Commerce Didn't Support Model Match Hierarchy Switch With Evidence, Exporter Says

A defendant-intervenor Korean exporter of superabsorbent polymers opposed the Commerce Department’s determination (see 2406170034), on remand, that would raise its antidumping margin from 17.64% to 26.05% (The Ad Hoc Coalition of American SAP Producers v. United States, CIT # 23-00010).

It said it was addressing Commerce’s “insufficient explanation” for its decision to readopt the model match hierarchy used in its preliminary determination consisting of one product characteristic, centrifugal retention capacity, measured “in just three increments of 6 g/g each.” It did so after being informed by the Court of International Trade that it hadn't successfully supported a finding that measurements in the characteristic of 4 g/g increments were commercially significant (see 2403080064); but, in its results, it just repeated the court’s holding without providing substantial evidence, Korean exporter LG Chem said.

The department “simply stated” that the trade court itself had found “evidence demonstrates that [these increments] have no commercial significance or utility,” it said. It said Commerce also declared it had looked into the record and found no new information to the contrary.

But the trade court hadn’t actually analyzed the current and previous model match hierarchies to ensure Commerce’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, nor should it have, it said.

And LG Chem said it submitted “significant factual information and analysis” that contradicted the department’s findings, but that Commerce, despite being required to, hadn’t addressed this evidence in the results.

“The entirety of the record evidence supporting Commerce’s reversion to the Preliminary Determination model match on remand is contained in a single paragraph,” it said.

LG Chem also said that the trade court remanded so Commerce could address arguments that there was a significant risk the exporter itself could manipulate the classifications of SAP products “based on its chosen testing protocol.” But the department didn’t mention these in its remand results at all.

“While we recognize that this instruction in the Remand Order pertained to the prior model match, the importance of ensuring that the model match is reasonable, not-susceptible to manipulation, and does not yield distorted results applies equally to this, or any, model match methodology such that Commerce should have provided additional explanation addressing the considerations from the Remand Order,” it said.