey

B. Denning

), fo r t he de fe nd antintervenor
. Hoga n &Ha rts on LLP

( Le wis E. Le ibo witz , Jonathan T. Stoel), for the amicus curae Alcoa I nc.Court No. 08- 00321 P age 2

Barzilay, Judge: Plaintiffs PS C VSMP O – AVI SMA Corporation (“A VI SMA”) and VSMPA – Tirus, US, I nc. (“ Tirus”), ( collectively , “Plaintiffs”) a nd Def endant- Interve nor US Ma g ne sium L L C ( “ USM ” ) m ov e fo r j ud g me nt o n th e a g e nc y re c or d, c ha lle ng ingva

ri ou s a sp e c ts of the De pa rtme nt o f C omm e rc e ’s (“ De pa rtme nt” or

Comme rc e ” ) f

ina l de te rm inatio n in Ma gn esiu m M

e tal fro m t heRu ssi an Fe de ra tio n: Fi na l R esu lts of A nti du mp ing Du ty Administrati ve R evie w , 73 Fe d. Reg . 52,642 (De p’t Commerce Sept. 10, 2008) (“ Fi na l R esu lts ”). F or the re a so ns pr ov ide d b e low , Pl a int if fs ’ M oti on

fo r Jud g me nt o n th e Ag e nc y Re c or d is g rante d in part and de nied in part, a nd the re maining issues a re r eser ved by the cour t for adjudication af

ter re mand. I. Background & P roce dural Hi story A. The Indus tr ialP r oc e sse s a t I ssu e Th e ind us tr ia l pr oc e sse s at is su e are at th e he art of thi s c a se . A VI SMA ’s fa c ili ty pr od uc e s ma g ne sium me ta l and tit anium sp on g e , a lon gwi th o the r m ino r p ro du c ts. In th e fi rs t proce ssing stag e, the miner al ca rnalite g oes throug h dehydration and e lectroly sis, which cre ates two main outputs: raw mag nesium and chlorine g as. Most of the for mer unde rg oes fur

ther ref inement to become the subject mer chandise , pure a nd alloy ed magnesium, which Plaintiffs sell on the open mar

ket. AVI SMA uses the latter a s a cataly st which rea cts with the mineral ilmenite to create titanium tetrachloride by separ atingtitanium from titanium ox ide. The titanium tetrachloride the n is combined with an amount of r aw magnesium to strip the chlorine fr om t he tit anium, r e su lti ngin t ita nium and ma g ne sium di c hlo ri de . T he tit anium su bs e qu e ntl yCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 3

g oe s thro ug h a dd iti on a l pr oc e ssi ngto b e c ome a sa le a ble pr od uc t; the ma g ne sium di c hlo ri de is
se pa rate d into c hlo ri ne , whic h is re c y c le d b a c k into t he ilm e nit e se pa

ra tio n p ro c e ss, and

unus a ble
raw mag nesium. B. Pr ocedural History In Fe bruar

y 2004, USM filed an antidumpingduty petition ag ainst imports of mag nesium metal from the Russian F eder ation. See Not ic e of P re lim ina ry

De te rm ina tio n o

f Sa le s a t Le ss Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Magne sium Metal From the Russian Federation , 69 Fe d. Reg . 59,197, 59,197 (De p’t Commerce Oct. 4, 2004). A t the
c on c lus ion

of Comme rc e and

the U. S. Inte rn atio na l T ra de Commis sio n’ s inve sti g atio ns , Commerce issued a

n antidumping duty

order cover ing pur e and a lloy ed magnesium. Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: M agnesium Me tal From the Russian Federation , 7 0 Fe d
. R eg. 19,930, 19,930 (De p’t Commerce Apr. 15, 2005) ( “ Order ”). Nea rly two y ear s later, Commerc e published notice of opportunity

to reque st an administrative re view of the Order for the pe riod from Apr il 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 (“ period of re view”)
. Antidumping or Count ervailing Duty Orde r, Finding, or Suspended Inv estigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Rev iew , 72 Fe d. Reg . 15,650 (De p’t Commerce Apr. 2, 20 07 ). Pla int if

f A VI SMA , a

Rus sia n ma g ne sium me ta l pr od

uc e r, re qu e ste d a

re vie w o f i ts imports of the subject mer chandise , and USM reque sted a re view of the mag nesium metal imports of AVI SMA and Solikamsk Magne sium W orks, another Russian producer . On May 30,Court No. 08- 00321 P age 4

Solikamsk Magne sium W orks did not participate in the revie w. 1 Ac c or din gto h is a ff

ida vit , G e or g e F os te r h a s b e e n th e Pa ul L . a nd Phy lli s Watti s 2 Professor of

Manag ement at the G raduate School of B usiness at Stanford Unive rsity since 1988. Hi s a c a de mic c re de nti a ls i nc lud e a B a c he lor of Ec on omi c s ( fi rs t c la ss h on or s a nd un ive rs ity me da l) and

Ma ste r o f E c on omi c s f

ro m th e Un ive rs ity

of Sydn e y , a

nd a Ph. D. in B us ine ss Administration from Stanford Univer sity . He ha s honorar y doctorates from the University of Ghent, B elg ium, and the Univer sity of Va ssa, Fr ance . He a lso is the author of Financial Sta te me nt A na ly

sis (1978 and 1986) and Cos t A c c ou nti ng : A Ma nage ria l E mp ha sis (1987, 1991, 1994, 1997, and 2000), the leadingselling te x t in its are a. F oster Af f. ¶¶ 2-3. 2007, Commerce c ommenced the Second Reviewof the Order
. Initiation of Antidumping and 1 Cou nte rv ail ing

Du ty Ad mi nis tra tiv e Re v ie ws a nd Re qu est f or Re v oc ati on in Par t , 7 2 Fe d
. R eg. 29,968 (De p’t Commerce May 30, 2007). Commerce published its pre liminary results for the Second Reviewnear ly a y ear later. Ma gn esiu m M

e tal fro m t heRu ssi an Fe de ra tio n: Pr e lim ina ry Re su lts of A nti du mp ing

Du ty Administrati ve R evie w , 73 Fe d. Reg . 24,541 (De p’t Commerce May 5, 2008) (“

Pr e lim ina ry Re su lts ” ). In r e sp on se to t

he De pa rtme nt’ s f ind ing s, AV I SMAand

USM su bmi tte d c a se br ie fs to support chang es that they believed the Depa

rtment should incorporate into the Fi na l R esu lts
. Comme rc e re

je c te d A VI SMA ’s fi rs t, a nd a po rt ion of its se c on d, br ie f o n th e g ro un d th at it contained ne w fa ctual information, specifica lly an af fidavit from Profe ssor Geor g e F oster, an
a c c ounti nge xpe rt . SeePls. B r. Ap p. Ta b 8 -1 1; se e als o Pls. Br. App. Ta b 8 Ex . 1 (“F oster 2 Affida vit”). The D epar

tment issued the Fi na l R esu lts on September 10, 2008, where in Plainti ff AVI SMA rece ived a f

inal antidumping mar g in of 15.77 perc ent. Fi na l R esu lts , 73 Fe d. Reg . at 52,642-43. Plaintiffs and USM filed suit in thi s Court to contest the Fi na l R esu lts . Alcoa I nc. and Northwe st Alloy s, Inc. (c ollectively , “Alcoa ”), dome stic industrial consumers of the subjectCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 5

me rc ha nd ise , f ile d a mot ion to a pp e ar a s amic us c ur ia e , whic h th e c ourt g ra nte d. Pla int if

fs ra ise four objec tions to t he Fi na l R esu lts : th at Co mme rc e (1 ) e mpl oye d a n e rr on e ou s me tho d to allocate joint costs between magnesium and chlorine g as; (2) r elied on outdated inf ormation when c alculatingthe chlorine g as’s ne t rea liz able va lue (“NRV”); ( 3) should have grante d a constructe d export price (“ CEP”) offse t to normal value whe n it calculate d AVI SMA’s antidumping duty

marg in; and (4) unlaw fully reje cted the por

tions of AVI SMA’s case brief containingthe Foste r Aff idavit. Pls . Br . 1-3. L ike Plaintiffs, USM contests the method by which Comme rc e a llo c ate d jo int c os ts b e tw e e n ma g ne siu

m and c hlo ri ne g a s. De f. -I

nt. B r. 1- 4. USM also claims that, if the c ourt aff irms the Depa

rtment’s alloca

tion methodology , the Depa rtment
never theless er red in its adjustments to the chlorine g as’s NRV. De f.-Int. Br. 1- 4.

II. Jurisd iction & Standard of Review The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The Court g rants “tr emendous de fer ence ” to Commerce ’s final a ntidumping deter

minations due to the “tec hnical” a

nd “complex” ec onomic and ac countingdecisions involved, for which the Depa rtment “possess fa

r g reater e x pertise than [the Court].” Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States , 88 F .3 d 1 03 4, 10 39 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 6) (q uo tatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ; accord Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. v. United States , 187 F.3d 1362, 1367 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999). The Court will disturb a deter mination only if it is “unsupported by

substantial evidence on the re cord, or otherwise not in ac corda nce with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b) (1)( B) (i). Substantial evidence on the re cord c onstitut es “le ss than a pre pondera nce, but more than a scintilla.” Novosteel SA v . United States , 25 CI T 2, 16, 128 F. Supp. 2d 720, 725 (2001) (quotation marks & citation omitted), aff’d , 284 F.3d 1261 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002). I t is “such re levantCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 6

evidenc e as a

rea sonable mind might a cce pt as ade quate to support a c onclusion” in light of the entire r ecor d, including “ whateve r fa irly detra cts from the substantiality of the e vidence .” At l. Sugar, Ltd. v. United States , 744 F.2d 1556, 1562 ( Fe d. Cir. 1984) (quotation marks omitted). This standard ne cessitates that the Depa rtment thoroug hly

examine the rec ord and “ articulate a satisfac tory

explanation for its action including a rational connec tion between the fac ts found and the choice made.” Motor VehicleMfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc . v. State Farm M ut. Ins. Co. , 463 U. S. 2 9, 43 (1 98 3) (q

uo tatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ; ac c or

d Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. United States , 16 CI T 133, 137, 787 F. Supp. 224, 227 (1992) . That the c ourt may drawtwo inconsistent conclusions from the e vidence does not prec lude Commerce ’s rulingfrom beingsupported by substantial evidence
. Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. , 1 87 F .3 d at 13 65 ; Novosteel SA , 25 CI T at 12, 12 8 F . Su pp . 2 d at 73 0; see FCC v. Fox Telev ision Stat ions, Inc. , 129 S. Ct . 1800, 1810 (2009) (“ [A] c ourt

is n ot t o s ub sti tut e its jud g me nt f or that of the a g e nc y

. . . . ” ) ( qu otatio n ma

rk s & internal c itation omit ted). To eva luate whe ther a

Commerce de termination is in accor dance with law, the Court applies the two-ste p test articulate d by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., I nc. v. Natural Re so urc es D e

fe ns e Cou nc il . 4 67 U. S. 8 37 (1 98 4) . F ir st, the c ourt de te rm ine s w he the r C on g re ss has spoken dire ctly

to the issue at hand. I f Cong ress’s intent is clea r, the c ourt and the Depa rtment must “g ive ef

fec t to the unambiguously expressed intent of Cong ress.” Id. at8 4 3
. If the c ourt fi nd s th e re le va

nt s tatut e ambi g uo us or

sil e nt w ithre sp e c t to the sp e c if ic iss ue , it

mus t defe r to the De partment’s inter pretation as long a s it is reasonable. See id. This defe renc e extends to t echnic al methodolog ies that Commerce may apply to fulfill its statutory

mandate.Court No. 08- 00321 P age 7

Thai Pineapple Pub. Co. , 1 87 F .3 d at 13 65 (“ Th e me tho do log ie s r e lie d u po n b y Comme rc e in
makin gits de te rm inatio ns are pr e sumpt ive ly c or re c t.” ); see H

ynix Se miconductor, Inc

. v. United States , 29 CI T 995, 1000, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1342 (2005)
. III. Discussion A. Com m erc e’s De cision Not to G rant a CEP Of fset Plaintiffs challeng e Commerce ’s dec ision not t o g rant a CEP offset to normal value in the Fi na l R esu lts as “inc onsistent with the statute and the fa cts on the re cord.” Pls. Br. 2.

1. CEP Of

fsets In antidumping a ctions, the duty imposed is the differ ence betwee n the price char g ed for the subject mer chandise in its hom e mar ket, the “nor

mal value,” and the pr ice c harg ed in the United States. Micron Tech., I nc. v. U nited States , 2 4 3 F
. 3 d

1 3 0 1 , 1 3 0 3 ( F e d
. C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
. In
case s such as this one, whe re a fore ign pr oducer

sells to an aff

iliated purcha ser in the United State s, Comme rc e c a lc ulate s th e U. S. p ri c e us inga surr og ate va lue , th e CEP . 1 9 U .S. C. § 1677a(b) . To ensure a fa ir compar ison, the Depa rtment may

adjust the normal value and CEP to place the m “at a spe cific, ‘ common’ point in the chain of c ommerce ,” i.e., at the same leve l of trade
. Micron Tech., I

nc. , 2 43 F .3 d at 13 03 (q

uo tatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) ; see19 U. S.C. § 1677b(a) (1)( B) (i). I f Commerce finds that the normal va lue and CEP differ partially or wholly

due to a level-of -trade differ ence which “( i) involves the per formanc e of diff ere nt selling a ctivities; and (ii) is demonstrated to a ffe ct price compar ability , based on a pattern of

consistent price dif fe re nc e s b e tw e e n s a le s at di ff e re nt l e ve ls o f t

ra de in t he c ountr y in whic h n or

ma l va lue is deter mined,” the De partment will modify the normal va lue to compensate . § 1677b(a) (7)( A);Court No. 08- 00321 P age 8

ac c or d 19 C.F .R. § 3 51 .4 12 (a )- (b ). Th e pa rt y se e kin gsu c h a

le ve l- of -t ra de a dju stm e nt m

us t demonstrate that one is warr anted. Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. , 8 8 F .3 d at 10 45 -4 6; Corus Staal BV v. United States , 27 CI T 388, 406, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1270 (2003) , aff’d , 395 F.3d 1343 ( Fe d. Cir . 2 00 5) ; see 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(b)( 1). In some ca ses, the norma l value is at a hig her le vel of tra de than the CEP, i.e., the leve l of trade in the home marke t is more advanc ed than in the U.S. mar ket, but data a llowing the De pa rtme nt t o d e te rm ine ho w m uc h to a dju st the no rm a l va lue are un ava ila ble . In th e se circ umstances, the D epar tment gr ants a CEP offset a nd reduc es the norma l value by “the amount of indirec t selling e x penses incur red in the c ountry

in which normal va lue is determined on sa les of the for eig n like product but not more than the amount of such e x penses f or which a

deduction is m a de un de r [§ 16 77 a (d )( 1) (D )]. ” § 1 67 7b (a )( 7) (B ); ac c or d Micron Tech., I

nc. , 243 F.3d at 1305; § 351.412(f)( 1)-( 2).

2. P lai nt iffs’ Co nt e nt ion s & Ana lys is Plaintiffs insis t that, when compa red to AV I SMA’s sales of subjec t mercha ndise in the U.S. market, its sales in the Russian marke t experience “more marke ting f unctions,” Pls. Br. 8, and ar e made at a more advanc ed leve l of trade , Pls. Br. 29, and that the overla p in selling activities betwe en the two mar kets is “not signific ant.” Pls. Br . 8. Fur thermore , Plaintiffs assert that th e re e xists no sim ila r l e ve l of tr a de in t he ho me mark e t a g a ins t w hic h to c omp are the U. S. marke t sales and that, c onsequently , the Depa rtment ca nnot calculate a leve l-of-tra de adjustment to c omp e ns ate fo r t

he se dif fe re nc e s. Pls. B r. 29 . Sp e c if ic a lly , th e y

no te that T ir

us c on du c ts
ne arl y a ll o f t he su bje c t me rc ha

nd ise se lli ngfu

nc tio ns wi th r e sp e c t to e nd -c us tom e rs in t he U. S. marke t, leavingAVI SMA with only the costs of orde r proc essingand fr eig ht and deliver yCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 9

AVI SMA’s home marke t transac tions varied fr om [ [ ] ] t o [[ ]] metric tons. Pls. Br. 3 32. char g es. Pls. Br. 29- 30. By contra st, AVI SMA perfor ms all of the more e laborate end- customer selling f unctions in the Russian market. Pls. Br. 29- 30. To furthe r buttress its argument for a CEP offset, AVI SMA also notes that it has only one customer

for its U.S. sales, Tirus, and ma de [[ ]] routine oce an fr eig ht shipments ex clusively of the same product to Tirus duringthe per iod
o f r e v ie w . Pl s . B r . 3 1
. M e an w h il e , A V I SM A c o n d u c te d [[ ] ] i n d iv id

u a l t r a n s a c ti o n s w it

h[[ ]] customers in the Russian marke t, which wer e compose d of wildly vary ing sizes and numer ous

3 differ ent produc ts. Pl s. Br . 32. Plaintiffs thus aver that “ it is ax iomatic” that AVI SMA incurs signific antly

g reater sellingexpenses in its hom e mar ket than in the U.S. Pls. Br. 32. Acc ording ly , they

believe that Comm erc e should g rant them a CEP offset. Plaintiffs have not met the burde n of proof to rec eive a

CEP offset. They

provided Comme rc e wi th a

do c ume nt e nti tle d “ AV I SMA– Se lli ngF un c tio ns Cha rt ,” wh ic h p ur

po rt s to list t he “SellingActivity

/ Function” dif

fer ence s betwee n AVI SMA’s home marke t sales to end
u s e r s , it s s a le s to T ir

u s in th e U
. S. , an d

T ir u s ’ s s a le s to U
. S. c u s to me r s . Pl s . B r . Ap p . T a b 1 E x. 6. The diff

ere nt levels of ac tivity

are descr ibed as “NO,” “ L ,” “M,” “H,” or var iations thereof
. Although it appe ars c omprehe nsive, the cha rt nowher e indicate s the measur e by which Plaintiffs
ma de the ir

e va luatio ns . T he c ha

rt c ou ld r e fe r t o th e fr e qu e nc y , inte ns ity , c os t, o r a g g re g ate
vo lum e of

sa le s a c tiv ity ; it

is i mpo ssi ble to d isc e rn . In o the r w or ds , th e c ha rt do e s n ot i llumin ate to what degree , if any , the disparity betwee n the normal va lue and CEP results from diff ering levels of tra de. L ikewise, the data on the number of shipments made to the U.S. provide no ins ig ht whe n c omp are d to the numbe r o f t ra ns a c tio ns ma de in R

us sia . Ash ipm e nt c ou ld c on ta inCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 10

The de adline for

submissi ons of fa ctual information to the Depar tment for an 4 administrative re view is 140 day s after the last day

of the a nniversar y month. § 351.301(b)(2). The re g ulation states, in releva nt part, that “c ase br ief[s] must present all ar g uments that 5 continue in the submitter’s view to be rele vant to [C ommerce ]’s final determination or f inal any number of tr ansac tions or a sing le transa ction with any number of shipments. F inally , the dif fe re nt n umb e r o f c us tom e rs fo r A VI SMA ’s ho me mark e t and U. S. s a le s c ou ld l e a d to signific antly

differ ent sales a ctivities, but P laintiffs have not buttressed this assertion with fac ts. Commerce c annot base its decisions on conclusory statements alone. See NSK Corp. v. United States , Sl ip O p. 09 -9 1, 20 09 Ct. Int’ l. T ra de L EX I S 98 , at *2 8 ( Au g . 3 1, 20 09 ). De sp ite the ir claims to the contra

ry , Plaintiffs have not provided the Depa rtment with the quantifiable da ta, or even log ically

sound rea soning, that would allow Commerce to grant a CEP offset. Commerce ’s decision not to g rant the of fset is there fore aff

irmed. B. T he F os te r Affida vit Th e F os te r A ff

ida vit pr e se nts Ge or g e F os te r’ s o pin ion on ho w the De pa

rtme nt s ho uld

us e data on the r ecor d to calculate the NRV of r aw magnesium and chlorine g as in AVI SMA’s production proc ess. Plaintiffs first contend that the D epar tment acted unla

wfully when it re

jected the a ff ida vit ’s inc lus ion

in t he ir c a se br ie f o n th e g ro un ds that th e a ff ida vit c on sti tut e s unti me ly
su bmi tte d n e w f

a c tua l in fo rm atio n p ur su ant t o 1 9 C. F .R. § 3 51 .3 01 (b )( 2)
. Ac c or din gto 4 Plaintiffs, the aff

idavit “interpre ts the fac ts [ on the re cord], rathe r than substitutes or adds fa cts,” Pls. Br. 34, and “ corr oborate s claims and data ” pre viously submitt ed. Pls. Br. 36. It theref ore fa lls outsi de the re g ulatio n’ s p ur vie w b e c a

us e it d oe s n ot c on sti tut e ne w f a c tua l in fo rm atio n. Pls. Br . 36. Plaintiffs also argue that 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c )(2) require s that the Depa rtment take the Foster Affidavit into consideration. Pls. Br. 34. They bolster this assertion with their insistence 5Court No. 08- 00321 P age 11

results.” § 351.309(c )(2)
. The re g ulation at issue in Am. BrakeDrum , 19 C.F.R. § 353.31, now is codified at 6 § 351.301. that the Depa

rtment’s NRV ca lculation method for magnesium and chlorine g as, which the Foster Affidavit critiques, first appe are d in the Pr e lim ina ry Re su lts . Pls. Br. 34-35. Ac cording to Plainti ffs, e ven if the a ffidavit pre sents new f actua l information, without its admission, they will not rece ive a f

air opportunity

to contest the Pr e lim ina ry Re su lts . Finally , Plaintiffs liken the contents of the F oster Af

fidavit to witness testimony and “a dditional written argument” allowe d at hea ring s pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.310(d)( 2) – hea ring s that occur

afte r publication of the preliminary

results and we ll after the submissi on deadline in § 351.301( b)(2) . Pls. Br. 39. Whil e Pla int if

fs ’ u lti mate c on c lus ion

in t his ins tanc e may

be c or re c t, t he ir re a so nin gis
no t. L on g -e sta

bli sh e d p ri nc ipl e s o f a dmi nis tr ativ e law i mbu e a g e nc ie s w ithampl e dis c re tio n to
c ra ft the ir own r ule s and pr oc e dure s, inc lud ing“ the a uth or ity to e sta bli shand e nf or c e tim e lim its
conce rningthe submission of written information and data.” Coalit ion for the Pres. of Am. Brake D rum &Rotor Aftermkt. Mfrs. v. United States , 23 CI T 88, 94-95, 44 F . Supp. 2d 229, 237 (1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Vt. Y

ankeeNuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 435 U.S. 519, 544-45 (1978) ) (“

Am. BrakeDrum ”). With respec t to Com merc e’s ha ndling of antidumping matters in g ener al and § 351.301 spe cifica lly , the Court has upheld Commerc e’s policy of
e sta bli sh ingtim e lim its fo r t

he su bmi ssi on of fa c tua l in fo rm atio n, be c a us e “ Comme rc e c le arl y cannot c omplete its work unless it is able at some point to ‘fre eze’ the r ecor d and make calc ulations and finding s based on that f ix ed and c erta in body

of information.” Id. at 9 7, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 239 (quotation marks omitted). As alre ady noted, § 351.301(b)( 2) sets the de adline 6Court No. 08- 00321 P age 12

for the submission of new f actua l information to Comm erc e for the final re sults in admini strative
re vie ws 14 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he la st d ay

of the ann ive rs ary

month o f t

he or de r u

nd e r r e vie w, in t

his
case on September 17, 2007. SeeDef . Br . 35. Plaintiffs first attempted to submit t he F oster Affida vit on J une 12, 2008, we ll after the deadline. SeePls. Br. App. Ta b 8 at 1. Plaintiffs’ hope to circ umvent this deadline by char acte rizing the F oster Af fidavit as opinion and commentar

y , rathe r than ne w fa ctual information, fails. “[F]actual information” f or the purposes of

antidumping pr ocee dings inc ludes: “(i) Initial and supplemental questionnaire
re sp on se s; ( ii) Data

or state me nts of

fa c t in su pp or t of a lle g atio ns ; ( iii ) O the r d ata or state me nts of fa cts; and (iv) D ocumentar y evidenc e.” § 351.102( b)(21) . The Court has he ld that expert opinion analy

zing re ported infor

mation “clea

rly assumes the we ight of

evidenc e” a

nd, as such, amounts to “[d] ata or

statements of fa ct in support of alleg ations,” i.e., fa ctual information. Am. Brake D rum , 2 3 CI T at 98 -9 9 & n. 19 , 4 4 F . Su pp . 2 d at 24 0- 41 & n. 19 (“ An e xpe rt wi tne ss’ testimony . . . is evidence , even though its purpose is to help the fac t finder unde rstand the dire ct
e vid e nc e pr e se nte d. ” (b ra c ke ts, qu otatio n ma rk s & c itatio n o mitte d) ). Th e F os te r A ff ida vit , which explicitly

aims to guide Commerce in its assessment of data alre ady on the re cord unambig uously

falls into this categ ory . SeeF os te r A ff . ¶ 1. Th e c ourt , th e re fo re , ty pic a lly wo uld aff irm the Depa

rtment’s dec ision to ex clude the a ffidavit. See, e .g. , Am. BrakeDrum , 23 CI T at 98 , 4 4 F . Su

pp . 2 d at 24 0; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores deFlores v. United States , 13 CI T 13, 24-25, 704 F . Supp. 1114, 1124 (1989), aff’d , 901 F.2d 1089 ( Fe d. Cir. 1990). Ho we ve r, the c ir c ums tanc e s b e fo re the c ourt are no t ty pic a l. A s th e De pa

rtme nt a dmi ts i n the Fi na l R esu lts and in its brief, how to c alculate the NRV of the c hlorine g as in this case is an issue of first impression for the ag ency . Def

.-Int. Br. A

pp. Tab 20 (“

I& D Me mo ” ) at 1 5 ( “ WeCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 13

See, e .g. , Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less T han Fair Value and 7 Af fir ma tiv e Fi na l D e te rm ina tio n o f Cr iti c al Circ um sta nc es: Ce rta in O ra nge J uic e fro m B razil , 71 F e d. Re g . 2 18 3 ( De p’ t Co mme rc e Jan. 13 , 2 00 6) ; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Val ue: LiveSwine From Canada , 70 Fe d. Reg . 12,181 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 11 , 2 00 5) ; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less T han Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From South Africa , 6 7 F e d. Re g . 3 5, 48 5 ( De p’ t Co mme rc e Ma y 20 , 2 00 2) ; Notice of Fi na l D e te rm ina tio n o

f Sa le s a t Le ss T ha n F air Va lue : C

e rta in S oft woo d Lu mb e r Pro du c ts From Canada , 6 7 F e d. Re g . 1 5, 53 9 ( De p’ t Co mme rc e Ap r. 2, 20 02 ); Notice of Final Determ ination of Sal es at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magne sium from Israel , 6 6 Fe d
. R eg. 49 ,3 49 (D e p’ t Co mme rc e Se pt. 27 , 2 00 1) ; Eleme ntal Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Finding Administ rative Rev iew , 61 Fe d. Reg . 8239 (De p’t Commerce Mar. 4, 19 96 ); Final Determination of Sales at Less T han Fair Value: Canned PineappleFruit From Thailand , 60 Fe d. Reg . 29,553 (De p’t Commerce J une 5, 1995). have no t ha d a

joi nt- pr od

uc t sc e na ri o whe re on e of

the joi nt p ro du c ts w a s u se d a s a c ata ly st t o fac ilitate a sec ond joint-product sce nario.” ); Def . Br . 6-7. Confronted w ith this blank slate, Commerce tur

ned to seminal ac countingtext s, including one co-a uthored by

Geor g e F oster, for g uidance
. See I

& D Me mo at 15 n.5; Def

. Br . 15-16, 17, 20. Althoug h the Depa rtment has wide latit ud e to d e ve lop pr oc e dure s to a c c omm od ate the sh if tin ge c on omi c land sc a

pe in whic h it operates, the cour

t cannot ig nore that a leadingacc ounting e x pert – one to whom Comm erc e fre quently

turns for guidance – has dee med the ac countingmethod used in the Fi na l R esu lts 7 “cle arly inappropriate” a

nd stated that the re sults from this m ethod “c annot be c orre ct.” F oster Aff. ¶ ¶ 5.5, 6.3. In this sit uation, espec ially wher e the De partment may establish methodologic al prec edent f

or future simil ar inve stigations, the court’s role in striking a ba lance betwee n the nee d for a g ency

finality and the manda

te for a ccur acy

in antidumping dete rminations becomes para mount. Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States , 4 34 F .3 d 1 34 5, 13 53 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 6) ; see Mittal Steel USA, Inc . v. United States , Slip. Op. 07-117, 2007 W L2701369, at *2 (CI T Aug . 1, 2007) (notingCommerce’ s “duty to calculate antidumping r ates a s acc urate ly as possible”); Helme rich &Paynev. United States , 2 2 CI T 9 28 , 9 38 , 2 4 F . Su pp . 2 d 3 04 , 3 13 (1 99 8) (“ [F ]ai rCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 14

and ac curate deter

minations are f

undamental to the pr oper a dminist ration of our dumping law s.”) (c itatio n o mitte d) ; Bowe-Passat v. United States , 1 7 C I T 3 35 , 3 41 (19 93 ) (n otrepo rt ed i n F. S u p p . ) ( s am e) (c i t i n g NSK, L td. v. United States , 16 CI T 745, 748, 798 F. Supp. 721, 724 (1992) ; Industrial Quimica del Nalon, S.A. v. United States , 13 CI T 1055, 1060, 729 F. Supp. 103, 108 (1989)) ; H.R. Rep. No. 98-725, at 43 (1984) (“The Commi ttee . . . believe s it essential [for] the proper enfor ceme nt of the laws that infor mation used in determining. . . the ac tual amount of any . . . antidumping duty

to be assesse d under outstandingorder s [be] acc urate to the extent po ssi ble .” ); see also Koyo Se iko Co. v. United States , 14 CI T 680, 683, 746 F. Supp. 1108, 1111 (1990) ( “[J ]udi cial author ity supports g rantinga re quest for r emand if it foster s and promotes fundame ntal fairne ss.”) (quotation marks & c itation omit ted). Conseque ntly , the cour t finds that to ensure the intent of the antidumping laws is upheld, the De partment should take into ac count the Foste r Aff

idavit when conside ringthe best methodolog y for c alculatingthe NRV for the chlorine g as. See NEC HomeElecs., Ltd. v. United States , 54 F.3d 736, 743- 44 (F ed. Cir. 1995) (orde ringCommerce to r eopen r ecor d to include and c onsider expert af fidavit submitted after pu bli c atio n o f p re lim ina

ry de te rm inatio n a

nd re mand ingde te rm inatio n) ; see also Jinfu Trading Co. v. United States , Slip. Op. 07-95, 2007 Ct. I nt’l Trade L EXI S 106, at *28-29 (June 13, 2007) (orde ringreope ning of

administrative re cord so pa rty may add per tinent information). The c ourt takes no position on the merits of the issue. IV. Conclusion F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , it

is ORDERED that Pla int if

fs ’ M oti on

fo r Jud g me nt U

po n th e Ag e nc y

Re c or d is GR ANTED in part and DE NI ED in part, that the c ourt rese rves the pa rties’ re mainingCourt No. 08- 00321 P age 15

argume nts fo r f

utu re de te rm inatio n, and

that th e c a se is REMAND ED to Comm erc e for further pr oc e e din g s. Spe c if

ic a lly , it is OR DE RE D that Co mme rc e ’s de c isi on no t to g ra

nt a c on str uc te d p ri c e e xpor

t of fs e t is aff irmed; it is further OR DE RE D that Commerce a dmit the Foster Af fidavit into the rec ord and f ully consider its arguments upon remand; a nd it is further OR DE RE D that Co mme rc e sh a ll h ave un til Janu ary 29 , 2 01 0, to f

ile its re mand

re su lts
w i thth e C o urt . P l a i n t i f

f s an d D e f e n d an t - In t e r

v e n o r s h a l l f i l e s u p p l e m e n t a l r e s p o n s e s , i f

an y, with the Court no later than Ma rch 1, 2010. In view of this opinion, the previously schedule d oral a rgument of Nove mber 18, 2009 is her eby adjourne d.

D at e d : O c t o b e r

2 0 , 2 0 0 9 / s /J u d i thM
. B ar z i l ay Ne w Y o rk , Ne w Y o rk J u d i thM
. Barz i l ay , J u d ge