37 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2632
Ct. Intl. Trade2016Background
- Foshan Shunde Yongjian (Foshan Shunde) challenged Commerce’s sixth administrative review final results for antidumping duties on floor‑standing metal‑top ironing tables from China.
- Central contested determinations on three issues: (1) surrogate value for steel wire input (choice among Indonesian HTS subheadings), (2) valuation/adjustment of brokerage & handling (B&H) using the World Bank’s Doing Business 2010: Indonesia data, and (3) Commerce’s use of zeroing in the non‑market economy review.
- Record lacked information on the carbon content of Foshan Shunde’s steel wire; parties proposed different Indonesian HTS subheadings (low‑carbon 7217.10.10 vs. high‑carbon 7217.10.39; petitioner suggested 6‑digit 7217.10).
- The World Bank Doing Business 2010: Indonesia B&H figure ($544 for a 20‑ft container) was used by Commerce and doubled to approximate 40‑ft container costs; Foshan Shunde argued for subtraction of letter‑of‑credit fees and against proportional doubling.
- The court previously remanded some issues (Foshan I); Commerce filed Remand Results that the court reviewed for substantial evidence and legal reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surrogate value for steel wire (choice of Indonesian HTS) | Foshan: ironing boards do not require high‑carbon steel; use low‑carbon HTS 7217.10.10 as best available surrogate. | Commerce/HPI: record lacks carbon info; broader or higher‑carbon categories reasonable. | Court: Commerce failed to reasonably justify including high‑carbon input; remand to use HTS 7217.10.10 (low‑carbon). |
| Brokerage & Handling data source (Doing Business 2010: Indonesia) | Foshan: Doing Business is hypothetical survey data and should be adjusted to reflect Foshan Shunde’s actual costs (subtract letter‑of‑credit fees; don’t double for 40‑ft containers). | Commerce: Doing Business meets surrogate selection criteria and is best available; refusal to deduct letter fees reasonable; doubling for 40‑ft is a proportional adjustment. | Court: Commerce reasonably selected Doing Business as best source and reasonably refused to carve out letter‑of‑credit fees; but Commerce’s 100% doubling for 40‑ft lacks a reasonable record basis for the document preparation and ports/terminal handling components — remanded for reconsideration. |
| Zeroing in non‑market economy A‑to‑T comparisons | Foshan: applying zeroing with a single average normal value in non‑market economy reviews is less accurate and unreasonable; Commerce failed to address these arguments on remand. | Commerce: Union Steel and Since Hardware support zeroing in administrative reviews; zeroing can reveal masked dumping and is reasonable under Chevron. | Court: Union Steel reasoning applies; Commerce’s explanation was sufficient and zeroing in this non‑market economy administrative review is reasonable under Chevron. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (upheld Commerce’s zeroing practice in administrative reviews under Chevron)
- Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, 741 F.3d 89 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (endorsement of common‑sense reasoning in surrogate selection)
- NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing agency explanations of less‑than‑ideal clarity)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence review)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (two‑step framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretation)