Home Products International, Inc. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2336
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- This case concerns remand when new evidence indicates material fraud tainting agency proceedings in an antidumping review.
- An antidumping duty order from 2004 covered floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and parts from China; Commerce found de minimis margins for Since Hardware.
- Home Products challenged the second administrative review's low dumping margin, arguing improper surrogate-value valuation based on ME input data.
- During the third administrative review, new evidence suggested Since Hardware submitted falsified certificates of origin to Commerce.
- Commerce found the certificates unreliable and used adverse facts available, increasing the dumping margin; same discrepancies allegedly appeared in earlier reviews.
- Trade Court denied Home Products’ motion to remand for reconsideration; Home Products appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trade Court abused discretion by denying remand after fraud evidence | Home Products shows clear, convincing new fraud evidence | Trade Court held no fraud tainted second review | Yes, remand required; abuse of discretion |
| Whether Commerce has inherent authority to reopen due to fraud and remand | Inherent authority allows reopening when fraud is found | Authority rests on statutory framework; reopening questionable | Yes, Commerce has inherent authority to reopen/remand for fraud considerations |
| Whether record-rule exceptions permit considering extrinsic fraud evidence on appeal | New fraud evidence may be considered even if outside record | Record rule confines review to agency record unless remand | Yes, exceptions apply allowing consideration of extrinsic fraud evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (agency has inherent authority to reconsider when fraud is involved)
- Borlem S.A.—Empreedimentos Industriais v. United States, 913 F.2d 933 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (remand and reconsideration when errors in the record undermine integrity)
- Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (1987) (abuse of discretion review for remand decisions)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (record adequate for review; remand may be appropriate for further investigation)
- Doria Mining & Eng'g Corp. v. Morton, 608 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir. 1979) (extrinsic evidence of fraud may be considered on review)
- United States v. Shotwell Mfg. Co., 355 U.S. 233 (1957) (vacation/remand when new fraud evidence affects judgment)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (agency remand when merits warrant correction of record)
- Abbott Labs. v. United States, 573 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (deference to agency judgments; agency views critical on remand decisions)