JBF RAK LLC v. United States, 2014 CIT 78

JBF RAK contends Commerce unlawfully used its targeted dumping method in a review of UAE PET Film (Nov 1, 2010–Oct 31, 2011).
Commerce applied average-to-transaction in a review and issued a post-preliminary analysis.
Commerce preliminarily found targeted dumping; final results retained 9.80% margin using A-T method.
JBF RAK argues timeliness/exhaustion issues with targeted-dumping allegations.
Court reviews standard under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a; sustains Final Results.
Court discusses Nails test, post-preliminary determination, and 15-day liquidation policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A-T methodology may be used in administrative reviews	RAK argues silence in statute.	Commerce may apply A-T in reviews as gap-filling.	Yes; Commerce may apply A-T in reviews.
Timeliness/exhaustion of targeted-dumping allegation	RAK argues untimely under old regs; Gold East issue.	Commerce may review under discretionary rules; no substantial prejudice shown.	Exhaustion required; no reversible prejudice; allegation reviewed.
Post-preliminary determination legality	RAK claims improper statutory path.	Agency discretion allows post-preliminary analysis.	Post-preliminary determination permissible.
Targeted-dumping analysis and Nails test interpretation	RAK seeks intent-based reasoning.	Nails test proper; no intent requirement in statute.	Nails test reasonable; no intent element required.
15-day liquidation policy reviewability	SKF decisions render policy unlawful; challenge standing.	No standing; policy reasonable interpretation.	Issue waived; no review of policy.

Timken Co. v. United States, 38 CIT 968 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (2014) (approval of applying targeted dumping methods in reviews (context))
PSC VSMPO-Avisma Corp. v. United States, 688 F.3d 751 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Chevron framework; agency discretion in interpretation)
FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (statutory interpretation; gap-filling authority)