CIT 将 Commerce 对墨西哥耐腐蚀钢反倾销终裁发回重审

Slip Op. 26-

美国国际贸易法院

GALVASID S.A. DE C.V.，

原告，

诉

美国，

被告，

及

STEEL DYNAMICS, INC.；UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC；及 UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION，

被告介入人。

审理法官：Jane A. Restani 法官

法院案号 25-00235 与 26-008251

意见与命令

日期：2026年7月24日

[将商务部对原产于墨西哥的某些耐腐蚀钢产品反倾销调查的最终裁定发回重审。]

Jeffrey Michael Winton，Winton & Chapman PLLC，华盛顿特区，为原告 Galvasid S.A. de C.V. 出庭辩论。参与书状撰写的还有 Amrietha Nellan、Michael J. Chapman、Rachel Marie Hauser 和 Vi Mai。

Julius A. Halstead，美国司法部民事司商业诉讼处，华盛顿特区，为被告出庭辩论。参与书状撰写的还有 Brendan David Jordan，美国司法部民事司商业诉讼处首席律师。法律顾问

1 在本意见全文中，法院在……范围内引用案号 25-00235 的案卷记录

各份文件实质相似。法院将指明其引用 Ct. No. 26-00825 案卷条目之处。

简报上的 3XEOLF9HUVLRQ 为 Emily Elaine Burton（美国商务部）以及 Kenneth Garrett Kays 和 Samuel Edward Childerson（美国商务部贸易执法与合规首席法律顾问办公室），均来自华盛顿特区。

Jeffrey David Gerrish（Schagrin Associates，华盛顿特区）为被告介入方 Steel Dynamics, Inc. 以及 United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC 进行口头辩论。简报上还有 Alessandra A. Palazzolo、Amanda Grace Swenson、Christopher Todd Cloutier、Elizabeth Jackson Drake、Justin M. Neuman、Luke Anthony Meisner、Maliha Khan、Nicholas Joel Birch、Nicholas Phillips、Roger Brian Schagrin、Saad Younus Chalchal 和 William A. Fennell。

James Edward Ransdell, IV（Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP，华盛顿特区）为被告介入方 United States Steel Corporation 出庭。简报上还有 Margaret Eline Monday 和 Thomas Martin Beline。

Restani 法官：本院面前是原告 Galvasid S.A. de C.V.（“Galvasid”）

对美国商务部（“Commerce”）就墨西哥 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel

Products（“CORE”）反倾销税（“AD”）调查所作最终裁定提出的

异议，该调查涵盖的调查期（“POI”）为 2023 年 7 月 1 日

至 2024 年 6 月 30 日。Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Mexico: Final Affirmative

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 90 Fed. Reg. 42,187 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 29,

2025)（“最终裁定”）。

Galvasid 请求法院认定 Commerce 的最终裁定缺乏案卷中的实质证据支持，

并且在其他方面不符合法律。Confidential Mot.

of Pl. Galvasid for J. on the Agency R. at 19–29, ECF No. 31 (Jan. 26, 2026)（“Galvasid Mot.”）。

美国（“政府”）以及被告介入方 Steel Dynamics, Inc.；United

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC；以及 United States Steel Corporation（合称

“被告介入方”）请求法院维持 Commerce 的最终裁定。见 Def.’s

Confidential Opp’n to Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. upon the Agency R., ECF No. 37 (Mar. 27, 2026)

(“Gov’t Resp.”); Def.-Intervenors’ Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the Agency R., ECF No. 33 (Mar. 27, 2026) (“Def-Int. Resp.”).

BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2024, Commerce initiated an AD investigation into whether imports of

CORE from Mexico are being or are likely to be sold in the United States at less than fair value

(“LTFV”). Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico,

the Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan, the Republic of Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, and

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 89 Fed. Reg.

80,196, 80,201 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 2, 2024). On October 21, 2024, Commerce selected

Galvasid, a producer and exporter of CORE from Mexico, as one of the two mandatory

respondents in this review. Commerce’s Respondent Selection Mem. at 5, C.R. 28, P.R. 80 (Oct.

21, 2024); Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 6 (Oct. 28, 2025).

Commerce issued its initial AD questionnaire to Galvasid on November 18, 2024,

Commerce’s Initial Questionnaire at 2, A-201-863, POI 7/1/2023-6/30/2024 (Dep’t Commerce

Nov. 18, 2024) (“Init. Questions”), and supplemental questionnaires on February 6 and 21, 2025.

Commerce’s Section B-C Suppl. Questionnaire, C.R. 299, P.R. 259 (Feb. 6, 2025); Commerce’s

2d Section B-C Suppl. Questionnaire, C.R. 301, P.R. 276 (Feb. 21, 2025). Galvasid responded to

each questionnaire. Galvasid’s Section A Resp., C.R. 35, 38, P.R. 137–38 (Dec. 23, 2024);

Galvasid’s Section B. Resp., C.R. 192, P.R. 220 (Jan. 13, 2025) (“B Resp.”); Galvasid’s Section

C Resp., C.R. 193, P.R. 221 (Jan. 13, 2025) (“C Resp.”); Galvasid’s Resp. to Sections B-C Suppl.

Questionnaire, C.R. 303–04, P.R. 278–79 (Feb. 24, 2025); Galvasid’s Resp. to 2d Sections B-C

Suppl. Questionnaire, C.R. 424, 426, P.R. 297–98; Galvasid’s Suppl. Section D Questionnaire

Resp., C.R. 537, 544, P.R. 328 (Mar. 20, 2025).

On April 10, 2025, Commerce issued its preliminary affirmative determination, assigning a preliminary dumping margin of 14.43% to Galvasid. Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products

from Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,

Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 90 Fed. Reg.

15,349, 15,350 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 10, 2025); Decision Mem. for the Prelim. Affirmative

Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel

Products from Mexico, A-201-863, POI 7/1/2023-6/30/2024 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 3, 2025). In

May 2025, Commerce conducted an on-site verification of Galvasid’s questionnaire responses.

See Commerce’s Sales Verification Agenda for Galvasid, C.R. 679, P.R. 378 (May 2, 2025);

Galvasid’s Sales Verification Exs., C.R. 741, 745–48, P.R. 406 (May 22, 2025) (“Sales Exs.”);

Verification of the Sales Resp. of Galvasid in the AD Investigation of CORE Products from

Mexico, C.R. 829, P.R. 421 (July 11, 2025).

On August 29, 2025, Commerce issued its final affirmative determination, applying partial

facts available with an adverse inference and calculating a 24.05% weighted-average dumping

margin for Galvasid. Final Determination; Issues and Decision Mem. for the Final Affirmative

Determination of Sales at LTFV in the Investigation of CORE Products from Mexico at 48–49, A-

201-863, POI 7/1/2023-6/30/2024 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 25, 2025) (“IDM”); see also Final

Determination Margin Calculation Mem. for Galvasid at 113, C.R. 866, P.R. 475 (Aug. 25, 2025).

Commerce determined that Galvasid had failed to disclose in its questionnaire responses that it

had included freight revenue and insurance revenue in its reported U.S. gross unit prices, or that it

received these revenues in the U.S. market at all. IDM at 48.

On September 2, 2025, Galvasid submitted a ministerial error allegation, alleging that

Commerce’s application of adverse facts available was based on a factual error that ignored record

evidence. Galvasid’s Final Determination Ministerial Error Comments at 116, C.R. 869, P.R. 483 (Sep. 2, 2025). Commerce found that the alleged error was not ministerial because it found no

evidence that Commerce had “overlooked” information in the record such that it had committed a

ministerial error pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.224(f).2 Commerce’s Sep. 26, 2025, Ministerial

Error Allegation Mem. at 5, 8, C.R. 871, P.R. 492 (Sep. 26, 2025).

Commerce published its final determination on December 19, 2025, with an estimated

weighted-average dumping margin for Galvasid of 24.09%. CORE from Brazil and Mexico:

Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination; CORE from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico,

the Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan, the Republic of Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, and

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Antidumping Duty Orders, 90 Fed. Reg. 59,494, 59,496 (Dec.

19, 2025) (“Final AD Orders”).

JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW

As discussed below, the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(3)(A)(i)

and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The court will uphold Commerce’s determination in an AD proceeding

unless it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance

with law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION

I. The Court Has Jurisdiction Over the Present Action

Galvasid asserts that the court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i), (a)(2)(B)(i), (g)(3)(A)(i), and (g)(3)(B). Galvasid Mot. at 6–7; see Pl.’s Reply

Br. at 3–5, ECF No. 41 (Apr. 24, 2026) (“Galvasid Reply”). According to Galvasid, this action is

2 Commerce did find a ministerial error with respect to its application of the financial expense

ratio, which, once corrected, resulted in an increase of Galvasid’s margin from 24.05% to 24.09%. Commerce’s Sep. 26, 2025, Ministerial Error Allegation Mem. at 3, C.R. 871, P.R. 492 (Sep. 26, 2025).

timely under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a because Galvasid filed its summons and complaint on October 28,

2025, within the 30-day period that began to run 31 days after the publication of Commerce’s Final

Determination in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025. Galvasid Mot. at 7; Galvasid Reply at

3–5. Defendant-intervenors argue that this action is not timely because Galvasid could not have

sought judicial review until Commerce published its antidumping duty order on December 19,

2025,3 and that, because Galvasid commenced this action before then, its action is premature under

28 U.S.C. § 2636(c). See Def-Int. Resp. at 10–12. Defendants do not respond to the issue. See

Gov’t Resp.

28 U.S.C. § 2636(c) bars an action commenced pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1516a unless it is

filed within the time frame specified in the statute. Section 1516a ordinarily precludes review of

an affirmative determination in an antidumping duty investigation until an antidumping duty order

is published in the Federal Register. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), (B)(i). Special rules apply,

however, in cases involving merchandise from free trade area (“FTA”) countries.4 See id.

§ 1516a(g).

In such cases, the court may review a determination when “neither the United States nor

the relevant FTA country [has] requested review by a binational panel pursuant to article 1904 of

the [United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement (“USMCA”)] or article 10.12 of the USMCA.”

Id. § 1516a(g)(3)(A)(i). This rule extends to final affirmative determinations. Id.

3 On January 23, 2026, Galvasid also filed a separate summons and complaint. Summons, Case

No. 26-00825, ECF No. 1 (Jan. 23, 2026); Compl., Case No. 26-00825, ECF No. 6 (Jan. 23, 2026). Defendant-intervenors argue that this subsequent action is also untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the AD orders were published on December 19, 2025. Def-Int. Resp. at 11. The court need not address this issue here because, as discussed below, the first complaint and summons filed under Ct. No. 25-00235 are timely and cover the claim at issue. The court will dismiss the complaint in Ct. No. 26-00825. 4 A relevant FTA country refers to either Mexico or Canada as long as the United States-Mexico-

Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) applies. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(f)(9).

§ 1516a(g)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B)(i) (defining “determination” under subsection (g) to include final

affirmative determinations). The party seeking to commence review must have provided timely

notice of its intent to do so to “(i) the United States Secretary [of Commerce] and the relevant FTA

Secretary; (ii) all interested parties who were parties to the proceeding in connection with which

the matter arises; and (iii) [Commerce] or the [International Trade] Commission, as appropriate.”

Id. § 1516a(g)(3)(B).

FTA-specific provisions further provide that the time limit for seeking review of a final

affirmative determination begins to run on “the 31st day after the date on which notice of the

determination is published in the Federal Register.” Id. § 1516a(a)(5)(A). The prescribed deadline

makes no reference to publication of an antidumping duty order. Id.; Bioparques de Occidente

S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 31 F.4th 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In fact, the court has explained

why 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g) permits review of final antidumping duty determinations involving

USMCA countries before the antidumping duty order is published. See Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co. v.

United States, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1383 (CIT 2019) (noting that 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(5)(A)

requires that the 30-day period for filing an appeal of a final determination involving a USMCA

country begin on the 31st day after the final determination is published in the Federal Register in

order to permit time for a party to provide notice that it is selecting judicial review instead of the

binational forum and to permit other parties time to opt for binational panel review);5 see also Pipe

5 The period for notice is 20 days. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(g)(3)(B), (g)(8); 19 C.F.R. § 356.4(a); see

also Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 405 F. Supp. 3d at 1383 (“Other parties to the administrative proceeding thereby receive notice of a party’s intention to bring an action in the Court of International Trade before expiration of the time to file a request for binational panel review (which, as a general matter, will preclude subsequent judicial review in this Court, with certain exceptions, e.g., for constitutional claims). Under the statutory scheme, these other parties will have a minimum of ten days following receipt of the notice of intent in which to request binational panel review.”). The parties do not dispute the adequacy of Galvasid’s notice. See Def.-Int. Resp.; Gov’t Resp.

& Piling Supplies v. United States, 798 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1376 (CIT 2025), appeal docketed, No.

2026-1155 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2025) (explaining that judicial review may commence only after

the 30-day period for requesting binational panel review has expired).

Accordingly, no antidumping duty order is required before a party may commence an

action. Bioparques, 31 F.4th at 1347. A party commences an action by filing a summons and a

complaint. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A). Parties have 30 days after 31 days have passed since the

publication of the final determination in the Federal Register to file a summons and 30 days

thereafter to file a complaint. Id. § 1516a(a)(2).

This case involves merchandise from Mexico, a FTA country. Id. § 1516a(f)(9)(B). The

Final Determination was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2025. Final

Determination. Galvasid provideda Notice of Intent to Commence Judicial Review on September

18, 2025. Galvasid Mot. at 7; see Gov’t Resp. Neither the United States nor Mexico requested

review by a binational panel. Galvasid Mot. at 7; see Gov’t Resp.; Def.-Int. Resp. Galvasid filed

a summons and complaint on October 28, 2025. Summons, ECF No. 1 (Oct. 28, 2025); Compl.

The 30-day time limit for filing a summons began to run on September 29, 2025, 31 days

after Commerce’s publication of the final determination in the Federal Register. See Bioparques,

31 F.4th at 1347. Under the statute, Galvasid’s summons and complaint were due on October 29

and November 28, 2025, respectively. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(5)(A), (a)(2)(A). Because

Galvasid filed both the summons and complaint on October 28, 2025—within the time limits

contemplated by the statute—Galvasid’s action was timely filed.

II. Commerce’s Application of “Facts Otherwise Available” With an Adverse

Inference to Galvasid Is Unreasonable

The core of the dispute in this case is whether Galvasid answered fully Commerce’s

questionnaire or left out information that was sought by Commerce relating to revenue from service charges that are negotiated separately with customers. Commerce’s initial questionnaire

to Galvasid included the following instructions for reporting revenues:

The gross unit price less price adjustments should equal the net amount of revenue

received from the sale. If the invoice to your customer includes separate charges

for other services directly related to the sale, such as a charge for shipping, create a

separate field for reporting each additional charge.

Init. Questions at B-18, C-16 (emphasis added).

The fields listed above have been designed to capture all revenues and expenses

you have incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States market.

If there are additional revenues or expenses that are not reported above, such as

export taxes incurred in the country of manufacture, create a field for each in the

computer file, describe the revenue or expense in your narrative response, and

include all calculation worksheets as attachments to your narrative response.

Id. at B-33, C-37 (emphasis added).

Galvasid reported that all its U.S. sales were made on a Delivered Duty Paid6 (“DDP”) or

Cost, Insurance, and Freight7 (“CIF”) basis. C Resp. at 14, 17, 27, 30–35. Accordingly, it stated

that there was no additional freight or insurance revenue charged to the customers for its sales. Id.

In its response to Section B of Commerce’s initial questionnaire,8 Galvasid explained that it

“charged certain home-market customers for freight and/or insurance, as separate items on the

6 When a sale is made DDP, a seller must “(1) clear the goods for export, (2) bear the cost of

carriage, (3) pay the buyer’s import duties, and (4) make the goods available to the buyer on board the carrier at the destination.” Delivered Duty Paid, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). 7 When a sale is made CIF, a seller must “(1) clear the goods for export, (2) arrange for

transportation by water, (3) procure insurance against the buyer’s risk of damage during carriage, and (4) pay the costs of shipping to the port of destination.” Cost, Insurance, and Freight, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). 8 Commerce’s question related to the Gross Unit Price:

Report the unit price as it appears on the invoice for sales shipped and invoiced in

whole or in part. To report portions of sales not shipped, provide the agreed unit

sale price for the quantity that will be shipped to complete the order. This value

should be the gross unit price. Discounts and rebates should be reported separately

in fields numbered 19.n and 20.n, respectively. Init. Questions at B-19.

invoice,” B Resp. at 23, but not U.S. market customers. See C Resp. at 14. In its response to

Section C of Commerce’s initial questionnaire, Galvasid stated

As explained in Galvasid’s Section A response, the U.S. sales of subject CORE

products during the investigation period were made primarily through direct

shipments by Galvasid to the destination in the United States designated by the

unaffiliated U.S. customer. Sales to Puerto Rico were made on a CIF basis to an

unaffiliated customer. Sales to other U.S. destinations were made on a DDP basis

to the destination designated by the customer.

Id.; see also id. at 17, 30 (reiterating that sales to Puerto Rico were made on a CIF basis and those

to other U.S. customers were made on a DDP basis). Galvasid further reported the cost of

transporting to Puerto Rico and the cost of transporting to the rest of the U.S.; Galvasid did not

obtain marine insurance for its Puerto Rican sales and did not incur additional costs for insurance

for its other U.S. sales. Id. at 30–31; id. at 30 (citing Appendices C-1, C-12). Galvasid also

explained that “[t]he payment terms for each sale are stated on Galvasid’s invoices to the customer

. . . [, and] are set through negotiations with the customer.” C Resp. at 18.

At verification, Galvasid provided seven U.S. market sample sales, and none of the

commercial invoices show charges for insurance, freight, warranty, or transportation. See Sales

Exs. at 23. Either the purchase orders or the packing lists provided explicitly state that the sales

were on a DDP or CIF basis. See, e.g., Sales Exs. at 193–96 (SEQU DDP to

id. at 264 (SEQU DDP to id. at 420 (SEQU CIF to Puerto

Rico).9

在 IDM 中，Commerce 指出 Galvasid 未披露其已将运费

和保险费收入计入其报告的美国毛单价中，而 Commerce 仅在

9 SEQU 的装箱单标注为 DAP，见 Sales Exs. 第 393 页。当销售

以 DAP（或 DAF）方式进行时，卖方必须“(1) 办理货物出口清关，(2) 安排并支付运输费用，以及 (3) 将货物交付至进口国边境的指定地点。”Delivered At Frontier，BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY（第 12 版，2024 年）。

[[ ]], [[ ]]); [[ ]], [[ ]]); [[ ]],

[[ ]] [[ ]].

核查期间才发现这一事实，导致无法评估该申报方式的适当性或事先核实

相关金额。IDM 第 48 页。据 Commerce 称，由于 Galvasid 承担

建立充分记录的责任但未能履行，Commerce 认定必要

信息缺失、无法核实且不及时，符合 section 1677e(a) 的规定，并根据

section 1677e(b) 认定 Galvasid 未尽其最大努力，因此有理由作出不利推断。

同上，第 48–49 页。作为部分不利可得事实，Commerce 采用申请人的基于样本的

估算来降低 Galvasid 报告的美国毛单价，以计入未披露的

运费和保险费收入。同上，第 49 页。

Galvasid 辩称，由于其已明确告知 Commerce 其美国销售均

以 DDP 或 CIF 为基础进行，记录是完整的，且记录证据（包括

核查时提供的文件）证实 Galvasid 在其美国销售中没有额外的运费

或保险费收入。Galvasid 动议第 19、23 页。据 Galvasid 称，Commerce

在认定 Galvasid 未能提供其发票价格的内部

明细时，不当作出了不利推断。同上，第 26–29 页；Galvasid 答辩第 8–10 页。Galvasid 援引 Commerce 过去的

裁定，主张当以 CIF 或 DDP 方式进行销售时，应诉方

无需在其销售数据库中单独字段报告运费和保险费“收入”，因为

发票上的单价即为最终价格，已包含运费和保险费。Galvasid 动议

第 21–22 页（援引 Polyester Textured Yarn from Thailand: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value，86 Fed. Reg. 58,883（Dep’t Commerce，2021 年 10 月 25 日）；Certain Preserved

Mushrooms from the Netherlands: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value，88 Fed. Reg. 18,115（Dep’t Commerce，2023 年 3 月 27 日）；Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet

from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2020-2022，88 Fed. Reg.

76,724（Dep’t Commerce，2023 年 11 月 7 日））。Galvasid 还指出，在服务收入金额未与客户单独协商的情况下，无需对

单价进行额外的向下调整。10 同上，第 24–25 页（援引 Hyundai Heavy Indus. Co. v. United States，393 F.

Supp. 3d 1293, 1307（CIT 2019）；ABB Inc. v. United States，355 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 1220–21（CIT

2018)).

政府回应称，Commerce 使用“可得事实”并作出

不利推断是适当的，因为 Galvasid 的申报方法通过

计入运费和保险费收入而高估了美国价格。政府答辩第 15 页。首先，政府主张

Galvasid 在为 Commerce 创建销售数据库时，未像其国内市场销售那样

为运费或保险费收入创建字段，且在核查时，Commerce 在美国

销售文件中发现运费收入作为单独行项目。同上，第 15–18 页。据

government, Commerce could not establish whether its capping practice was appropriate because

values for freight and insurance revenue were included within the gross unit price of Galvasid’s

U.S. sales database. Id. at 19, 25. Second, the government argues that Galvasid failed to act to

the best of its ability and put forth maximum effort within the meaning of section 1677e(b)(1)(B)

because Commerce specifically asked Galvasid to report revenues that it receives in separate data

fields in its sales database. Id. at 27 (citing IDM at 47; Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337

F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

The defendant-intervenors argue that Galvasid failed to report that it received revenue from

10 No party disputes that Commerce has a practice of excluding excess freight and insurance

revenue from gross unit price where they are separately negotiated. Galvasid Mot. at 25; see Gov’t Resp. at 21–22; see also IDM at 47 (“Commerce’s practice is to exclude freight and insurance revenue from the calculation of gross unit price and instead cap these revenues by the expense amount when appropriate.”). This is referred to as the “capping” methodology. “Capping” reflects the particular mathematical methodology Commerce uses. See also NEXTEEL Co. v. United States, 28 F.4th 1226, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (describing methodology); Hyundai Heavy Indus. Co. v. United States, 393 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1307 (CIT 2019) (same).

its U.S. customers to offset its freight and insurance costs, so Commerce should use facts otherwise

available to adjust Galvasid’s gross unit prices by the sample-based estimate.11 Def.-Int. Resp. at

13–14. They explain that (1) Commerce decides what information is to be provided, not Galvasid,

id. at 17–18 (citing Ansaldo Componenti, S.p.A. v. United States, 628 F. Supp. 198, 205 (CIT

1986); ABB Inc., 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1222 n.24); (2) Commerce is correct in distinguishing between

expense reporting and revenue reporting when they are not equivalent, id. at 18; and (3) Commerce

could not independently discern Galvasid’s internal assignment of DDP and CIF amounts to freight

and insurance because it was not apparent on the face of Galvasid’s sales reconciliation.12 Id. at

22. Regarding the “capping” methodology, the defendant-intervenors argue that Commerce was

not given the chance to decide whether freight and insurance revenues were separately negotiable

and thus Galvasid should be subject to the methodology because Commerce did not learn about

these revenues until verification. Id. at 23–24.

Two legal frameworks are at play here: the application of facts otherwise available and

11 According to defendant-intervenor, in this case, that amount was Def.-Int. Resp. at

5. 12 Defendant-intervenors further argue that Commerce’s prior decisions that Galvasid relies on in

its brief are distinguishable because, unlike here, the respondents affirmatively developed the record before verification by disclosing and documenting freight and insurance revenues, rather than relying solely on DDP or CIF sales terms. Def.-Int. Resp. at 19–23. In Polyester Textured Yarn from Thailand, for example, respondent submitted sample sales documentation before verification demonstrating that its invoice prices were inclusive of freight expenses. Id. at 20 (citing Polyester Textured Yarn from Thailand: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 86 Fed. Reg. 58,883 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 25, 2021)). And, in Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India, respondent disclosed its internal accounting records and explained why freight and insurance revenues were separately recorded. Id. at 21 (citing Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 202- 2022, 88 Fed. Reg. 76, 724 (Dep’t Commerce Nov. 7, 2023). The court, however, need not discuss the intricacies of these Commerce decisions. First, each administrative review is a “separate exercise of Commerce’s authority that allows for different conclusions based on different facts in the record.” Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Second, as discussed below, the deciding factor is whether there is substantial evidence that freight or insurance charges were separately negotiated. See infra pp. 15–17.

[[ ]].

Commerce’s specific methodology for revenue. The court discusses each in turn.

Commerce may fill in gaps in the administrative record using “facts otherwise available,”

and, if appropriate, applying an “adverse inference.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)–(b). Commerce

shall use “facts otherwise available” if it determines that (1) “necessary information is not available

on the record” or (2) “an interested party or any other person . . . withholds information that has

been requested by [Commerce],” “fails to provide such information by the deadlines . . . or in the

form and manner requested,” “significantly impedes a proceeding,” or provides information that

cannot be verified. Id. § 1677e(a). If Commerce “finds that an interested party has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” id.

§ 1677e(b)(1), Commerce “may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in

selecting from among the facts otherwise available.”13 Id. § 1677e(b)(1)(A).

To achieve a “fair comparison” between normal value and export price, Commerce must

adjust for the additional cost of shipping to the United States. Id. § 1677a(c); NEXTEEL Co. v.

United States, 28 F.4th 1226, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Torrington Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1347,

1353 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The export price14 must be

reduced by . . . the amount, if any, included in such price, attributable to any

13 An interested party has acted to the “best of its ability” when it “has put forth its maximum effort

to provide Commerce with full and complete answers to all inquiries in an investigation.” Nippon Steel Corp., 337 F.3d at 1382. The standard “does not require perfection and recognizes that mistakes sometimes occur,” but it also does not “condone inattentiveness, carelessness, or inadequate record keeping.” Id. Respondents should

(a) take reasonable steps to keep and maintain full and complete records

documenting the information that a reasonable importer should anticipate being

called upon to produce; (b) have familiarity with all of the records it maintains in

its possession, custody, or control; and (c) conduct prompt, careful, and

comprehensive investigations of all relevant records that refer or relate to the

imports in question to the full extent of the importers’ ability to do so. Id. 14 Here, the court will refer to export price, although the same adjustment applies to constructed

export price. 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c).

additional costs, charges, or expenses, and United States import duties, which are

incident to bringing the subject merchandise from the original place of shipment in

the exporting country to the place of delivery in the United States.

19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(A).

But Commerce has a further adjustment to unit price relating to such expenses. Commerce

has adopted the practice of removing from the export price additional freight and insurance revenue

above the amount of the actual freight or insurance costs incurred, where such items are separately

negotiated. See Hyundai, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 1307. Where substantial evidence shows that the

cost of the service was negotiated independently of the price of the subject merchandise,

Commerce may deduct the excess revenue from the export price or constructed export price. See

id. However, “[w]hen substantial evidence does not support a finding that the cost of the services

was separately negotiable from the price of the subject merchandise, the agency is without legal

authority to reduce export price or [constructed export price] except by the amount of the expense

in question.” ABB Inc., 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1220.

This makes sense. If there is a separate contract about the additional costs to ship to the

United States, and it results in a profit, that profit should not increase the export or constructed

export price. It is not a component of the price of the good.

Commerce’s initial questionnaire asks for “separate charges for other services directly

related to the sale.” Init. Questions at B-18, C-16. Considering that both judicial and

administrative precedents make it clear that only separately negotiated charges are of concern,

there was no reason for Galvasid to add additional information to its answer. The “charge” was

not separate. Thus, there was no failure to answer a question and no gap in the record. The record

consistently demonstrates that Galvasid sold all its U.S. merchandise on either a DDP or CIF basis.

See, e.g., C Resp. at 14. Under those terms, the customer paid a single negotiated price for the delivered merchandise. Galvasid repeatedly reported that its U.S. sales were made on a DDP or

CIF basis, reported the corresponding service-related expenses, and explained that only certain

home-market customers—not its U.S. customers—were separately charged for freight or

insurance. See B Resp. at 23; C Resp. at 14, 17–18, 30–34. The commercial invoices reviewed at

verification likewise contain no separate charges for freight or insurance and, in several instances,

expressly identify the sales as DDP or CIF. See, e.g., Sales Exs. at 196 (SEQU DDP to

id. at 420 (SEQU CIF to Puerto Rico).

Commerce nevertheless concluded that Galvasid had failed to disclose freight and

insurance revenue because Galvasid’s internal accounting records allocated portions of the invoice

price to freight and insurance. The relevant inquiry under Commerce’s methodology is not how a

respondent internally allocates a lump-sum sales price after the sale, but whether the service

charges were negotiated independently of the price of the subject merchandise. See Hyundai, 393

F. Supp. 3d at 1307; ABB Inc., 355 F. Supp. 3d at 1220. The existence of internal accounting

allocations does not constitute substantial evidence that Galvasid independently negotiated or

billed freight or insurance to its U.S. customers. Nothing cited in the record indicates that

Galvasid’s customers negotiated or paid separate freight or insurance charges. The invoices only

show one charge, the price of the CORE to be delivered.

Absent substantial evidence that freight or insurance charges were separately negotiated,

Commerce has no basis to apply its additional revenue capturing methodology. Because the record

established that Galvasid’s U.S. sales were made at a single DDP or CIF price, there was no

missing information concerning separately negotiated freight or insurance revenue for Commerce

to obtain or estimate. The internal accounting entries discovered at verification therefore did not

expose a gap in the record; they merely reflected Galvasid’s internal allocation of the revenue

[[ ]], [[ ]]), [[ ]], generated by a single delivered-price sale. Had Commerce wanted this information sooner, it

needed to ask for internal accounting records showing revenue from freight. See Saha Thai Steel

Pipe Public Co. v. United States, 605 F. Supp. 3d 1348, 1363 (CIT 2022) (“Commerce must clearly

and definitively ask for what it wants.”); Hitachi Energy USA Inc. v. United States, 34 F.4th 1375,

1384 (Fed Cir. 2022) (citing SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 391 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1336 (CIT

2005)) (noting that clarity regarding information requested is important). Although why it would

seek this information is not clear.

Commerce thus necessarily lacked a basis to conclude that Galvasid failed to cooperate to

the best of its ability under section 1677e(b)(1). Commerce’s application of partial adverse facts

available consequently was unsupported by substantial evidence and not in accordance with law.

On remand, on this record, Commerce shall reconsider Galvasid’s dumping margin without

applying facts otherwise available or an adverse inference predicated on Galvasid’s purported

failure to report separate freight or insurance revenue.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court remands to Commerce for the reconsideration of the

AD rate consistent with this opinion. The remand shall be issued within 60 days thereof.

Comments may be filed 20 days thereafter and any response 11 days thereafter.

/s/ Jane A. Restani

Jane A. Restani, Judge

Dated: July 24, 2026 New York, New York