Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited v. United States
2017 CIT 80
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Consolidated challenge to Commerce’s Amended Final Results of the 2011–2012 administrative review of the antidumping order on multilayered wood flooring from China; Commerce assigned Fine Furniture (mandatory respondent) a 5.92% margin and applied that rate to separate-rate respondents.
- Commerce relied on financial statements from two Philippine plywood producers (Tagum and Richmond Plywood Corporation (RPC)) to calculate surrogate financial ratios (factory overhead, SG&A, interest, profit) for Fine Furniture.
- Fine Furniture argued RPC was not an integrated producer of multilayered wood flooring and challenged RPC’s financial statement accuracy and completeness; it also argued Mount Banahaw and other Philippine companies’ statements were wrongly rejected.
- The court (Fine Furniture, Sept. 9, 2016) held Commerce was obligated to consider whether Mount Banahaw is an integrated producer and directed Commerce to reconsider which Philippine financial statements are most appropriate for calculating Fine Furniture’s financial ratios.
- The United States moved for clarification whether the remand was limited to Mount Banahaw’s integration status or should cover Commerce’s broader selection of surrogate financial statements; it alternatively sought a voluntary remand to reconsider RPC’s statement accuracy.
- The court clarified its prior order broadly required Commerce to reconsider the decision to base Fine Furniture’s financial ratios on RPC and Tagum (not limited to Mount Banahaw) and denied the need for a separate voluntary remand; it granted Commerce 45 days to file a remand redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand: whether Commerce must reconsider only Mount Banahaw’s integration status or its entire selection of surrogate financial statements | Court should require Commerce to consider Mount Banahaw’s integration status (and other objections) before finalizing financial ratios | Remand should be limited to Mount Banahaw’s integration status; alternatively, request voluntary remand to reconsider RPC accuracy | Court clarified remand is broad: Commerce must reconsider choice to base ratios on RPC and Tagum (not limited to Mount Banahaw); voluntary remand unnecessary |
| Whether Commerce must reassess RPC financial statement accuracy and completeness | RPC statement is inaccurate/incomplete and should not be used | Commerce asked leave to reconsider RPC’s accuracy on remand if scope limited | Because remand is broad, Commerce may reconsider RPC as part of that process; separate voluntary remand unnecessary |
| Appropriate surrogate financial statements for calculating Fine Furniture’s financial ratios | Use only statements that are integrated producers and otherwise reliable; reconsider rejected Philippine statements (e.g., Mount Banahaw) | Continued reliance on RPC and Tagum statements as previously selected | Commerce must make new findings supported by substantial evidence to determine which financial statements are most appropriate |
| Timing for remand redetermination | N/A (parties sought prompt resolution) | Requested 45 days after court decision to file remand redetermination | Court ordered Commerce to file remand redetermination within 45 days of this Opinion and Order; comments and responses schedules set |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (agency must consider arguments raised on the record and explain its reasoning)