Home Meridian International, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22565
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China and conducted an administrative review for 2009 imports; Huafeng was the mandatory respondent.
- Huafeng had 2008 purchases of several wood inputs (pine, poplar, birch, elm lumber; oak veneer; plywood) from market-economy suppliers, but made no market-economy purchases during the 2009 period of review.
- In the Final Results Commerce used 2009 Philippines import data (surrogate values) to value wood inputs, assigning a 41.75% dumping margin, reasoning contemporaneous surrogate data were the best available information.
- The Court of International Trade remanded, finding Commerce had categorically excluded market-economy purchases without adequate factual findings on their reliability or on whether they constituted the inputs actually consumed.
- On first remand, Commerce again chose surrogate values after weighing contemporaneity and record evidence that non-market purchases and inventory could have supplied consumption; the court again remanded, directing use of Huafeng’s market-economy purchases or reopening the record to assess consumption.
- On second remand Commerce verified market-economy purchases and used them to set an 11.79% margin; the CIT sustained that redetermination. The appellate court reviewed Commerce’s interim and remand decisions and reversed the CIT, reinstating Commerce’s First Redetermination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(1) and Antidumping Methodologies | Section requires using market-economy purchases when available; no contemporaneity prerequisite | Commerce has discretion; “normally” allows deviation when purchases are not best available information | Commerce’s interpretation reasonable and entitled to deference |
| Whether Commerce may consider contemporaneity when choosing between surrogate values and non‑contemporaneous market purchases | Contemporaneity not required; must use actual market purchases if available | Contemporaneity is a permissible factor; surrogate data may be better if contemporaneous | Contemporaneity is a valid factor; no rule forbids preferring surrogate values |
| Whether Huafeng’s market‑economy purchases constituted 100% of inputs used during the period | Market purchases (2008) represented all inputs consumed in 2009 and thus must be used | Record shows mixed purchases, inventory, and non‑market purchases could have supplied consumption; no verified statement that only market inputs were used | Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s finding that record did not show 100% market‑purchase consumption |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Commerce’s valuation choice in the First Redetermination | Court of Int’l Trade held Commerce erred; market purchases should have been used | Commerce weighed reliability, contemporaneity, corroborating data, and reasonableness of surrogate values | Substantial evidence supported Commerce’s First Redetermination; appellate court reinstated that valuation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lifestyle Enter. v. United States, 751 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review: agency factual findings substantial‑evidence; legal conclusions de novo)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 494 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (appellate review may consider interim agency decisions on remand)
- Gose v. U.S. Postal Serv., 451 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulation when reasonable)
- Home Meridian Int’l Inc. v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1311 (Ct. Int’l Trade) (discussing Commerce’s practice favoring contemporaneous surrogate values over noncontemporaneous market purchases)