UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Slip Op. 25-142

Before the court (“CIT”) in Lumimove, Inc., D/B/A WPC Technologies v. United States was Plaintiff Lumimove’s (“WPC”) motion for judgment on the agency record. In Slip Op. 25-142, the CIT sustained in full U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) results following Commerce’s administrative review of an antidumping duty order on strontium chromate from Austria. Plaintiff WPC made a motion to challenge Commerce’s final results. The final results of the administrative review answered whether Defendant-Intervenor Habich is affiliated with American sales agent, Company X, and whether Habich’s normal value may be calculated based on its sales to Mexico. Commerce found that Habich is not affiliated with Company X and that Habich’s sales to Mexico may provide a basis for calculating normal value. Plaintiff WPC’s challenge to the final results rests on its argument that Commerce “overlooked and failed to further investigate allegations and information that supported a finding of affiliation and undermined the suitability of Mexico as an appropriate basis for normal value.” Slip Op. 25-142, page 2. In response to WPC’s challenge, Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor argued that both the conclusion pertaining to affiliation and the conclusion pertaining to normal value “find ample factual and legal support.” Slip Op. 25-142, page 3. Judge Joseph Laroski, Jr. sustained in full Commerce’s findings and denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the agency record.

Commerce’s final results of its administrative review are significant to WPC because WPC and Habich are competitors; Commerce’s determinations of affiliation and normal value assessment affect the antidumping duties Habich owes. As Habich’s competitor, higher duties owed by Habich would give WPC a competitive advantage in the market. The CIT supported its holding in favor of Defendant United States and Defendant-Intervenor Habich, reasoning that Commerce’s work was both diligent and reasonable and that “WPC demand[ed] more diligence [from Commerce] without showing what additional diligence [was] necessary.” Slip. Op. 25-142, page 17. Judge Leroski, Jr. explained his decision to sustain Commerce’s administrative review results in full, referencing the process of review itself: “Commerce posed an extensive list of questions to Habich, Habich answered those questions, and Commerce visited Habich in person to verify those answers—each step indicating a diligent inquiry and a reasonable process. To demand more, on this record, is to mischaracterize the law.” Slip Op. 25-142, page 20. By sustaining Commerce’s final results in full and denying Plaintiff WPC’s motion for judgment, Judge Laroski affirmed the standards of deference with which the CIT scrutinizes Commerce results.