The case primarily revolved around Commerce’s responsibility to thoroughly consider all the evidence and provide a comprehensive explanation for its decisions, commonly referred to as the “true-as-steel obligation.”
Seneca Foods’ Allegations
Seneca Foods had contended that the Commerce Department had turned a blind eye to “clear evidence” indicating the absence of domestic steel and an attempt to distort the facts. They argued that the agency inaccurately claimed that Seneca Foods Corp. had only addressed past contract sales, failing to consider the current availability or spot sales that could have been sourced from domestic producers like U.S. Steel Corp, which had intervened in Seneca Corp.’s challenge.
In its defense, Seneca Foods Corp. highlighted that it had been unsuccessful in procuring the required volume of tin mill products from U.S. Steel for 2021 and beyond. They emphasized that U.S. Steel had been offering additional spot volumes of metal for 2022, not contractual ones. The agency’s belief that the metal was available through spot sales but not contract sales was, according to Judge Katzmann, fundamentally flawed.
Seneca Foods Corp. : Commerce’s Mistake
Judge Katzmann firmly established that Commerce’s conclusion, which disregarded Seneca’s representations and evidence, was an error in itself. He pointed out that Seneca Foods Corp. had provided evidence of phone and email communications showing their discontent with U.S. Steel’s inability to provide any metal. Yet, Commerce inexplicably limited Seneca’s representations to contractual sales, omitting any discussion of Seneca’s evidence and representations. This led Commerce to incorrectly conclude that “nothing contradicts the information certified by U.S. Steel in its objection submission.”
