- 61 -
Respondent contends that Apache's charges cannot serve as a
comparable to petitioner's commission for the SCP deal because
Apache had lower costs, received part of its income from the
actual purchase and resale of produce, received special benefits
from the Canelos group, had the use of millions of dollars of the
Canelos group's funds for several months until the funds were
transferred, and sold to a different market than the one to which
petitioner marketed. Respondent contends further that Apache is
not a reliable comparable because, although it did not
technically belong to the Canelos group, it had very close ties
to petitioner and the Canelos group, and it operated as a special
preferred entity of the Canelos group.
In our view, the additional compensation Apache received in
the form of interest earned on the Canelos growers' funds and the
additional benefits Apache received from petitioner in the form
of uncompensated services petitioner performed for Apache render
the Apache commission an unreliable comparable for petitioner's
commission rate in the SCP deal. The fact that Apache's
commission rate for its other customers varied between 7 and 12
percent, depending on the services rendered, and indications in
the record that Mexican growers typically paid a higher
commission rate for similar distribution services17 further
17In her writings, Dr. Cook has placed the commission rates
(continued...)
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011