Opinion ID: 2796396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence indicating support

Text: The question here is whether Giorgio indicates support for the petition through its questionnaire response(s). The answer is yes. As this Court noted in PS Chez Sidney, whether a questionnaire response indicates support is determined by the substance of the response as a whole, i.e., through the questionnaire. PS Chez Sidney, L.L.C. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 684 F.3d 1374, 1379, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Giorgio’s questionnaire responses provide data and argument that supports a finding of material injury, or threat thereof, which leads to the issuance of an antidumping duty order. Giorgio submitted detailed, company-specific financial data concretely showing the decreasing value of its shipments, decreased wages, increased inventories, and decreased net income and profits. J.A. 155, 162, 165–66, 194, 200, 204–06. Giorgio explained that its net sales decreased from about $ 74.9 million in fiscal year (FY) 1995 to about $ 48 million in FY 1997, a decrease of $ 26.9 million or about thirty-six percent (36%). J.A. 162, 200. During this time, its total cost of goods sold fell from about $ 60.5 million to about $ 40 million and gross profits shrunk from about $ 14.4 million to about $ 8 million, or a loss of about forty-four percent (44 %). J.A. 162, 200. These are precisely the type of data that prove material injury during an investigation. The majority dismisses these data as being merely “factual statements,” and not statements that indicate support for the petition. Maj. Op. at pp. 11–12. However, there is no reason why empirical data, factual information, and legal argument cannot indicate support. This remarkable position defies a fundamental tenet of U.S. law that recognizes that facts speak louder than words. GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US 9 Cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009) citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). In trade law, the game is in the data. Factual statements corroborated by data are evidence that carry determinative weight. One could even say that the data in a producer’s questionnaire responses speaks so loud, one cannot hear what the producer is saying. The majority is incorrect that Giorgio’s questionnaire response does not indicate support. Indeed, Giorgio’s questionnaire response can reasonably and fairly be said to constitute, in its entirety, a statement of “explicit support” for the petition. Giorgio states that the investigated imports “diminish or extinguish our ability to remain in business.” J.A. 164, 202. Giorgio was forced to discontinue a product line and decrease production at numerous facilities because of the “extremely low” and “prevailing depressed” prices caused by the subject imports, thereby forcing Giorgio to “layoff numerous employees.” J.A. 154, 191. These layoffs were needed in light of the “depressed times in the domestic preserved mushroom industry” caused by the dumped imports. J.A. 154, 191. Even after layoffs, “if the downward trend [in net sales] continues or does not show any improvement Giorgio Foods, Inc. could be forced to close its operations.” J.A. 154, 191. These are explicit statements of material injury and demonstrate open, explicit support of the petition by a domestic producer of the like product. When one considers that the statements were made two years prior to the enactment of the CDSOA, logic dictates that these substantive statements constitute a plausible indication of support. That the majority turns a blind eye to these explicit statements shows that it focused exclusively on the petition support question boxes. The majority’s approach, relying on abstract expressions of support, is contrary to our precedent. 10 GIORGIO FOODS, INC. v. US