Slip Op. 03-120
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE: GREGORY W. CARMAN, CHIEF JUDGE
:
MAUI PINEAPPLE COMPANY, LTD., :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
: Court No. 01-01017
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant, :
:
and :
:
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., DOLE :
PACKAGED FOODS COMPANY, and :
DOLE THAILAND, LTD., :
:
Defendant-Intervenors. :
:
[Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to United States Court of International Trade
Remand Order are affirmed and the case is dismissed.]
Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC (Paul C. Rosenthal, David C. Smith, Jr., Jennifer E.
McCadney), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff.
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice; Lucius B.
Lau, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States
Department of Justice; Brent M. McBurney, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice; Glenn R. Butterton, Senior Attorney, Office of
Chief Counsel for Import Administration, United States Department of Commerce, Of Counsel,
for Defendant.
Hale and Dorr LLP (Michael D. Esch, Aimen Mir), Washington, D.C., for Defendant-
Intervenors.
Dated: September 15, 2003
Court No. 01-01017 Page 2
OPINION
CARMAN , CHIEF JUDGE: The Court holds that the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to
United States Court of International Trade Remand Order (“Remand Results”) are supported by
substantial evidence or otherwise in accordance with law and affirms the Remand Results.
On June 16, 2003, this Court entered judgment affirming in part the Department of
Commerce’s (“Commerce”) determination in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Recission [sic] of Administrative Review in Part: Canned Pineapple
Fruit From Thailand, 66 Fed. Reg. 52,744 (Oct. 17, 2001), and remanding in part for further
proceedings. Maui Pineapple Co., Ltd. v. United States, 254 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2003). The Court instructed Commerce to 1) consider Maui’s arguments as to the interest rate
used for Defendant-Intervenor’s imputed credit expense and explain how the rate chosen is
reflective of Defendant-Intervenor’s creditworthiness and usual commercial behavior, and 2)
determine whether there is a clerical error in Commerce’s final margin program and make any
necessary corrections. Id. at 1264. The Court gave Commerce until June 16, 2003 to file the
remand results, and the parties were given until July 7, 2003 to file responses.
Commerce filed the Remand Results on June 16, 2003. In the Remand Results,
Commerce decided not to use the surrogate interest rate it had used in the original results in light
of Plaintiff’s arguments and Commerce’s own findings. Commerce listed its concerns with the
rate previously used and some of the alternative rates considered. Ultimately Commerce decided
to use an average commercial paper rate, the Bank of Canada 30-day prime corporate paper rate,
as the surrogate interest rate for calculating Defendant-Intervenor’s imputed credit expense
because it best reflected Defendant-Intervenor’s usual commercial behavior and creditworthiness.
Court No. 01-01017 Page 3
Commerce also confirmed the clerical error pointed out by Plaintiff and made all requisite
corrections, as well as corrections to two other clerical errors directly related to the one found by
Plaintiff.
Upon reviewing the Remand Results and the record supporting the Remand Results, the
Court finds that Commerce complied with the Court’s remand order and its determination is
supported by substantial evidence or otherwise in accordance with law. The parties do not
oppose the Court’s sustaining the Remand Results.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Commerce’s Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence
or otherwise in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Remand Results are affirmed.
______________________________
Gregory W. Carman,
Chief Judge
Dated: September ____, 2003
New York, New York