847 F.3d 1354
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Chengde (Chinese producer) exported OCTG; ATP was the U.S. importer; Commerce conducted the first administrative review for OCTG from China and selected Indonesia as the surrogate country.
- Commerce initially assigned Chengde a 162.69% dumping margin; after remand calculations the weighted-average margin was 137.62%.
- Key factual record items: limited sample mill test certificates for some sales (showing carbon steel for tested samples); a Customs entry summary classifying one sale as carbon steel; Chengde’s website and other evidence indicating some OCTG were alloy steel.
- Chengde reported scrap sales but did not record scrap quantities at time of production and could not tie scrap produced to OCTG production during the period of review.
- Chengde paid ocean freight via a Chinese freight forwarder/agents; payments ultimately reached Korean carriers in USD, but Chengde did not document amounts paid by Chinese agents to the Korean shippers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steel billets: valuation for untested OCTG | Mill certificates and CONNUM sameness show untested OCTG were carbon steel; Commerce should use carbon-steel surrogate | Record inconclusive; Chengde sold OCTG made from both carbon and alloy steel; mill certs not representative | Commerce reasonably used a simple average of carbon and alloy surrogate values for untested billets; affirmed |
| Byproduct (scrap) offset | Scrap sales data suffice; statute favors using respondent's books unless unreliable; Commerce should have accepted sales as proxy for production | Chengde failed to prove scrap was produced from OCTG during POR or to document scrap-produced quantities; burden on party claiming adjustment | Commerce permissibly denied any scrap offset because Chengde failed to establish quantity of scrap produced from OCTG during the period; affirmed |
| International freight valuation | Freight was provided by ME carriers and paid in USD; Commerce should value freight as ME transaction | Payments first flowed through Chinese forwarder/agents; Chengde did not document amounts agents paid ME carriers or link prices | Commerce reasonably treated freight as NME and used surrogate values because Chengde failed to document price paid to ME shippers; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (respondent bears burden to create adequate record)
- Ningbo Dafa Chem. Fiber Co. v. United States, 580 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (deference to Trade Court opinions)
- Yantai Oriental Juice Co. v. United States, 26 Ct. Int’l Trade 605 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (must document price paid to ME supplier to value ME input)