Hor Liang Industrial Corp. v. United States
2018 CIT 124
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2018Background
- Commerce conducted the first administrative antidumping review for certain steel nails from Taiwan (2015–2016). Hor Liang and Romp were non‑examined separate‑rate respondents; three companies were individually examined.
- In the preliminary results Commerce assigned Unicatch a calculated margin and assigned that rate to all‑others; Mid Continent urged Commerce to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to individually examined respondents.
- In the Final Results Commerce applied AFA to all mandatory respondents, producing a 78.17% margin, and assigned that rate to Hor Liang and Romp under its interpretation of § 1673d(c)(5)(B).
- Hor Liang and Romp filed timely ministerial‑error comments after the Final Results (challenging Commerce’s rate calculation); Commerce rejected and removed those submissions from the administrative record as improperly raising substantive issues.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of International Trade asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (and alternatively § 1581(i)), and challenging Commerce’s Final Results and its rejection/removal of the ministerial‑error submissions; the Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- The court: (1) held plaintiffs satisfied the “party to the proceeding” requirement and therefore had § 1581(c) jurisdiction; (2) dismissed Counts 1 and 3 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) granted a U.S. importer’s motion to intervene.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were a "party to the proceeding" for § 1581(c) standing | Their timely ministerial‑error submissions notified Commerce of their concerns and thus made them parties | Plaintiffs’ sole submission improperly used the ministerial‑error process to raise substantive issues; Commerce properly removed it and plaintiffs therefore were not parties | Plaintiffs were parties to the proceeding; standing under § 1581(c) exists despite Commerce’s removal of the comments |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction under § 1581(i) | Alleged alternatively if § 1581(c) unavailable | § 1581(i) is unavailable when § 1581(c) applies | Because § 1581(c) applies, § 1581(i) is unnecessary and not reached |
| Whether Commerce’s removal of ministerial‑error comments precludes judicial standing because the agency controls the record | Agency discretion to manage the record means removal defeats standing | Removal did not defeat standing where submissions were timely and put Commerce on notice; agency removal is reviewable | Court declined to defer to Commerce to the extent removal defeated standing and found plaintiffs had satisfied the "party" requirement |
| Whether plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies on the all‑others rate issue | Plaintiffs argued they lacked opportunity and that the issue raised pure questions of law or constituted departure from agency practice, so exhaustion should be excused | Defendants argued plaintiffs could have raised the issue in case/rebuttal briefs and that no exhaustion exception applies | Counts challenging the all‑others rate were dismissed for failure to exhaust; the pure‑question and change‑of‑practice exceptions did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S.) (federal court must have subject‑matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a case)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S.) (dismissal required when federal court lacks jurisdiction)
- Alloy Piping Prods., Inc. v. Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd., 334 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir.) (ministerial‑error comments received after final determination ordinarily must be part of the administrative record)
- Boomerang Tube LLC v. United States, 856 F.3d 908 (Fed. Cir.) (administrative exhaustion doctrine and when change in methodology need not be separately noticed)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (requirement to present arguments in case and rebuttal briefs before judicial review)
- Albemarle Corp. v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (key Federal Circuit decision informing Commerce’s AFA and rate‑setting approach)