Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. v. United States
35 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1345
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Fairmont challenged the Final Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from PRC.
- The court remanded for reconsideration of Fairmont’s partial AFA rate, wage rate calculation, Insular Rattan’s financial statement use, and zeroing methodology.
- Commerce on remand calculated four new partial AFA rates for Fairmont based on unreported sales by product type, selecting the highest margins below 216.01% from reported data.
- The court previously found Fairmont’s 216.01% rate inappropriate and required a rational relationship to Fairmont’s actual dumping margin.
- AFMC challenged the use of Insular Rattan’s financial statement, arguing it was incomplete due to a missing tax line and potential subsidies.
- The court upheld Commerce’s wage-rate calculation on remand but found insufficient substantial evidence to support the use of Insular Rattan’s financial statement and the high AFA margins.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Fairmont’s AFA rates substantiated? | Fairmont argues margins are aberrant and not tied to actual sales. | Commerce contends margins reflect Fairmont data and are above reported rates but below 216.01%. | No; margins lack substantial evidence and are not rationally connected to Fairmont’s reality. |
| Is Insular Rattan’s financial statement reliable for surrogate ratios? | Insular Rattan’s missing tax line renders the statement incomplete and unreliable. | Auditor’s unqualified opinion and consistency with standards support reliability. | No; missing tax line makes the statement incomplete and not supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did Commerce properly explain its zeroing methodology on remand? | Fairmont sought further review but the issue is ongoing in Federal Circuit. | Commerce’s zeroing explanation aligns with settled authority and prior remands. | Remand results sustained; Commerce’s zeroing methodology sufficiently explained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (AFA rate must be related to actual dumping margins, not aberrant)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (AFA rates require credible relation to reality)
- PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (AFA corroboration standards and data reliance)
- F.lii De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AFA justification must reflect actual margins)
- Taifa IV, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (CIT 2011) (Context on percentage-of-sales basis for AFA)
- Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT 2011) (Use of industry data and reliability in surrogate selection)
- Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co. v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (CIT 2012) (Prior remand decision guiding wage-rate and supporting remand framework)