Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. v. United States, 932 F.3d 1321

Background

Commerce has an antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China and conducts annual administrative reviews that determine antidumping margins for 12‑month periods (PORs).
Kangtai Chemical was a mandatory respondent in AR 9 (June 1, 2013–May 31, 2014) and AR 10 (June 1, 2014–May 31, 2015); Commerce assigned Kangtai a 0% margin in AR 9 and 35.05% in AR 10.
Commerce’s liquidation instructions directed Customs to liquidate Kangtai’s AR 9 entries at $0.00/MT, but directed liquidation of certain entries made during AR 10 at the China‑wide rate (285.63%) where entries were not found eligible for separate rates.
Kangtai alleged 18 sales invoiced during AR 9 were entered during AR 10 and were liquidated at a higher (China‑wide) rate; it sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) claiming Commerce improperly assessed duties on those entries (Counts I–III).
The U.S. Court of International Trade dismissed the complaint for lack of § 1581(i) jurisdiction, explaining the true nature of the challenge arose from Commerce’s administrative review determinations (subject to § 1581(c)).
The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding Kangtai could have (and did in part) pursue § 1581(c) remedies and failed to show such remedies would be manifestly inadequate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CIT had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) over Kangtai’s challenge to liquidation instructions	Kangtai: challenge targets Commerce’s liquidation instructions that assessed China‑wide rate on 18 entries that were covered by AR 9 sales, so § 1581(i) applies	Gov’t: the complaint really challenges Commerce’s administrative review determinations (how rates apply to entries), which fall under § 1581(c)	Held: § 1581(i) jurisdiction lacking; true nature of suit arises under § 1581(c)
Whether Kangtai could have brought the claim under § 1581(c)	Kangtai: § 1581(c) relief was manifestly inadequate because AR 9 yielded 0% and there was nothing to appeal; litigating AR 10 would not protect the 18 entries	Gov’t: Commerce repeatedly treated assessment by entry date; Kangtai could have challenged AR 9/AR 10 final results and sought injunction to stop liquidation	Held: Kangtai could and should have used § 1581(c); it failed to show § 1581(c) remedy was manifestly inadequate
Whether Commerce put Kangtai on notice it would assess duties by entry date	Kangtai: relied on sales reporting to Commerce and contends liquidation by entry was improper	Gov’t: Commerce’s questionnaires, preliminary and final results indicated it would assess on entries	Held: record shows Commerce gave adequate notice it intended to assess by entries
Whether factual inferences were wrongly drawn by the CIT	Kangtai: CIT mischaracterized record and drew inferences favoring government (e.g., about Kangtai’s reporting)	Gov’t: CIT relied on record documents and any minor factual misstatement was non‑material to its ruling	Held: no reversible error; any minor background factual error did not affect jurisdictional ruling

Key Cases Cited

Viet I‑Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United States, 839 F.3d 1099 (Fed. Cir.) (discusses Commerce’s selection of respondents for individual rates)
SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United States, 910 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir.) (explains dumping margin and nonmarket economy context)
Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. United States, 777 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (presumption of a China‑wide rate in nonmarket economy cases and separate‑rate rebuttal)
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (discusses Commerce questionnaires and NME procedures)
Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 810 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to CIT’s factual findings on jurisdictional issues)
Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir.) (§ 1581(i) residual jurisdiction is unavailable if another subsection applies unless remedy is manifestly inadequate)
Hutchison Quality Furniture, Inc. v. United States, 827 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (defines "manifestly inadequate" and "exercise in futility")
Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce typically assesses by entry date for POR)
Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishes export price and constructed export price methodologies)
Cedars‑Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir.) (jurisdictional dismissal accepts only uncontroverted factual allegations)