Opinion ID: 626020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Home Market Brix Levels

Text: Fischer contends that Commerce abused its discretion when it refused to consider Fischer’s additional materials regarding the actual Brix levels of its home market sales. According to Fischer, “once Commerce chose to use, and the [Court of International Trade] upheld Commerce’s use of, actual Brix values as its conversion variable, Commerce was required to use the correct Brix levels of the juice delivered to the customer.” Corrected Reply of Plaintiffs-Appellants (“Reply Brief”) at 6. Fischer contends it “provided the correct actual Brix levels of its home market . . . sales in its timely filed case brief.” Id. at 7. According to Fischer, Commerce’s refusal to accept the corrected home market Brix data distorted the final anti-dumping duty calculation. The Court of International Trade did not find credible Fischer’s argument that its original home market Brix data contained errors. Specifically, the court noted that Fischer’s original data showed varying Brix levels for its home market sales, which the court determined belied Fischer’s argument that it had misreported that those sales were based on minimum, rather than actual Brix levels. Fischer S.A. Commercio, Industria & Agricultura v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1364, 1378 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2010). Thus, the court concluded that Commerce’s refusal to accept Fischer’s corrected home market Brix data “was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.” Id. FISCHER SA COMERCIO v. US 6 The relevant question, however, is not whether Fischer originally reported different Brix levels for its home market sales, but whether the values Fischer reported were actual Brix levels for those sales. Fischer’s rejected data suggests that at least some of the originallyreported home market Brix levels were not actual Brix levels. Compare Joint Appendix (“JA”) 75-76 (original data reporting certain Brix levels for sale numbers [366] and [432]) with JA 122-123 (sales receipts from Fischer’s rejected materials reporting different Brix levels for those sales). Thus, the court’s conclusion that Fischer could not have originally reported incorrect Brix levels for its home market sales is without adequate support in the record. On appeal, the Government urges that in light of the varying Brix levels Fischer originally reported, “it was entirely reasonable for Commerce (and the trial court) to conclude that Fischer reported actual brix.” Corrected Brief for Defendant-Appellee United States (“Government Brief”) at 19; see also id. at 28 n.10 (referring to JA 75-76, 148-149, and 159-162 as evidencing “brix levels that varied from sale to sale.”). But the evidence merely demonstrates that Fischer either reported “[t]he standard . . . brix value for Brazil sales” JA 85, or a “minimum” Brix level, see, e.g., JA 149, ll. 400 and 460. Thus, Commerce’s conclusion that Fischer had originally reported actual Brix levels for its home market sales is not reasonable based on the evidence of record. The Government also contends that Fischer is pre- cluded from arguing on appeal that its originally-filed data did not contain actual Brix levels because Fischer failed to raise that argument at the administrative level. Government Brief at 26 and 28. As we have explained, however, the antidumping laws are remedial, not punitive, and the affected domestic industry is not entitled to 7 FISCHER SA COMERCIO v. US a remedy that exceeds the difference between the foreign market value and the domestic price. NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Commerce is obliged to correct any errors in its calculations during the preliminary results stage to avoid an imposition of unjustified duties. Timkin U.S. Corp. v. United States, 434 F.3d 1345, 1353-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed above, there was sufficient evidence on the record in this case to suggest that Fischer had not reported actual Brix levels for at least some of its home market sales. Because Commerce’s use of Fischer’s original home market Brix levels may have resulted in an imposition of unjustified duties, the decision to reject Fischer’s corrected data was an abuse of discretion. We therefore vacate the Court of International Trade’s decision affirming Commerce’s refusal to accept Fischer’s offer of corrected home market Brix data. On remand, the court shall instruct Commerce to accept for the record Fischer’s evidence of actual Brix levels for its home market sales and, in light of that evidence, determine whether the anti-dumping duty must be recalculated.