Artisan Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 36 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 365

Artisan and Kehuaxing challenge Commerce's Final Determination in the antidumping duty investigation of drawn stainless steel sinks from China.
Commerce assigned a 76.53% PRC-wide rate to Kehuaxing based on an adverse inference for filing the Q&V response one day late.
Kehuaxing and Artisan timely filed a separate-rate application, later rejected by Commerce after deeming Q&V untimely.
Artisan/Kehuaxing requested a one-day extension; Commerce denied the extension, and later rejected the Q&V submission and the separate-rate application.
Commerce based the PRC-wide rate on 776(b) of the Tariff Act and considered the late Q&V response sufficient to find noncooperation.
Court remands for a redetermination, finding Commerce abused discretion and must reconsider within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce abused discretion in rejecting late Q&V and applying PRC-wide rate	Kehuaxing argues abuse of discretion for denying extension and using late Q&V as basis	Commerce contends deadlines and integrity of record justify rejection and use of AFA	Yes; an abuse of discretion (remand)
Whether 1677e(b) permits an adverse inference against Kehuaxing for a late Q&V filing	Kehuaxing contends 1677e(b) cannot justify a PRC-wide rate for a timely separate-rate applicant	Commerce relied on 1677e(b) as cooperation penalty	Yes; need remand to reassess scope of adverse-inference application
Whether Commerce's policy on time extensions was communicated consistently	Commerce’s communications were ambiguous and inconsistent between cover letter and Initiation Notice	Policy allowed enforcement of deadlines to ensure timely investigation	Yes; remand to clarify and reassess extension decision
Whether due process requires considering Kehuaxing’s separate-rate application independent of the late Q&V	Separate-rate application timely and not deficient	Late Q&V justifies depriving separate-rate status	Yes; remand to reconsider separate-rate status independently

Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (adverse inference must be reasonably accurate and tied to cooperation)
De Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (adverse-inference margin must be a reasonably accurate estimate with deterrent purpose)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasizes respondent to act to the best of its ability)