Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co. v. United States
113 F. Supp. 3d 1332
Ct. Intl. Trade2015Background
- Commerce conducted an administrative review (POR Mar. 1, 2010–Feb. 28, 2011) of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the PRC; Baoding Mantong was the sole respondent.
- Commerce initially issued preliminary results showing a zero margin, then revised due to a currency-conversion/data issue and ultimately assigned Baoding a final weighted-average dumping margin of 453.79% in October 2012.
- Baoding challenged the Final Results in the Court of International Trade, arguing the 453.79% margin "defies commercial and economic reality" and contesting several surrogate value and financial-ratio choices used to calculate normal value under the NME methodology.
- The government sought a voluntary partial remand limited to reconsideration of financial ratios; Baoding and intervenor GEO opposed that limited remand.
- The record showed Baoding reported profitable export sales during the POR, and the assigned margin was substantially larger than Baoding’s prior margins and larger than the PRC-wide rate.
- The court found Commerce failed to justify a margin that was commercially implausible and punitive in effect and directed a comprehensive remand for recalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 453.79% dumping margin is supported by the record and consistent with law | Baoding: margin is commercially impossible, punitive, and not grounded in record evidence of its sales/profitability | US: Commerce used reasonable surrogate values and thus satisfied its obligation; no further scrutiny required | Court: Rejects US position; margin lacks relation to commercial reality and is unlawful; remand required to produce an accurate, non‑punitive margin |
| Whether Commerce adequately considered Baoding's argument that the margin defies commercial reality | Baoding: raised the issue administratively and before the court; Commerce failed to respond | US: contends Baoding did not properly exhaust or raise the argument | Court: Baoding did raise the issue; Commerce failed to address it and must do so on remand |
| Scope of remand and adequacy of a limited voluntary remand on financial ratios | Baoding: opposed a limited remand—Commerce must revisit all calculations that produced the unrealistic margin | US: requested voluntary remand confined to financial ratios | Court: Denies the limited voluntary remand; orders full remand to reconsider all aspects necessary to arrive at an accurate margin |
| Remand requirements and remedies if record is inadequate | Baoding: Commerce must ensure margin reflects commercial/economic reality and reopen record if needed | US: argued its surrogate selections sufficed | Court: Directs Commerce to (a) determine the most accurate margin possible; (b) ensure it reflects commercial/economic reality, is fair and non‑punitive; (c) reopen the record or apply statutory alternative (19 U.S.C. §1677b(c)(2)) if data are inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce must calculate dumping margins as accurately as possible)
- Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir.) (accuracy obligation for Commerce in margin calculations)
- Lasko Metal Prods. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for calculating antidumping duties)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir.) (limits on permissible approximation in NME valuations)
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.) (normal value calculations must fall within permissible approximation)
- Torrington Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (antidumping duties are remedial, not punitive)
- Agro Dutch Indus. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir.) (purpose of antidumping statute to prevent injurious below‑fair‑value sales)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 36 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir.) (antidumping calculations must be fair and equitable)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce must address important factors raised in party comments)
- NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States, 74 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir.) (court oversight of Commerce margin calculations)