Dorbest Ltd. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 94
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Dorbest challenges Commerce's surrogate labor-rate data sourcing for China in a non-market economy antidumping case.
- 2010 redetermination had an unbalanced bookend approach, prompting remand in Dorbest V to reconsider endpoints or explain the choice.
- In 2011 redetermination, Commerce expanded the initial basket and adopted a country-count (balanced) methodology to select bookends so the number of GNIs above and below China's are equal.
- From the resulting basket, Commerce identified Colombia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Macedonia as economically comparable and significant producers with usable wage data.
- Using data from these five countries, Commerce computed a surrogate wage rate of $0.44/hour and an antidumping margin of 2.40%.
- The court affirms Commerce's remand redetermination and finds Dorbest's remaining arguments waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bookend methodology is supported by substantial evidence and law | Dorbest contends the method is arbitrary and deviates from precedent. | Commerce explains the method is reasonable and tailored to the remand context. | Methodology deemed reasonable and within agency authority. |
| Whether Equatorial Guinea inclusion was properly challenged | Dorbest argues Equatorial Guinea data is improper due to timing. | Commerce's Equatorial Guinea inclusion is supported by record; issue waived. | Dorbest waived challenge to Equatorial Guinea. |
| Whether Guinea's status as a substantial producer was properly supported | Dorbest questions Guinea's data adequacy as a producer basis. | Guinea's inclusion was supported in prior remand; issue waived. | Dorbest waived challenge to Guinea's status as a significant producer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 136 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (remand on surrogate wage-rate methodology)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (substantial evidence standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed.Cir. 1984) (requirement to rationally connect conclusions to the record)