Slip Op. 26-28
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
TIANJIN MAGNESIUM INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. AND TIANJIN MAGNESIUM METAL CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs, Before: Timothy M. Reif, Judge
v. Court No. 25-00002
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining in part and remanding in part Commerce’s Final Results.]
Dated: March 13, 2026
David J. Craven, Craven Trade Law LLC, of Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd.
Kyle S. Beckrich, Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for defendant United States. With him on the brief were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel was Paul Thornton, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
* * *
This action concerns the final results of the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) in the administrative review of the antidumping (“AD”) order on pure
magnesium from the People’s Republic of China (“China”) for the period of review
(“POR”) May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023. Pure Magnesium from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2022-2023 Court No. 25-00002 Page 2
(“Final Results”), 89 Fed. Reg. 100,967 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 13, 2024), PR 121,
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“IDM”) (Dep’t of Commerce
Dec. 6, 2024), PR 117.
Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Magnesium Metal Co., Ltd.
(collectively, “plaintiffs”) challenge certain aspects of the Final Results in a motion for
judgment on the agency record pursuant to U.S. Court of International Trade (“USCIT”)
Rule 56.2. Mot. Pursuant to Rule 56.2 Mot. of Pls. for J. on the Agency R. (“Pls. Mot.”),
ECF No. 17. Specifically, plaintiffs request that the court remand to Commerce for
reconsideration of its selection of Türkiye as the primary surrogate country and rejection
of Bulgaria. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of the Rule 56.2 Mot. of Pls. for J. on the
Agency R. (“Pls. Br.”), ECF No. 17-1.
For the reasons discussed below, the court sustains in part and remands in part
Commerce’s Final Results.
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1995, Commerce issued the AD order on pure magnesium from
China. Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium from the People’s
Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure
Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 60 Fed. Reg. 25,691 (Dep’t of Commerce
May 12, 1995).
On July 12, 2023, Commerce initiated the administrative review at issue here.
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 Fed. Reg.
44,262 (Dep’t of Commerce July 12, 2024), PR 6. Court No. 25-00002 Page 3
On September 25, 2023, Commerce placed the Surrogate Country List (“SC
List”) on the record. Mem. from Commerce to Interested Parties Pertaining to
Interested Parties: Surrogate Value Mem. (Sept. 25, 2023), attach., PR 25. Commerce
described the SC List as “a non-exhaustive list of countries that Commerce has
determined, based on per capita Gross National Income (GNI), is [sic] at the same level
of economic development as China.” Id. at 1. Commerce solicited comments “on the
list as a starting point for surrogate country selection . . . and to propose for
consideration other countries that are at a level of economic development comparable
to China.” Id. The SC List contained the following six countries: Romania, Chile,
Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Türkiye. Id., attach.
On June 5, 2024, Commerce issued the Preliminary Results. Pure Magnesium
from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2022-2023 (“Preliminary Results”), 89 Fed. Reg. 48,149 (Dep’t
of Commerce June 5, 2024), PR 92, and accompanying Preliminary Decision
Memorandum (“PDM”) (Dep’t of Commerce May 30, 2024), PR 86. Commerce selected
preliminarily Türkiye as the primary surrogate country. PDM at 12.
On December 13, 2024, Commerce issued the Final Results. See Final Results.
Commerce continued to select Türkiye as the primary surrogate country. IDM at cmt. 1.
On January 6, 2025, plaintiffs filed summons in the instant action. Summons,
ECF No. 1. On January 27, 2025, plaintiffs filed their complaint. Compl., ECF No. 8.
On June 5, 2025, plaintiffs moved for judgment on the agency record pursuant to
USCIT Rule 56.2. Pls. Mot. Court No. 25-00002 Page 4
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) grants to this Court “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action
commenced under section 516A or 517 of the Tariff Act of 1930.”
Section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that in an action under 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(a)(2), the court will hold unlawful any determination, finding or conclusion that
is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance
with law.” 1 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Substantial evidence constitutes “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” but it requires “more than a mere
scintilla.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (quoting Consol.
Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). For a reviewing court to “fulfill
[its] obligation” to determine whether a determination of Commerce is supported by
substantial evidence and in accordance with law, Commerce is required to “examine the
record and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” CS Wind Viet. Co. v.
United States, 832 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts &
Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
Even so, the court will “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s
path may reasonably be discerned.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Ark.-
Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974)); see also NMB Sing. Ltd. v. United
States, 557 F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Commerce must explain the basis for its
1 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 are to Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2018 edition. Court No. 25-00002 Page 5
decisions; while its explanations do not have to be perfect, the path of Commerce’s
decision must be reasonably discernable to a reviewing court.”).
Finally, “the Court will not disturb an agency determination if its factual findings
are reasonable and supported by the record as a whole, even if there is some evidence
that detracts from the agency’s conclusion.” Shandong Huarong Gen. Corp. v. United
States, 25 CIT 834, 837, 159 F. Supp. 2d 714, 718 (2001) (citing Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. v.
United States, 25 CIT 147, 149 (2001)), aff’d sub nom. Shandong Huarong Gen. Grp.
Corp. v. United States, 60 F. App’x 797 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
DISCUSSION
I. Legal framework
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1) provides that Commerce “shall determine the normal
value of the subject merchandise” in an AD investigation that involves a non-market
economy (“NME”) country “on the basis of the value of the factors of production
[(“FOPs”)] utilized in producing the merchandise and to which shall be added an amount
for general expenses and profit plus the cost of containers, coverings, and other
expenses.” See Juancheng Kangtai Chem. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 15-93, 2015
WL 4999476, at *2 (CIT Aug. 21, 2015).
In administrative proceedings that involve an NME country such as China,
Commerce calculates the “normal value” of the subject merchandise by selecting
surrogate data from one or several market economy countries that Commerce
determines constitute the “best available information.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(1); Heze
Huayi Chem. Co. v. United States, 45 CIT __, __, 532 F. Supp. 3d 1301, 1309-10
(2021). Court No. 25-00002 Page 6
The “best available information” standard involves “a comparison of the
competing data sources” in the record. Weishan Hongda Aquatic Food Co. v. United
States, 917 F.3d 1353, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Section 1677b(c)(1) does not define
“best available information,” which means that Commerce has “broad discretion” to
evaluate record information. Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States, 652
F.3d 1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). When reviewing a determination by Commerce, the
“court’s duty is ‘not to evaluate whether the information Commerce used was the best
available, but rather whether a reasonable mind could conclude that Commerce chose
the best available information.’” Id. (quoting Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United States, 30
CIT 616, 619, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1327 (2006)).
Commerce, “in valuing factors of production . . . shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of factors of production” in a surrogate country that is “at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the [NME],” and a “significant
producer[] of comparable merchandise.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4). And “[t]o the extent
possible, Commerce’s regulatory preference is to ‘value all factors in a single surrogate
country.’” Jinko Solar Imp. and Exp. Co. v. United States, 48 CIT __, __, 701 F. Supp.
3d 1367, 1381 (2024) (quoting 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2)).
II. Commerce’s selection of Türkiye as the primary surrogate country
The court concludes that Commerce’s explanation of its selection of Türkiye as
the primary surrogate country is flawed but adequate. Commerce erred in concluding
that Bulgaria is not a producer of identical merchandise and in stating that Commerce
has an established preference for production data over export data. See infra Sections Court No. 25-00002 Page 7
II.A-B. Nonetheless, Commerce’s selection of Türkiye over Bulgaria is supported by
substantial evidence.
A. Whether Bulgaria is a producer of identical merchandise
The court concludes that Commerce erred in concluding that Bulgaria does not
produce identical merchandise.
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s “determination that [Türkiye] was a substantial
producer of subject merchandise and that Bulgaria was not a substantial producer of
subject merchandise is contrary to the facts.” Pls. Br. at 3. According to plaintiffs,
Commerce “erroneously found that Bulgaria only produced comparable merchandise
while [Türkiye] and Malaysia produced identical merchandise.” Id. at 10. Plaintiffs
explain that “[t]he proper comparison product is product that falls within scope,” not just
“the simple production of pure magnesium.” Id.
Congress defined “subject merchandise” as “the class or kind of merchandise
that is within the scope of an investigation, a review, a suspension agreement, [or] an
order.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(25). And “[i]n all cases, if identical merchandise is produced,
the country qualifies as a producer of comparable merchandise.” Import Admin., U.S.
Dep't of Commerce, Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, Policy
Bulletin 04.1 (2004), https://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull04-1.html (last visited Mar.
9, 2026) (“Policy Bulletin 04.1”) (footnote omitted); see also Mid Continent Nail Corp. v.
United States, 34 CIT 512, 519, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1377 (2010) (“Identical
merchandise is comparable merchandise.”).
Commerce erred when it characterized Bulgaria as a producer only of
comparable merchandise. The GTA export data establish Bulgaria as a producer of Court No. 25-00002 Page 8
“Unwrought Magnesium” under HTSUS 8104.11.00 and 8104.19.00, “Magnesium
Raspings, Turnings And Granules” and “Magnesium Powders” under HTSUS
8104.30.00 and “Articles Of Magnesium” under HTSUS 8104.90.00, all of which are
covered by the order and are thereby considered identical merchandise under the
statutory definition. See Letter from King & Spalding LLP to Sec’y of Commerce
Pertaining to Pet’r Cmts on Surrogate Country Selection (“Pet’r SC Cmts.”), attach. 1,
PR 31; see also IDM at 2-3. Regardless, Commerce’s error does not jeopardize its
selection of Türkiye for the reasons discussed below and is therefore harmless.
B. Whether Commerce has an established preference for production data over export data
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s selection of Türkiye as the primary surrogate
country is “not supported by substantial evidence and is thus otherwise not in
accordance with law.” Pls. Br. at 10. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that Commerce
relied erroneously on production data rather than export data to conclude that Türkiye
was a significant producer of comparable merchandise during the POR. 2 See id. at 14-
16.
19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4) provides that:
[Commerce], in valuing factors of production . . . shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy countries that are—
(A) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket economy country, and
2 Plaintiffs do not object to Commerce’s determination that Türkiye is at a level of
economic development comparable to China. See IDM at 5-6. For that reason, the court will confine its analysis to the “significant producer of comparable merchandise” criterion. Court No. 25-00002 Page 9
(B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.
The statute does not define terms such as “significant producer” and
“comparable merchandise.” Id. However, “[s]ome clarification is . . . provided in the
Conference Report to the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, which added
to the statute the current NME provisions and states that ‘significant producer’ includes
any country that is a ‘significant net exporter.’” Policy Bulletin 04.1 (quoting Conference
Report to the 1988 Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness Act, H.R. Rep. No. 100-576
(1988), at 590).
In the Final Results, Commerce explained that its “practice is to evaluate whether
production is significant based on characteristics of world production of, and trade in,
comparable merchandise . . . and to determine whether merchandise is comparable on
a case-by-case basis.” IDM at 6. Commerce continued that “[w]here there is no
production information, Commerce has relied on export data from potential [surrogate
countries].” Id.
In the instant matter, “petitioner provided export data from Global Trade Atlas
(GTA), which shows [sic] that all six countries on Commerce’s surrogate country list” —
including both Türkiye and Bulgaria — “have exports of various types of magnesium
articles during the POR.” PDM at 10 (citing Pet’r SC Cmts., attach. 1). Petitioner
submitted also USGS data, which list only “Türkiye and Malaysia with the capacity to
produce ‘primary magnesium,’ and list[] Türkiye with an estimated 13,000 metric tons of
production in 2021.” IDM at 7; Pet’r SC Cmts., attach. 2, tbl. 8.
Based on these data, Commerce determined that “Malaysia and Türkiye were
the only producers of identical merchandise” among the potential surrogate countries. Court No. 25-00002 Page 10
IDM at 7. And Commerce stated that “because there is [sic] production data on the
record which demonstrates that Türkiye and Malaysia were significant producers of
identical merchandise, [Commerce] did not need to rely on export data as a proxy for
production data.” Id. As discussed supra, Commerce erroneously failed to recognize
that Bulgaria also produced subject merchandise; however, this failure was harmless
error.
In its determination that Türkiye is a significant producer of identical
merchandise, Commerce considered: (1) contemporaneous GTA export data; and (2)
out-of-period USGS production data. See id. This approach comports with the
guidelines set forth in the Policy Bulletin. See Policy Bulletin 04.1 (stating that the
“significant producer” determination “should be made consistent with the characteristics
of world production of, and trade in, comparable merchandise” (emphasis supplied)).
Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority in support of their assertion that Commerce “has
a consistent practice of determining whether a country is a substantial producer of
subject merchandise based on export data” primarily. Pls. Br. at 11.
At the same time, it does not appear as though Commerce has a consistent
practice of prioritizing production data in determining whether a country is a substantial
producer of comparable merchandise. Commerce stated that “[w]here there is no
production information, Commerce has relied on export data from potential SCs.” IDM
at 6. But Commerce cited only one proceeding that could be read to support this Court No. 25-00002 Page 11
assertion. 3 Commerce discussed also its use of export data rather than production data
in Pure Magnesium from China 2011-2012, see IDM at 8 (citing Pure Magnesium from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2011-2012 (“Pure Magnesium 2011-2012”), 79 Fed. Reg. 94 (Dep’t of
Commerce Jan. 2, 2014) and accompanying IDM (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 26, 2013)),
but neglected an important point of distinction.
In Pure Magnesium 2011-2012, Commerce used export data for exports of
comparable merchandise because data were unavailable for identical merchandise.
See Pure Magnesium 2011-2012 IDM at 6. The point of comparison for the data
sources on the record was whether those sources pertained to identical or comparable
merchandise, not whether they pertained to production or exports. Id. Indeed,
Commerce in that proceeding stated that “[i]n determining whether a potential surrogate
country qualifies as a significant producer, [Commerce] has a well-established practice
of evaluating export data for the HTS categories listed in the scope of the Order for the
countries identified as economically comparable potential surrogates by the Office of
3 See Xanthan Gum from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. 2,252 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 10, 2013) and accompanying PDM at 7-8 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 3, 2013) (unchanged in final results) (“In this case, record evidence shows that none of the potential surrogate countries is a producer of xanthan gum, and production data of identical merchandise for these countries was [sic] not available. . . . Consistent with our practice, we first researched export data using the Global Trade Atlas (“GTA”) for identical merchandise from the potential surrogate countries. We found that none of the potential surrogate countries had significant exports of xanthan gum.”) Court No. 25-00002 Page 12
Policy list.” 4 Id. at 7 (emphasis supplied). Again, such a statement does not establish a
preference for export data, but it does undermine the notion that there is an established
preference for production data.
“An action . . . becomes an ‘agency practice’ when a uniform and established
procedure exists that would lead a party, in the absence of notification of change,
reasonably to expect adherence to the established practice or procedure.” Ranchers-
Cattlemen Action Legal Found. v. United States, 23 CIT 861, 884-885, 74 F. Supp. 2d
1353, 1374 (1999) (emphasis supplied); see also Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v.
United States, 30 CIT 1269, 1293 n.23, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1261, 1282 n.23 (2006). The
lack of uniformity in Commerce’s use of data for the “significant producer” inquiry
suggests that, contrary to Commerce’s claim, there is no “agency practice” to use
production data here. Even so, Commerce’s selection of Türkiye is supported by
Plaintiffs object to the fact that the USGS data were “out-of-period data covering
2021, which is a period prior to the POR” May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023. Pls. Br.
at 15. The USGS data on which Commerce relied were released as part of the USGS
4 See also Pentafluoroethane (R-125) from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 86 Fed. Reg. 45,959 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 17, 2021) and accompanying PDM at 8 (Dep’t of Commerce (Aug. 10, 2021) (unchanged in final results) (“Among the factors we consider in determining whether a country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise is whether the country is an exporter of comparable merchandise. In order to determine whether the above- referenced countries are significant producers of comparable merchandise, Commerce's practice is to examine which countries on the surrogate country list exported merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise.” (emphases supplied)). Court No. 25-00002 Page 13
Minerals Yearbook for 2021. See Pet’r SC Cmts., attach. 2. While this fact does place
the data outside of the POR, the table that “lists both Türkiye and Malaysia with the
capacity to produce ‘primary magnesium,’” IDM at 7, is dated December 31, 2021,
which is just four months outside of the POR. See Pet’r SC Cmts., attach. 2., tbl. 7; cf.
Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, 38 CIT 403, 432, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1320 (2014)
(sustaining Commerce’s use of non-contemporaneous surrogate values that were “just
a few months outside the period of review”); see also Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 30
CIT 1671, 1691, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1281 (2006) (“Commerce may not always
elevate contemporaneity, or its desire to have data covering an entire POI, over the
need for accuracy.”); QVD Food Co. v. United States, 34 CIT 1166, 1169-71, 721 F.
Supp. 2d 1311, 1315-17 (2010) (sustaining Commerce’s selection of financial
statements that were non-contemporaneous by six years because they “contain[ed]
more reliable pricing data”) aff'd, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Moreover, the table that “lists Türkiye with an estimated 13,000 metric tons of
production in 2021,” IDM at 7, purports to “include[] data available through November
16, 2022,” Pet’r SC Cmts., attach. 2, tbl. 8. That would place at least some portion of
the data within the POR.
By contrast, the GTA export data list Bulgaria as exporting only 1,499 tons of
identical merchandise during the POR. See Pet’r SC Cmts., attach. 1. And the only in-
period Bulgarian production data that respondents submitted is a screenshot of a
webpage in which a Bulgarian aluminum company claims to “have a total capacity of
100 thousand tons per year” for the production of “flat-rolled and extruded aluminum
products,” which are not covered by the scope of the order. See Letter from Craven Court No. 25-00002 Page 14
Trade Law LLC to Sec’y of Commerce Pertaining to TMMC SV Cmts., Ex. SV-1, PR 34;
IDM at 2-3. Moreover, the GTA data purport to include exports of comparable
merchandise from both Türkiye and Bulgaria, see Pet’r SC Cmts., attach. 1, but this fact
does not by itself weigh in favor of selecting the latter given the other data on the
record. See id.
In sum, Commerce was presented with a choice between: (1) Turkish production
data for identical merchandise some of which was slightly non-contemporaneous; and
(2) Bulgarian production data for arguably comparable merchandise that was
contemporaneous. Commerce’s selection of the first option was reasonable given
Commerce’s longstanding preference for data on identical rather than comparable
merchandise. See Policy Bulletin 04.1. And even though both Türkiye and Bulgaria
exported identical and comparable merchandise during the POR, these exports
occurred at vastly different volumes. See Pet’r SC Cmts, attach. 1. Accordingly,
Commerce’s decision is supported by substantial evidence despite the slight non-
contemporaneousness of the USGS data. 5 See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
The court sustains Commerce’s selection of Türkiye as the primary surrogate
country.
5 The aforementioned lack of an “agency practice” has no bearing on the
reasonableness of Commerce’s decision here. See Dupont Teijin Films v. United States, 38 CIT 1099, 1106, 997 F. Supp. 2d 1338, 1345 (2014) (“Because world production data were not available, Commerce reasonably looked to other sources of data on the record, including export data and Astrapak's financial statement.”). Court No. 25-00002 Page 15
III. Data quality
Plaintiffs argue that Commerce “elected to use the data from [Türkiye]
notwithstanding multiple serious problems with the quality of the data, and critically, the
absence of the same flaws in the Bulgaria[n] data.” Pls. Br. at 16.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has observed that “[a]s early as
2004, Commerce has followed a four-step process to select a surrogate country”:
(1) the Office of Policy (“OP”) assembles a list of potential surrogate countries that are at a comparable level of economic development to the [non-market economy] country; (2) Commerce identifies countries from the list with producers of comparable merchandise; (3) Commerce determines whether any of the countries which produce comparable merchandise are significant producers of that comparable merchandise; and (4) if more than one country satisfies steps (1)-(3), Commerce will select the country with the best factors data.
Jiaxing Bro. Fastener Co. v. United States, 822 F.3d 1289, 1293 (2016) (quoting Vinh
Hoan Corp. v. United States, 39 CIT __, __, 49 F. Supp. 3d 1285, 1292 (2015)). With
respect to the fourth step, Commerce in the Final Results determined that it was not
required to consider whether Bulgaria has “superior data” because Commerce did not
determine that Bulgaria is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. IDM at 9.
According to the Policy Bulletin, “if identical merchandise is produced, the
country qualifies as a producer of comparable merchandise.” Policy Bulletin 04.1.
Commerce’s policy is to favor significant producers of identical merchandise over
significant producers of comparable merchandise. See id. n.6 (“If considering a
producer of identical merchandise leads to data difficulties, the operations team may
consider countries that produce a broader category of reasonably comparable
merchandise.”); see also Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of Court No. 25-00002 Page 16
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 85 Fed.
Reg. 10,411 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 24, 2020) and accompanying IDM at 10-11
(Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 14, 2020).
As discussed above, Commerce’s rejection of Bulgaria was based on the
reasonable determination that only Türkiye and Malaysia were significant producers of
identical merchandise. See supra Section II. Neither the statute nor Commerce’s
regulations requires that Commerce assess whether the Bulgarian surrogate values are
superior to the Turkish and Malaysian surrogate values on the record. Accordingly, the
court will consider only plaintiffs’ four objections to the use of specific Turkish surrogate
values, addressing each in turn.
A. Dolomite
The court concludes that the Turkish dolomite values are not aberrational.
Plaintiffs argue that ”Turkey’s import data for dolomite,” an input for subject
merchandise, “is aberrational on both quantity and price.” Pls. Br. at 17. With respect
to quantity, plaintiffs contend that dolomite imports during the POR were far below
standard commercial quantities. Id.
In Jacobi Carbons AB v. United States, 43 CIT __, __, 422 F. Supp. 3d 1318
(2019), this Court addressed a similar issue of import quantity and noted that “[w]hile a
surrogate value must be as representative of the situation in the NME country as is
feasible, Commerce need not duplicate the exact production experience of the
[Chinese] manufacturers at the expense of choosing a surrogate value that most
accurately represents the fair market value of [the factor] in a [hypothetical] market-
economy [China].” Id. at __, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1327 (second, third, fourth and fifth Court No. 25-00002 Page 17
alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Nation Ford Chem.
Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see also Bio-Lab, Inc. v.
United States, 49 CIT __, __, 776 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1342 (2025). The Court upheld
Commerce's determination despite the “substantial difference between the Malaysian
import quantity and the amount of bituminous coal [plaintiff] consumes” because
“Commerce considered this evidence, acknowledged the quantitative difference, and
was not persuaded that the difference rendered the Malaysian value unusable.” Jacobi
Carbons, 43 CIT at __, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1327.
In the instant case, respondents raised issues with the dolomite import quantities
to which Commerce responded, IDM at 9; however, plaintiffs fail to support their
contention that the Turkish imports of dolomite were not in commercial quantities. For
example, plaintiffs assert summarily that the fact that “Dolomite is a high-bulk low value
rock” is “well-known” and “was confirmed by [Commerce] in this review during the plant
tour conducted in conjunction with verification.” Pls. Br. at 17 (citing Verification from
Commerce to File Pertaining to TMMC – Verification Report (“Verification Report”) at
10, PR 99). But this purported aspect of dolomite is not mentioned in the verification
report. See Verification Report. The same is true of plaintiffs’ contention that “[e]ven 1
ton of Dolomite is not a commercial quantity.”6 Pls. Br. at 17; see Verification Report.
6 The court notes that this assertion is without factual support.See id.; see also Reply to Resp. of Def. to Pl.’s Mot. for J. Upon the Agency R. (“Pls. Reply Br.”) at 10, ECF No. 20. Plaintiffs cite only to their rebuttal comments during the underlying proceeding in which they make the same unsupported contention. See Letter from Craven Trade Law LLC to Sec’y of Commerce Pertaining to TMMC – Rebuttal to Pet’r Cmts. at 5-6, PR 61. Court No. 25-00002 Page 18
As in Jacobi Carbons, plaintiffs “merely disagree with Commerce’s conclusion.”
43 CIT at __, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1327. Such disagreement is an insufficient basis on
which to determine that the dolomite import quantities are aberrational.
Plaintiffs argue also that the import price for dolomite in Türkiye is aberrational
when compared to the prices for other countries on the SC List. Pls. Br. at 18.
“Commerce’s longstanding administrative practice with respect to aberrational
data is to disregard small-quantity import data when the per-unit value is substantially
different from the per-unit values of the larger quantity imports of that product from other
countries.” Bio-Lab, 49 CIT at __, 776 F. Supp. 3d at 1342 (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Shakeproof Assembly Components Div. of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v.
United States, 23 CIT 479, 485, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1360 (1999)).
“Commerce considers import data to be aberrationally high if that data is ‘many
times higher than the import values from other countries.’” SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v.
United States, 42 CIT __, __, 320 F. Supp. 3d 1341, 1351 (2018); Best Mattresses Int'l
Co. v. United States, 47 CIT __, __, 622 F. Supp. 3d 1347, 1379 (2023). Moreover,
“[w]hile there is no bright-line rule for what multiple of other price values would qualify as
‘aberrational,’ the court has previously affirmed the exclusion of ‘aberrational values’
that were nearly 30 times higher than other values, . . . and 30 and 79 times higher than
the average unit value.” Best Mattresses, 47 CIT at __, 622 F. Supp. 3d at 1379.
In the instant case, the Turkish import price is approximately four times higher
than the average price on the SC List. See Pls. Br. at 18. The same is true of the
Malaysian import price. See id. Considering the relevance of the Court’s prior
decisions on this issue, the court is unable to conclude that the Turkish import price for Court No. 25-00002 Page 19
dolomite is aberrational. Rather, it was reasonable for Commerce to determine that
there was “no basis to change [its] methodology from the Preliminary Results of using
the dolomite surrogate value from Türkiye.” IDM at 9.
Accordingly, Commerce’s selection of the Turkish surrogate values for dolomite
is supported by substantial evidence. The court sustains on this point.
B. Natural gas
The court concludes that Commerce’s selection of the Turkish natural gas data
was reasonable and is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he GTA data from [Türkiye] was [sic] incomplete as there
was [sic] no data for the price of natural gas.” Pls. Br. at 19. Plaintiffs explain that it
used natural gas in a “gaseous state” in its production of subject merchandise, but the
Turkish surrogate value for natural gas contained import data for liquified natural gas
only. Id. This argument is unavailing.
In the Final Results, Commerce cited a prior proceeding in which Commerce
determined that “a standard conversion for the physical state of the natural gas input
does not significantly impact the specificity of the data.” IDM at 9 (quoting Common
Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Final Successor-in-Interest Determination,
and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2018-2020, 86 Fed. Reg. 74,066 (Dep’t of
Commerce Dec. 29, 2021) and accompanying IDM (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 22, 2021)
at 28).
Plaintiffs do not take issue with the conversion factor that Commerce used, but
state merely that “[l]iquified gas is totally different from gaseous natural gas in all Court No. 25-00002 Page 20
aspects including unit price.” Pls. Br. at 19. Plaintiffs fail to recognize that “[t]he only
question is whether the conversion factor is correlated to the value of the particular
energy source selected as the surrogate value” and not whether the surrogate value is
for the same state of matter as the energy source. Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v.
United States, 46 CIT __, __, 586 F. Supp. 3d 1360, 1377 (2022).
Commerce noted also that its selection of Turkish energy data is in accordance
with Commerce’s stated “preference for data from a single surrogate country.” IDM at
9-10 (citing Steel Propane Cylinders from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 84 Fed. Reg. 29,161 (Dep’t of
Commerce June 21, 2019) and accompanying IDM at 22 (Dep’t of Commerce June 17,
2019)). This practice is well-established and codified in Commerce’s regulations. See
19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(2) (“The Secretary normally will value all factors in a single
surrogate country.”); see also Jinko Solar, 48 CIT at __, 701 F. Supp. 3d at 1381.
The court declines to second-guess Commerce’s decision in selecting among
potential surrogate values for natural gas. Commerce explained its selection
adequately and supported that selection with substantial evidence. The court sustains
on this point.
C. Electricity
The court concludes that Commerce did not explain adequately its selection of
the Turkish surrogate value for electricity.
Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he electricity price provided for [Türkiye] was not for
industrial use.” Pls. Br. at 19. Plaintiffs maintain that the Turkish electricity price was Court No. 25-00002 Page 21
based on a “‘monthly bill for [a] commercial warehouse’” in a case study for Istanbul and
thereby did not constitute a “price for industrial users.” Id.
In the Final Results, Commerce selected the Turkish electricity price as reported
in The World Bank Group’s Doing Business 2020: Turkey (“Doing Business Turkey”).
See PDM at 18 (unchanged in final results). Commerce explained that the electricity
price is the “best available information” based on its practice of selecting, “to the extent
practicable, [surrogate values] which are (1) broad market averages; (2) product-
specific; (3) tax exclusive, non-export average values; and (4) contemporaneous with
the POI.” IDM at 10. Commerce added that the Turkish data in question constitute “the
only source of electricity from the primary surrogate country.” Id. Commerce’s
explanation is inadequate for two reasons.
First, Commerce enumerated the factors described above, but it did not explain
the ways in which the Turkish electricity price did or did not reflect those factors. See id.
It is not sufficient to state merely that a surrogate value is “the ‘best available
information’ to value factors of production . . . for electricity, based on the above
enumerated factors.” Id. “For the court to conclude that a reasonable mind would
support Commerce’s selection of the best available information, Commerce needs to
justify its selection of data with a reasoned explanation.” Dorbest, 30 CIT at 1677, 462
F. Supp. 2d at 1269.
Second, Commerce’s contention that “Commerce has used Doing Business to
value electricity in other cases when a party objected that it was not specific to industrial
users” is misleading. IDM at 10. Commerce cited to a prior proceeding in which
Commerce used electricity data from Doing Business 2020: South Africa (“Doing Court No. 25-00002 Page 22
Business South Africa”). See Certain Aluminum Foil from the Republic of Armenia:
Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 86 Fed. Reg. 52,882
(Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 23, 2021) and accompanying IDM at 10 (Dep’t of Commerce
Sept. 16, 2021).
The respondent in that proceeding argued, like plaintiffs here, that the electricity
data were improper “because Doing Business South Africa values electricity
consumption for a warehouse, not a production facility.” Id. at 9. However, Commerce
in that proceeding provided a fuller explanation of the superiority of Doing Business
South Africa as compared to the respondent’s preferred South African electricity data
source and concluded with a determination that “the Doing Business South Africa
data . . . are broad market averages that are tax-exclusive and product-specific.” See
id. at 10. No such explanation is present here.
Accordingly, the court remands for further explanation or reconsideration of
Commerce’s selection of the Turkish surrogate value for electricity.
D. Inflation
The court concludes that plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the inflationary
environment in Türkiye should preclude Commerce from selecting Turkish surrogate
values.
Plaintiffs object to the use of Turkish surrogate values on the grounds that
Türkiye “has a high rate of inflation, which . . . artificially increase[s] the prices of the key
inputs.” Pls. Br. at 20. Plaintiffs contend that “[t]his hyper-inflation has resulted in
aberrational factor values, even if certain of the values were adjusted.” Id. Plaintiffs Court No. 25-00002 Page 23
mention specifically values for labor, electricity, truck freight, brokerage and handling
and ocean insurance. Id.
Plaintiffs’ arguments are unavailing. Plaintiffs fail to cite any legal support for the
contention that an inflationary environment will automatically disqualify a potential
surrogate country from selection. See Pls. Br.; see also Pls. Reply Br. And in the Final
Results, Commerce explained that “[n]either the statute, Commerce’s regulations, nor
administrative precedent mandates Commerce to disqualify a potential surrogate
country, so long as the requirements of [19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4)] are met and the
potential surrogate country provides publicly available, adequate, and reliable data from
quality sources.” IDM at 11.
At no point have plaintiffs demonstrated that Türkiye does not meet the statutory
requirements set forth in § 1677b(c)(4). Instead, plaintiffs “merely disagree with
Commerce’s conclusion.” Jacobi Carbons, 43 CIT at __, 422 F. Supp. 3d at 1327.
Moreover, Commerce “need not address every piece of evidence presented by the
parties; absent a showing to the contrary, the court presumes that [Commerce] has
considered all of the record evidence.” Siemens Energy, Inc. v. United States, 38 CIT
879, 885, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1324 (2014), aff'd, 806 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Commerce addressed plaintiffs’ concerns and stated that it is aware of “the
inflationary environment in Türkiye,” but noted that “the country has remained on
Commerce’s surrogate country list for investigative periods dating back to at least 2019
and has been used as a surrogate country in multiple proceedings.” IDM at 11; see
Certain Metal Lockers and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 86 Fed. Reg. 35,737 (Dep’t Court No. 25-00002 Page 24
of Commerce July 7, 2021) and accompanying IDM at cmt. 1 (Dep’t of Commerce June
28, 2021) (recognizing that “hyperinflation is not a basis or criterion for surrogate
country selection” and explaining that “Commerce’s hyperinflation methodology applies
to proceedings where material costs are experiencing rapid changes in price levels
which impact the total cost of manufacturing”). Given plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate
that the inflationary environment in Türkiye is grounds for its disqualification, the court
sustains on this point.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court sustains in part and remands in part Commerce’s Final
Results. For the reasons provided above, it is hereby
ORDERED that on remand Commerce shall explain further or reconsider its
selection of the Turkish surrogate value for electricity; it is further
ORDERED that Commerce shall file with the court its remand redetermination
within 90 days following the date of this Opinion and Order; it is further
ORDERED that the moving parties shall have 30 days from the filing of the
remand redetermination to submit comments to the court; and it is further
ORDERED that should the moving parties submit comments, defendant shall
have 15 days from the date of filing of the comments to submit a response.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy M. Reif Timothy M. Reif, Judge
Dated: March 13, 2026 New York, New York