Bond Street, Ltd. v. United States, 2011 WL 1398770

This case concerns Bond Street, Ltd. v. United States with Gleason Industrial and Precision as intervenors, in the United States Court of International Trade.
The issue is whether Commerce's Remand Results on hand trucks from China fall within the scope of the Antidumping Order.
Bond Street challenged Commerce's on-remand finding that the Stebco Portable Slide-Flat Cart is within scope due to its ability to slide under a load.
Bond Street argued the remand tests were improper in light of the Order's requirement that the toe plate slide under a load.
Commerce maintained that its remand methodology tested functional capability and was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The court upheld Commerce's Remand Results and sustained the scope determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence.	Bond Street contends remand tests were flawed and not supported.	Government asserts Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence.	Yes; Remand Results sustained.
Whether tipping/tilting loads is permissible under the 'slides under' language.	Bond Street argues 'slide under' excludes tilting loads.	Remand Results hold the Order is silent on tilting and allows it.	Permissible; tilting is compatible with 'slides under' under the Order.
Whether the selected test loads (15/30 lb boxes and 50 lb cabinet) were appropriate.	Bond Street claims loads are too light and not representative.	Load capacity is not defined in the Order; tests used representative loads.	Appropriate; no minimum load requirement in the Order.
Whether Bond Street's procedural objections require reversal.			No; procedural objections did not undermine the Remand Results.

Walgreen Co. v. United States, 620 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (substantial evidence standard for agency decisions under trade law)
Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (requires considering evidence that detracts from weight of the record)
Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United States, 396 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (language of the order controls; interpretation cannot rewrite the order)
Duferco Steel Inc. v. United States, 296 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (limits of interpretation of antidumping orders)
American Silicon Techs. v. United States, 261 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence review framework for agency decisions)
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607 (1986) (principles of judicial review for agency actions)