United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 20-48

Before the Court in Coal. for Fair Trade in Garlic v. United States, et. al., Slip Op. 20-48, Court No. 18-137 (April 14, 2020) was a challenge to Commerce’s final results and partial rescission of the 22nd administrative review (“AR22”) of the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from China. Plaintiff argued that Commerce erred in concluding that its members lacked standing to request a review of Defendant-Intervenor Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Company. For the following reasons, the Court remanded Commerce’s determination regarding plaintiffs standing.

“Commerce ‘has the inherent authority to defend the integrity of its proceedings in the first instance while they are ongoing.’” Id. at 13. “That authority includes disregarding requests for administrative reviews when the requestor’s lack of credibility undermines statements made in the request.” Id. “Commerce’s credibility-based findings must, however, be supported by substantial evidence and a reasoned explanation.” Id. The Court reviewed Commerce’s findings that Mr. Crawford and Ms. Sanford, members of the plaintiff coalition, lacked standing. In regards to Mr. Crawford, the Court noted there were numerous issues with the information provided by Mr. Crawford, including inconsistent stories regarding the source of a $50,0000 payment made to Mr. Crawford. However, the Court said “Commerce did not … identify specific communications or events or explain how they impair Mr. Crawford’s credibility in this segment of the proceeding.” Id. at 14. In regards to Ms. Sanford, the Court said “in light of Ms. Sanford’s misrepresentations surrounding her inability to submit her 2015 tax returns and her failure to provide Commerce the requested 2016 income tax returns demonstrating garlic farming, Commerce’s disregard of Ms. Sanford’s claim that she sold garlic at the New Mexico farmer’s market on the basis of contradictory evidence is supported by substantial evidence.” Id.  at 21. The Court refused to hear numerous other arguments bought up by plaintiff for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As such, the case was remanded for Commerce to further explain or reconsider the standing of Mr. Crawford.