Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States
6 F. Supp. 3d 1358
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- Plaintiffs are eight separate-rate respondents challenging Commerce’s antidumping duty deposit rate in Multilayered Wood Flooring from the PRC (final determination Oct. 18, 2011).
- Litigation produced two CIT opinions (Baroque III and IV) and two Commerce redeterminations; Commerce recalculated some separate rates but assigned seven plaintiffs previously determined rates and opened an individual investigation for one (Changzhou Hawd).
- Changzhou Hawd sought a writ of mandamus to stop Commerce’s individual investigation; Commerce suspended the questionnaire deadline and now seeks a voluntary partial remand to reconsider whether to conduct limited individual investigations of all eight separate-rate respondents.
- Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors oppose the remand, citing delay and burden; they argue the separate-rate should be the average of individually investigated (mandatory) respondents producing a de minimis rate.
- The court applied the SKF three-factor test for voluntary remand (compelling justification, finality, scope) and found Commerce’s doubt about its prior approach substantial and legitimate, granting the remand and setting filing deadlines (remand results in 60 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce should be remanded to reconsider individual investigations for the eight separate-rate respondents | Remand will cause prejudicial delay and burden; separate-rate should be computed by averaging mandatory respondents (yielding de minimis) | Commerce has doubts about its prior decision and seeks remand to determine whether limited investigations are appropriate | Court granted voluntary partial remand: Commerce’s concern is substantial and legitimate and scope is appropriate |
| Whether Commerce’s prior method (using prior review rates/caps for seven respondents and investigating one) was reasonable | Plaintiffs: Commerce must use the average of individually investigated margins | Commerce: doubts its prior approach and seeks to reassess whether individualized inquiries are needed | Court allowed Commerce to reconsider (remand) rather than finding prior method unlawful at this stage |
| Whether remand is barred as futile or in bad faith | Plaintiffs contend remand is an attempt to rationalize an above-de minimis rate | Commerce’s request is a legitimate exercise of reconsideration authority | Court found no bad faith; presumed governmental good faith supports remand |
| Whether writ of mandamus for Changzhou Hawd should issue to stop investigation | Changzhou Hawd asked court to enjoin Commerce’s individual probe | Commerce suspended deadlines and now seeks to reconsider whether to investigate at all | Mandamus petition denied as moot because Commerce agreed to suspend and sought remand |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (standard for voluntary remand by agency)
- Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013) (discussion of remand and finality balancing)
- Baroque Timber Indus. (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (addressing separate-rate calculation methodology)
- Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (agency power to reconsider decisions)
- Clemmons v. West, 206 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (presumption that government officials act in good faith)