Dorbest Ltd. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 15
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- This case concerns antidumping of wooden bedroom furniture from China and the surrogate wage-rate calculation under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(4) following Dorbest IV.
- Dorbest and AFMC challenge Commerce's remand redetermination identifying India, Indonesia, and Pakistan as surrogate wage-rate data sources.
- The court reviews Commerce's five-step wage-rate methodology, data-selection choices, and whether the remand results comply with the remand order and statute.
- Commerce used two bookend countries (Philippines and Pakistan) to bound economically comparable economies and selected wage data from 2002 ILO data, adjusted as needed, yielding an average wage of $0.23/hour.
- AFMC argues four data choices are flawed: bookend selection; use of data not from the original investigation; alleged cap on Indian wages; and reliance on limited data for the average wage.
- The court remands on the bookend-country issue, but sustains the other data choices as reasonable under the record and statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly selected bookend countries for wage-rate data | AFMC says bookends (Philippines, Pakistan) bias the range | Commerce claims no fixed GNI range; memo is non-exhaustive | Remanded for reconsideration of bookend rationale |
| Whether using data available at the original investigation is proper on remand | AFMC says updated data should be used | Remand proceedings treat data as if from original investigation; use of 2002 data reasonable | Affirmed; data limited to what was available during original investigation |
| Whether Indian wage data cap (Rs.1600/month) undermines the calculation | Data cap could exclude higher-wage workers | Cap interpretation reasonable; 2003 ASI data not available during original investigation | Affirmed; cap-related data exclusion reasonable |
| Whether ISIC Revision 2 industry-specific data is a reasonable basis for wage-rate calculation | Using ISIC Revision 2 reduces available countries | Statute silent; industry-specific data more relevant to furniture production | Affirmed; use of ISIC Revision 2 data reasonable under remand order |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2010) (remand required to use economically comparable data)
- Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, 637 F.Supp.2d 1183 (CIT 2009) (standard of review for agency determinations; substantial evidence)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938) (substantial evidence standard and reasoned justification)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir.2006) (data choices must have rational connection to conclusions)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed.Cir.1984) (require rational explanation for agency action)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281 (1985) (agency must connect facts to conclusions; rational basis)
- Shakeproof Assembly Components Div. Of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT 1173 (2006) (contemporaneous valuation data preferred; data available at time of investigation)