Cs Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14819

Petition by Wind Tower Trade Coalition led Commerce to investigate CS Wind Vietnam for antidumping; Commerce calculated a 51.5% weighted-average dumping margin using NME (nonmarket economy) rules and Indian surrogate values.
For NME normal-value calculations, Commerce must value factors of production using best available market-economy surrogate data (19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)).
Three contested Commerce choices: (1) using customer packing-slip (shipping) weights rather than CS Wind’s verified component weights; (2) rejecting CS Wind’s Korean purchase prices for certain inputs based on a presumption of broadly available Korean export subsidies; and (3) how much of a Ganges financial-statement line item (“Jobwork Charges (including Erection and Civil Expenses)”) to include in overhead when computing constructed value.
The Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed Commerce on the weight and subsidy issues but remanded the overhead/jobwork treatment; Commerce issued revised determinations and the CIT ultimately affirmed after further remands.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit: reversed the packing-weight choice, affirmed Commerce’s treatment of Korean subsidies, and vacated and remanded the overhead/jobwork calculation for a clearer, record-based statutory explanation.

Issue	CS Wind's Argument	Commerce/U.S. Argument	Held
Use of packing-slip (shipping) weights vs. manufacturer component weights	CS Wind: Use its verified component weights—these were documented, verified, and more reliable	Commerce: Customer packing weights (for ship center-of-gravity) are reasonable and likely more accurate; discrepancy material	Reversed — Commerce failed to provide substantial evidence that packing weights were more accurate; use manufacturer-reported weights
Use of Korean purchase prices for flanges, welding wire, wire flux vs. surrogate values	CS Wind: Its actual Korean purchase prices should be used because these purchases were not subsidized	Commerce: Prior findings show broadly available Korean export subsidies; may presume subsidy and require respondent to rebut for specific purchases	Affirmed — Commerce reasonably relied on presumption of broadly available export subsidies and found CS Wind did not rebut for these purchases
Treatment of Ganges’ Jobwork Charges (including Erection and Civil Expenses) in overhead	CS Wind: Subtract Erection income and Civil income from the Jobwork Charges line (net expense)	Commerce: Apply a complex ratio method based on selected income and expense items from Ganges’ statements to allocate only a small exclusion	Vacated and remanded — Commerce’s methodology and explanation are insufficiently clear, not adequately tied to statute or record; further reasoned explanation required

Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (NME valuation framework under §1677b(c))
Ningbo Dafa Chem. Fiber Co. v. United States, 580 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial-evidence review of surrogate-value choices)
Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir.) (best-available-information standard for factor valuation)
Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (definition of substantial evidence)
SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (agency explanation requirement in antidumping calculations)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (court cannot supply agency rationale not given)
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (U.S. 2009) (agency must produce record-supported empirical data when readily obtainable)