United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-59

            Before the Court in Coal. of Am. Flange Producers v. United States, Court No. 18-00225, Slip Op. 21-59 (May 13, 2021) was Commerce’s Remand Results, which the Court ordered in Coalition of American Flange Producers v. United States, 44 CIT __, 448 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (2020) (“Coalition I”). Plaintiff challenged Commerce’s classification of a challenged sale as an export sale in an antidumping investigation and to its associated 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1)(C) finding of home market non-viability. Id. Plaintiff claimed Commerce’s decision was not reasonably supported or explained because the newly discussed evidence in combination with the evidence previously identified by Commerce did not “demonstrate that Chandan knew or should have known that its sales to [[ ]] were for export.” Id. at 6. In response, Government characterized Coalition’s renewed claims as “a disagreement with Commerce’s weighing of the evidence.” Id. Regarding a provision in the challenged sale contract that required export quality packaging, Plaintiff argued that “it was illogical for Commerce to claim that the reason for disregarding the relevance of the sale is the non-viability of the home market when part of the agency’s reason for taking the sale into account was to help determine the home market’s viability.” Id. at 6-7. Government argued that despite the overlapping provisions being consistent with either a home market or export sale, the evidence nevertheless “support[s] Commerce’s conclusion regarding Chandan’s knowledge of the ultimate destination for the merchandise when the record is considered in its totality.” Id. at 7. Regarding the issue of logo requirements, Plaintiff argued that the logo provision “provides no reasonable support for a finding that the sales were destined for export.” Id. at 9. Government responded that “Commerce reasonably concluded that a requirement for a [[ ]], as was the case here, is consistent for a sale destined for outside of India.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff contended that “the initial offer or circumstances of negotiation of the challenged sale were not properly considered by Commerce.” Id. at 10. Government responded that “Coalition’s opposition to Commerce’s remand explanation is based upon the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence.” Id. For the following reasons, the Court affirmed Commerce’s Remand Results. Id. at 2.

“The court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding or conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. at 4. A conclusion based on substantial evidence and in accordance with law requires Commerce to examine the record and provide an adequate explanation for its findings such that the record demonstrates a rational connection between the facts accepted and the determination made. Id. The court also reviews the Remand Results “for compliance with the court’s remand order.” Id. at 5. In this case, the Court concluded that Commerce’s explanation and analysis of the overlapping provisions was reasonable. Id. at 7. “As Commerce explained, conflicting inferences may be made based on this evidence in isolation, but in light of the entire record and the lesser weight Commerce placed on the home market sale, Commerce reached a reasonable conclusion.” Id. at 7. Additionally, the Court concluded that Commerce’s explanation of the logo provision was reasonable and adequately addressed on remand. Id. at 9. “Commerce’s explanation of the differing logo requirements for the challenged sale and Chandan’s other sales is based on a reasonable inference that the provision supported Chandan’s knowledge that the challenged sale was destined for export.” Id. “The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not preclude the agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 11. “Thus, Commerce’s conclusion that the initially negotiated terms, in light of the totality of the evidence and the circumstances of the negotiation, indicated that the challenged sale was for export was based on reasonable inferences and supported by substantial evidence.” Id. As such, the Court sustained Commerce’s Remand Results and enters judgment in favor of the Government. Id. at 12.