Grobest & I-Mei Indus. (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. v. United States
853 F. Supp. 2d 1352
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Remand followed Grobest I on zeroing policy and its consistency with Dongbu and JTEKT.
- Remand Results affirmed Commerce’s zeroing in reviews but not in investigations and accepted Amanda Foods’ separate rate.
- Grobest challenged (i) zeroing justification and (ii) Grobest’s status as a voluntary respondent for individual review.
- Final Results: Amanda Foods’ separate rate affirmed; Grobest review remanded on voluntary respondent issue.
- Court remanded to Commerce to conduct an individual voluntary review of Grobest and reconsider Grobest’s revocation request, with deadlines set.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce’s zeroing in reviews while not in investigations is reasonable | Grobest arguing inconsistent statute interpretation | Commerce asserts differences justified by purposes of reviews versus investigations | Affirmed: Commerce’s zeroing in reviews reasonable and supported by statute |
| Whether Grobest must be reviewed as a voluntary respondent | Grobest entitlement to individual review under §1677m(a) | Commerce found reviewing Grobest unduly burdensome and timely completion would be inhibited | Remanded: Commerce to individually review Grobest as a voluntary respondent and reconsider Grobest’s revocation request |
| Whether Amanda Foods’ separate-rate assignment was proper | - | - | Affirmed: Amanda Foods’ separate rate properly assigned |
Key Cases Cited
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (inconsistent interpretations of § 1677(35) not justified by statute)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (rejects differing interpretations without sufficient statutory basis)
- Union Steel v. United States, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (upheld reasoning permitting different methodologies for reviews vs investigations)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upheld no requirement to use zeroing in investigations)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (supports variability of methodologies in dumping margin calculations)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (relates to calculating antidumping margins for accuracy)