Changshou Wujin Fine Chemical Factory Co., Ltd. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25711
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Jiangsu Jianghai appeals ITC remand findings on Commerce’s antidumping calculation for HEDP from China.
- Remand sought reevaluation of the AFA rate and the data/ratios used to compute the separated rate for Jianghai and Wujin Fine Chemical.
- Commerce recalculated the U.S. price on remand after determining the original AFA rate could not be corroborated.
- A hypothetical AFA rate was constructed from non-cooperating BWA data and averaged with a de minimis rate to obtain Jianghai’s rate.
- Court of International Trade upheld, and this court reviews for substantial evidence and reasonableness; partial reversal and remand were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand authority | Jianghai: remand limited to corroboration; no U.S. price recalculation. | Commerce acted within remand, reexamining AFA and related values. | Recalculation of U.S. price was within remand scope. |
| Arbitrary and capricious conduct in rate recalculation | Use of hypothetical AFA rate and averaging with de minimis data is arbitrary. | AFA rate and averaging are reasonable under 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)-(6). | Majority held arbitrary and capricious; remand remanded for a non-arbitrary method with explanation. |
| Use of BWA data for U.S. price in AFA calculation | BWA data are outliers and not reflective of commercial reality; data should reflect petition data or cooperative data. | BWA data reflect market and provide an adverse margin; corroboration not required for data from investigation. | Use of BWA data supported by substantial evidence; remand to reassess methodology. |
| Deterrence justification in AFA rate for cooperating respondents | Deterrence should not drive AFA rate when it affects only cooperating parties. | Deterrence is a legitimate consideration under the AFA framework to ensure cooperation. | Deterrence rationale cannot justify arbitrary selection; must be reasonable and transparent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (AFA review and deference to agency methodology)
- Gallant Ocean (Thai) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (corroboration and commercial reality in AFA rates)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (AFA and data adequacy framework)
- PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agency discretion and substantial evidence in AFA context)
- F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AFA data sources and corroboration standards)
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (AFA applicability and scope for cooperating/importing parties)
- Parkdale Int’l v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (overall purpose to achieve accurate dumping margins)
- Rhône Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (deterrence and fairness in antidumping margins)
- F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (corroboration and reliance on investigation data)