Hubscher Ribbon Corp. v. United States
2014 CIT 43
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- This is a U.S. Court of International Trade review of Commerce's antidumping duty Final Results on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China.
- Hubscher challenged Commerce’s assignment of total adverse facts available (AFA) rate of 247.65% for the uncooperative respondent.
- During the LTFV investigation, Yama received 0.00%, separate-rate respondents 123.83%, and Ningbo/Jintian 247.65% AFA.
- Hubscher withdrew from the first administrative review; Commerce applied total AFA based on the highest petition rate.
- Court analyzes whether Commerce reasonably corroborated the petition rate as an accurate proxy reflecting Hubscher’s commercial reality.
- Court sustains Final Results, denying Hubscher’s challenge to Commerce’s total AFA corroboration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether total AFA rate corroboration is reasonable | Hubscher argues corroboration is unreasonable given data limits. | Commerce contends rate reasonably reflects deterrence and corroborates commercial reality. | Yes; corroboration reasonable under circumstances. |
| Whether petition rate can serve as AFA proxy | Petition rate is unreliable for Hubscher due to data limitations. | Petition rate may be used when no cooperative data exists to determine actual rate. | Petition rate permissible proxy with corroboration. |
| Whether Commerce reasonably linked Hubscher’s reality to Yama data | No direct link; data from Yama not necessarily reflect Hubschercorp. | Yama’s transactions plausibly reflect Hubschercorp’s commercial reality. | Reasonable linkage supported by record. |
| Whether the government ownership issue affected the AFA result | Use of petition rate as PRC-wide rate implies government control. | No implicit finding of government ownership; rate used as AFA proxy only. | No improper government-control finding; issue resolved in context. |
Key Cases Cited
- de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (corroboration requirement and use of secondary information)
- Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (limits on using abnormally high AFA without record support)
- Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (remand and corroboration guidance for separate-rate analyses)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence standard for agency determinations)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (statutory interpretation governs where language ambiguous)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court 1966) (substantial evidence and reasonableness framework)