Far Eastern New Century Corp. v. United States, 2012 CIT 110

FENC challenges Commerce’s antidumping review of PSF from Taiwan (Case No. 11-00415).
Commerce initiated the administrative review in June 2010 and relied on FENC’s G&A ratio data from 2010 and 2010 revisions for normal value calculations.
Commerce preliminarily used the August 2010 G&A ratio and employed its zeroing methodology in the dumping margin calculation.
In the Final Results, Commerce substituted the revised December 2010 G&A ratio but maintained zeroing.
FENC filed a ministerial error allegation alleging the G&A ratio revision was not properly incorporated and sought court relief; the court remanded on the G&A issue and sustained zeroing.
The court granted remand for the ministerial error issue and affirmed Commerce’s use of zeroing; deadlines for remand determinations and briefs were set.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
G&A ratio revision ministerial error	FENC contends revised G&A data were not properly implemented	Commerce may correct ministerial errors and remand is appropriate	Remand granted for ministerial error consideration
Zeroing methodology in dumping margin	(Not explicitly stated as separate argument in opinion)	Zeroing is reasonable and consistent with ambiguous statute	Zeroing sustained; Commerce's explanation affirmed

Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (ambiguity of 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) and zeroing is a reasonable interpretation)
U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (offsetting vs. zeroing as reasonable interpretations under § 1677(35))
Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 884 F.2d 556 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (court authority to grant remand for ministerial errors prior to final determination)
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 30 CIT 1671, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (2006) (context for G&A ratio and financial ratios in normal value calculations)