Jbf Rak LLC v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10652
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- JBF RAK appeals the CIT’s affirmation of Commerce’s final antidumping duty results for UAE PET Film (Nov 1, 2010–Oct 31, 2011).
- Commerce issued an antidumping order in 2008; JBF RAK sought administrative review in 2011.
- Domestic producers alleged targeted dumping in 2012, urging average-to-transaction methodology instead of the standard average-to-average in reviews.
- Commerce preliminarily used average-to-average; in 2013 posted a Post-Preliminary Determination applying average-to-transaction with a 9.80% margin.
- CIT upheld Commerce’s targeted-dumping analysis and methodology; JBF RAK challenged the legality and timing of steps.
- Court applies Chevron deference to Commerce’s for filling gaps in statutory guidance; upheld agency’s interpretation and procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of targeted-dumping method in an administrative review | RAK argues statute only allows investigation-based targets. | Commerce may fill the gap; Chevron step two permits reasonable interpretation. | Commerce’s average-to-transaction method in reviews is reasonable. |
| Timeliness of targeted-dumping allegation under § 351.301 | Allegation was untimely rebuttal information. | Allegation resembles § 351.301(d) submissions and is timely. | Allegation timely; properly treated as an allegation, not rebuttal information. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | CIT erred in not requiring exhaustion; Gold East Paper permits waiver. | RAK failed to raise issues before Commerce; exhaustion required. | CIT did not abuse; exhaustion required and not adequately shown to be waived. |
| Post-Preliminary Determination authority | Post-Preliminary exceeds statutory prerogatives for determinations. | Agency autonomy allows Post-Preliminary; no prejudice to RAK. | Post-Preliminary was allowed; no prejudice to RAK. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference when statute is silent or ambiguous)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (definition and calculation of dumping margins)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (statutory framework for antidumping reviews)
- U.S. Steel Grp. v. United States, 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (agency methodology gap-filling authority)
- PSC VSMPO-Avisma Corp. v. United States, 688 F.3d 751 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (administrative law and agency classification)
- Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. v. United States, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2013) (waiver and withdrawal issues in regulations; exhaustion context)
- Essar Steel, Ltd. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (exhaustion and administrative remedies principles)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (examination of procedural requirements in trade cases)