Fuwei Films (Shandong) Co. v. United States
2011 WL 3947551
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Fuwei moves to amend its complaint to challenge Commerce's zeroing methodology in antidumping administrative reviews.
- Plaintiff was advised by the court that leave to amend is discretionary and generally freely given absent reasons like delay or bad faith.
- The court analyzes exhaustion of administrative remedies as a prerequisite to judicial review in antidumping cases.
- Commerce requires parties to raise all issues in their case briefs and to exhaust before agency review, per 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2).
- Fuwei did not raise the zeroing issue during the administrative proceeding, creating a record gap for judicial review.
- The court concludes exhaustion cannot be excused and denies the motion to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted. | Fuwei seeks amendment based on new circuit decisions. | Exhaustion and administrative rules bar amendment. | Leave to amend denied. |
| Whether exhaustion applies to zeroing challenge. | Exhaustion allowed via exceptions for pure questions of law. | Exhaustion required; exceptions not applicable here. | Exhaustion required; exceptions not satisfied. |
| Whether pure question of law exception applies to Chevron step 2 issue. | Zeroing is a pure legal question. | Agency interpretation needed; not a pure question of law. | Pure question of law exception does not apply. |
| Whether futility exception applies to exhaustion. | Raising issues despite potential adverse result would be futile. | Regulatory requirement to exhaust cannot be overridden by futility. | Futility exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. United States, 30 CIT 1373 (2006) (exhaustion generally required in antidumping contexts)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (strict view of exhaustion before Commerce)
- Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 548 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (parties must raise all issues in case briefs)
- Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Chevron step 1/2 considerations with agency input)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (supports agency-first interpretation in zeroing context)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (review of zeroing methodology after administrative record)