Opinion ID: 2756241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: First Redetermination

Text: In 2013, Commerce again found that the surrogate values constituted the “best available information” (“First Redetermination”). Commerce acknowledged that it uses contemporaneous market economy purchases when available because those purchases “reflect the respondent’s actual [market cost] experience during the [period of review],” but reiterated that Huafeng made no such purchases here. J.A. 1001018. Commerce concluded that the record did not support Huafeng and Home Meridian’s argument that market economy purchases constituted 100% of the inputs used to HOME MERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL v. US 5 make the subject merchandise. First, Commerce found that Huafeng made no purchases of the six relevant wood inputs during the Period of Review. Second, Commerce determined that, in the thirteen months prior to the Period of Review, Huafeng purchased pine, poplar, birch, and elm lumber inputs from both market economy and non-market economy suppliers. Third, Commerce found that for three types of lumber (elm, poplar, and birch) there were sufficient non-market economy purchases to account for 100% of Huafeng’s consumption of that lumber during the Period of Review. Fourth, Commerce determined that there was a sufficient quantity of relevant wood inputs in Huafeng’s inventory before Huafeng made the market economy purchases that could have covered the consumption of lumber inputs during both 2008 and the Period of Review. Finally, Commerce determined that there was no evidence demonstrating specifically which inputs Huafeng used to produce the subject merchandise. Commerce then examined the reliability of the surrogate values. Commerce recognized that the Philippine import data reflected higher prices than Huafeng’s market economy purchases, but held that the higher prices alone did not render the data aberrational. Commerce referred to Huafeng’s acknowledgement that prices can increase, as it purchased a “large quantity of lumber [in 2008] to avoid the risk of prices increasing, which it was predicted may happen.” J.A. 1000508, 1001021. In addition, Commerce noted that another similarly situated respondent in China paid prices in 2008 that were significantly higher than Huafeng’s market economy purchases and aligned more closely with the surrogate values. Commerce used a Philippine Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) wooden basket category to value the poplar, birch, and elm lumber inputs. Commerce explained that, while the HTS category did not address each input individually, it was nevertheless contemporaneous with the 6 HOME MERIDIAN INTERNATIONAL v. US Period of Review and “consist[s] of actual prices paid by [market economy] buyers of these wood inputs.” J.A. 1001022. Thus, in weighing the merits of the surrogate values and market economy purchases, Commerce determined that the surrogate values represented the “best available information.” The Court of International Trade again remanded the matter to Commerce, with the directive to “use Huafeng’s actual [market economy] wood input purchases” for valuation or to reopen the record to make further factual findings regarding whether those purchases represented 100% of the inputs used to produce the subject merchandise. J.A. 18. The court first held Commerce’s interpretation of § 351.408(c)(1) to be reasonable, and agreed that the Antidumping Methodologies did not require use of the market economy purchases. The court then held that, nevertheless, Commerce improperly found that market economy purchases did not constitute 100% of the inputs used to produce the subject merchandise. The court explained that the record supported the contrary conclusion, including that Huafeng separated its inputs based on country of origin at the manufacturing site and segregated its workshops based on shipping destination. The court held that, although these facts were not definitive, they still outweighed Commerce’s “zero evidence to the contrary.” Home Meridian Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 922 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1376 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013). AFMC then filed a Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, for an Order Directing Commerce to Reopen the Record, which the Court of International Trade denied.