US Mushroom Company Says Commerce Pick of Germany as Comparison Market in AD Investigation Flawed
The Commerce Department illegally picked Germany as the third-country comparison market in the antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands, U.S. mushroom producer Giorgio Foods argued in a July 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Giorgio, the AD petitioner, said that none of the reasons Commerce gave for picking Germany was supported by substantial evidence, leading, in part, to a de minimis rate for respondent Prochamp and the company's exclusion from the AD order (Giorgio Foods v. U.S., CIT # 23-00133).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In the investigation, Commerce said Germany worked as the proper comparison market: the "market is viable," Prochamp's German sales are similar to the product Prochamp sold to the U.S., Germany provides the largest volume of the subject merchandise and the sales are made via the "most similar channel of distribution and to the most similar type of customers when compared to the French and Israeli markets." Giorgio said in its complaint none of these reasons passes scrutiny, noting Prochamp's volume of sales to Germany is "demonstrably inaccurate."
In defending its selection, Commerce said the sales channel and type of customer in Germany is most similar to the sales channel and customer types in the U.S. because Prochamp's sales are made directly to unrelated customers, whereas in Israel and France -- two other potential comparison markets -- Prochamp sold via an unaffiliated agent. Giorgio said that this finding was not borne out by the evidence.
Elsewhere in the investigation, Commerce told Prochamp to submit consolidated and unconsolidated financial statements for itself and its affiliates. Prochamp said it did not keep such records, saying it was not required to do so under Dutch law. Prochamp proffered a 2021 abbreviated statement for itself and various affiliates. Giorgio railed against Commerce's finding that Prochamp did not impede the investigation or fail to cooperate to the best of its ability, urging the court to instruct the agency to use adverse facts available.
The three other counts of the complaint concern Commerce's claim that it was unable to redress Giorgio's claim against the comparison market, the agency's acceptance of "substantial and significant new information" during verification, and the finding Prochamp did not withhold information.