ABB, Inc. v. United States
273 F. Supp. 3d 1200
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- This case challenges Commerce’s second administrative review final results for antidumping duties on large power transformers from Korea for Aug. 1, 2013–July 31, 2014.
- ABB contends Commerce mis-treated U.S. commission expenses (failed to deduct from CEP and instead added to normal value) and improperly granted commission offsets to normal value for U.S. sales.
- ABB also contends Commerce failed to cap Hyundai’s sales-related service revenues by the related expenses, overstating CEP and understating dumping margins.
- Hyosung contests Commerce’s capping of its reported inland freight revenue using Hyosung’s Korean domestic inland freight expense rather than U.S. inland freight expense, arguing the revenue primarily reflected U.S. inland freight.
- The government requested a voluntary remand to reconsider treatment of respondent commissions and revenue-capping practice for consistency; Hyosung opposed remand on its freight-cap issue.
- The Court granted Commerce’s remand request on the commission and revenue-capping consistency issues, and sustained Commerce’s decision to cap Hyosung’s inland freight revenue by its domestic (Korean) inland freight expense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment of U.S. commission expenses (CEP vs. normal value) | ABB: Commerce should deduct U.S. commissions from CEP, not add to normal value; offsets were improper. | Commerce (Def.): Seeks remand to reconsider and ensure consistency with its practice on U.S. commissions. | Court: Grants Commerce’s voluntary remand to reconsider commission treatment. |
| Commission offsets for U.S. sales | ABB: Offsets granted improperly for commissions incurred in the U.S. | Commerce: Requests remand to evaluate consistent application. | Court: Remands for reconsideration to ensure consistent treatment. |
| Capping Hyundai’s sales‑related service revenues | ABB: Commerce failed to cap revenues for separately purchased services by the amount of related expenses, overstating CEP. | Commerce: Requests remand to evaluate and ensure consistent revenue‑capping practice across respondents. | Court: Grants remand for Commerce to reassess its revenue‑capping practice and consistency. |
| Cap on Hyosung’s inland freight revenue | Hyosung: Freight revenue field included primarily U.S. inland freight and should be capped by U.S. inland freight expenses. | Commerce: Record shows Hyosung labeled the field as plant‑to‑port (domestic) and Hyosung bore burden to prove entitlement to a broader cap; thus domestic expense cap is supported. | Court: Sustains Commerce’s cap using Hyosung’s domestic inland freight expense; Hyosung failed to show the label was a clear clerical error or to carry its burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (discusses agency remand requests and court discretion)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (two inconsistent inferences do not preclude substantial evidence)
- Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (burden on respondent to establish entitlement to favorable adjustments)
- NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (when Commerce must correct clerical errors post‑preliminary results)
- Alloy Piping Prods., Inc. v. Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd., 334 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (limits on correcting private‑party errors not apparent on face of determination)
- Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co. v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (CIT 2012) (upholding Commerce’s practice of offsetting freight revenue by related freight expenses)