Brazilian Honey Producer Says It 'Cooperated Fully,' in Remand Comments
Brazilian honey producer Supermel didn't fail to provide information to the Commerce Department during an antidumping duty investigation on raw honey from Brazil and the agencyt's subsequent use of adverse facts available was incorrect, Supermel said in an April 4 reply brief at the Court of International Trade (Apiario Diamente Comercial Exportadora v. U.S., CIT # 22-00185).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Brazilian honey producer argued that it cooperated with the AD investigation to the best of its ability. To apply facts available, Commerce must demonstrate that Supermel failed to provide requested information, which the department has not done, Supermel said.
During the investigation, when Commerce requested that Supermel tie its purchasing data to its accounting records, Supermel submitted entries from its recordkeeping system. Commerce incorrectly concluded the company's record system was not an "accounting" journal with inventory purchases, Supermel said. Commerce must "objectively show" that it was reasonable to expect Supermel to maintain an accounting journal in order to conclude the company did not fully cooperate with the investigation, the company said. Because Brazilian tax law does not require purchasing records, Supermel said such an expectation would be unreasonable.
Commerce also failed to describe deficiencies in any of Supermel’s responses, the company argued. Commerce's supplemental questionnaire that the agency claimed was issued to address cost discrepancies was sent before the beekeepers submitted sales invoices, so Commerce could not have known about the discrepancies at that time, Supermel said. Commerce brought up the alleged discrepancies for the first time in its final determination, so Supermel could not have failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the company argued.