Jinxiang Infang Fruit & Vegetable Co., Ltd. v. United States

Slip Op. 20-159
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
Court No. 19-00211
OPINION
[Commerce’s New Shipper Review sustained.]
Dated: November 5, 2020
Gregory Stephen Menegaz, Alexandra H. Salzman, and John Joseph Kenkel,
deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Jinxiang Infang Fruit &
Vegetable Co., Ltd.
Meen Geu Oh, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. With him on
the brief were Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was
Brendan Saslow, Attorney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel
for Trade Enforcement and Compliance of Washington, DC.
Michael Joseph Coursey, John M. Herrmann II, and Joshua Rubin Morey, Kelley
Drye 	& 	Warren, 	LLP 	of 	Washington, 	DC, 	for 	Defendant-Intervenors 	Fresh 	Garlic
Producers Association, Christopher Ranch, LLC, The Garlic Company, and Valley Garlic.
JINXIANG INFANG FRUIT & VEGETABLE CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
FRESH 	GARLIC 	PRODUCERS 	ASSOCIATION,
CHRISTOPHER 	RANCH, 	L.L.C., 	THE 	GARLIC
COMPANY, and VALLEY GARLIC,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Case 1:19-cv-00211-LMG Document 41 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 5

Court No. 19-00211 	Page 2
Gordon, Judge: Among other guidance aimed at promoting the efficient disposition
of this action, the Scheduling Order cautioned Plaintiff, Jinxiang Infang Fruit & Vegetable
Co., Ltd. (“Infang”) “not to rely too heavily on its administrative case briefs” and not to
“merely cut-and-paste arguments from administrative case briefs, and think anew about
the issues against the operative standards of review the court must apply.” Scheduling
Order at 2, ECF No. 31. The Scheduling Order also cautioned that failure to heed the
guidance may result in the court “summarily sustaining Commerce’s action . . ..” Id. at 3.
Plaintiff did not heed the cautionary guidance. Compare Pl.’s Mem. in Support of
Mot. for Judgment on Agency Record, ECF No. 32-2, with Infang Admin. Case Brief,
PD 1 110. Plaintiff also failed to disclose a related case on its Information Statement. See
Information Statement at 2, ECF No. 2 (omitting Shenzhen Xinboda Indus. Co. v. United
States, 42 CIT ___, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (2018)).
The court notified the parties that Plaintiff had largely replicated its administrative
case brief as its USCIT Rule 56.2 opening brief. See Letter Concerning Opening Brief,
ECF No. 33. The court then conducted a conference call, Teleconference, ECF No. 36,
and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the court should not summarily sustain the
agency’s determination in Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China, 84 Fed. Reg.
61,023 (Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 12, 2019) (final results new shipper review) (“New
Shipper Review”). See Memorandum and Order, ECF No. 37 (“Order to Show Cause”).
1 “PD” refers to a document contained in the public administrative record, which is found
in ECF No. 29-3, unless otherwise noted. “CD” refers to a document contained in the
confidential administrative record, which is found in ECF No. 29-2.
Case 1:19-cv-00211-LMG Document 41 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 5

Court No. 19-00211 	Page 3
Plaintiff submitted a lengthy apologia. Pl.’s Response to Court’s Request/Order to
Show 	Cause, 	ECF 	No. 	38. 	Defendant 	and 	Defendant-Intervenor 	then 	filed 	their
comments. Defendant’s Resp. to Pl.’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 40 (“Def’s
Resp.”); Def.-Intervenor’s Letter in Lieu of Comments Addressing Pl.’s Resp. to Order to
Show Cause, ECF No. 39. Defendant explains the problems with Plaintiff’s apologia and
opening brief:
As Infang recognizes, the Court’s definition of a related case is fairly clear.
The Court defines a “related case” as any “action . . . that involve{s} a
common question of law or fact with any other action(s) previously decided
or now pending.” Pl. Resp. to [Order to Show Cause], ECF No. 38 at 6.
Infang then goes on, however, to insist that Xinboda is not a related case.
In Xinboda, the Court addressed the same product and similar surrogate
country and value issues the Court is being asked to decide in this case.
The Court in Xinboda evaluated Commerce’s surrogate country and value
determinations and rejected plaintiff’s challenges based upon a substantial
evidence standard of review. Infang may disagree with the result in that
case, but the case by virtue of the identity of the parties and the similarity of
issues does appear to be encompassed under the Court’s “related case”
definition.
. . .
Infang knew that Xinboda would be important in this Court’s assessment of
the matter. In the very first paragraph of its opening brief, Infang discloses
that it understands that Commerce relied “primarily” on Xinboda in reaching
a surrogate country decision. See Pl. Opening Br., ECF No. 32-2 at 1 (“The
Department primarily rests its selection of Romania on this court’s opinion
in {Xinboda}.”). Yet even with that acknowledgment, Infang omits any
mention of Xinboda in its related case statement, and from there, mentions
the case only once in passing in its opening brief, where it references a
specific point relating to the translation of some articles in the record. Id.
at 18.
. . .
In addressing why it “simply copied its administrative case brief without a
new evaluation of its case and arguments against the court’s standard of
review and applicable precedents like Xinboda,” [Order to Show Cause],
ECF No. 37 at 4, Infang seems to blame Commerce for its error. According
to Infang, it copied its administrative case brief because Commerce “largely
Case 1:19-cv-00211-LMG Document 41 Filed 11/05/20 Page 3 of 5

Court No. 19-00211 	Page 4
ignored {its} arguments and record evidence{.}” Pl. Resp. to [Order to Show
Cause], ECF No. 38 at 15. Infang insists that Commerce “added very little
analysis that had not already been addressed in {its} administrative case
brief,” and for that reason, it felt “its administrative case brief” was “already
appropriately framed for its R56.2 brief before this Court.” Id.
We disagree. We understand that Infang would like to persuade the Court
that Commerce largely ignored Infang's arguments and record evidence,
but saying so frequently does not establish the point. Infang must consider
the parameters of this Court's standard of review and argue within those
confines. This Court does not consider the merits of the matter de novo,
and 	this 	Court's 	standard 	of 	review 	is 	not 	the 	standard 	that 	guides
Commerce's decision making. We presume that Infang, in its case brief to
Commerce, sought to persuade Commerce based upon the standards that
guide Commerce's decision making. Before this Court, Infang should seek
to persuade the Court based upon the standard of review that guides the
Court's consideration of the challenged Commerce determination. Briefing
the matter as it was briefed to Commerce, even assuming that the brief to
Commerce 	should 	have 	been 	unquestionably 	persuasive 	within 	the
confines of the standards that guide Commerce's decision making, ignores
the standard of review that this Court applies when considering whether
Commerce erred in its determination.
Despite Infang’s claims otherwise, Commerce’s decision manifests that
Commerce reviewed and assessed each of Infang’s arguments, Issues &
Decisions Memorandum (IDM), ECF No. 29-4, and then explained why
those arguments, based upon its review of the record evidence, were not
persuasive, id. at 4-6, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-15. Contrary to Infang’s claim,
Commerce’s decision addressed Infang’s arguments and then specifically
rejected them based upon substantial evidence contained in the record.
Despite these facts, Infang suggests that it acted reasonably to ignore
Commerce’s decision in its opening brief because the decision itself “added
very little analysis.” But the decision is what is under review. And Infang,
which bears the burden of demonstrating Commerce erred, is responsible
for explaining precisely why the decision cannot be sustained. Infang’s
claim that it had no choice but to replicate an entire administrative case brief
because 	Commerce 	supposedly 	“ignored 	Infang’s 	argumentation,” 	Pl.
Resp. to OSC, ECF No. 37 at 18, even though Commerce’s decision clearly
distills and addresses those arguments in reaching its determinations, is not
supported by the record before the Court. In this Court, Infang must identify
what part of Commerce’s decision it believes is wrong and why.
Def’s Resp. 2–5.
Case 1:19-cv-00211-LMG Document 41 Filed 11/05/20 Page 4 of 5

Court No. 19-00211 	Page 5
For the reasons explained by Defendant, Plaintiff’s arguments about why it
replicated its administrative case brief before the court are unpersuasive. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record is denied, and Commerce’s
determination in the New Shipper Review is sustained. Judgment will be entered
accordingly.
/s/ Leo M. Gordon
Judge Leo M. Gordon
Dated: November 5, 2020
New York, New York
Case 1:19-cv-00211-LMG Document 41 Filed 11/05/20 Page 5 of 5