Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd. v. United States
32 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2165
Ct. Intl. Trade2010Background
- This case challenges Commerce's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of steel threaded rod from China, focusing on surrogate data used to value production factors.
- Commerce rejected certain Indian financial statements (Deepak, Mangal, Visakha, Rajratan) and accepted Lakshmi and Sterling as best information for normal value calculations; Rajratan later was found to be mischaracterized and remanded.
- Deepak was rejected due to possible countervailable subsidies and alleged incompleteness; Lakshmi and Sterling were accepted as best alternatives.
- Rajratan was initially rejected because it was believed to produce an input (wire rod) used in STR, but evidence shows Rajratan does not manufacture steel rod; this caused remand to reassess comparability.
- Visakha was rejected on the basis that its products are not comparable to STR; the court upheld this rejection as supported by substantial evidence.
- The court remands only Rajratan’s data issue and otherwise denies the rest of the Brother Companies’ challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly rejected Deepak's statements | Jiaxing argues Deepak's data should be used if subsidy evidence is misinterpreted | Commerce acted within discretion to reject subsidized data when viable substitutes exist | Partly remanded; Deepak rejection upheld but remand focuses on Rajratan |
| Whether Lakshmi/Sterling were valid best information over Deepak | Lakshmi/Sterling were less ideal since they are not identical merchandise | Identical vs comparable data treated as equally acceptable; subsidies or lack thereof considered | upheld Commerce’s use of Lakshmi and Sterling as best information |
| Whether Rajratan's rejection was supported by substantial evidence | Rajratan produced similar inputs (steel rod) and should be comparable | Rajratan was mischaracterized as an input producer; evidence does not support | Remanded to reconsider Rajratan’s comparability |
| Whether Visakha's rejection was supported by substantial evidence | Visakha should be considered if comparable to STR | Visakha not comparable to STR; evidence supports rejection | Denied with regard to Visakha; supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the Court should require exhaustion for Lakshmi subsidization issue | Exhaustion should not bar review of Lakshmi’s subsidies | Exhaustion required; issue not properly raised in administration | Court declines to address Lakshmi subsidization issue due to failure to exhaust; not essential to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2010) (interpretation of substantial evidence and best information standard)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (define substantial evidence standard)
- Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm'n., 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (scope of court review of agency determinations)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1962) (rational connection requirement in agency decisions)
- Goldlink Indus. Co. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (CIT 2006) (best-information and subsidy considerations in surrogate data)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2007) (exhaustion and administrative posture in trade cases)
- Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v. United States, 33 CIT __, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (2009) (exhaustion and hearing opportunities in ITA proceedings)
- LTV Steel Co., 21 CIT 838, 985 F. Supp. 95 (1997) (exemption from exhaustion in certain circumstances)