Kyd, Inc. v. United States
2011 WL 1741913
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- KYD challenged Commerce's 2006-07 TAFA-based rate (122.88%) for KYD's imports from King Pac and Master Packaging in the third administrative review.
- Commerce used TAFA for unaffiliated exporters due to uncooperative respondents; KYD actively provided information.
- KYD II remanded for Commerce to consider KYD's information or explain why it could decline under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e).
- On remand, Commerce argued 1675(a) does not require importer-specific margins and that 1673d governs investigations, not reviews.
- Court held that administrative reviews focus on entry-specific determinations and that Commerce may select a rate to apply to entries, provided corroboration and substantial evidence support it, with remand for proper corroboration of the 122.88% rate.
- KYD provided current information on its transactions;Rhône presumption and corroboration standards apply to verifying the selected rate but were not fully satisfied for KYD's imports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1675(a) requires importer-specific margins | KYD argues for importer-specific margins for each entry | Commerce holds statute does not require importer-specific margins | Importer-specific margins are not required; focus is on entry-specific determinations; remand to corroborate rate |
| Whether 19 U.S.C. § 1673d governs calculations in administrative reviews | KYD relies on § 1673d for rate calculation | Commerce relies on § 1673d as controlling | § 1673d governs investigations, not administrative reviews; argument unpersuasive |
| Whether the Rhone presumption was properly applied to KYD’s imports | Rhone presumption should apply to KYD's King Pac/Master Packaging imports with corroboration | Rhone presumption applies as in KYD I/II | Rhone presumption limited and rebuttable; improper application to Master Packaging; current KYD data require stronger corroboration; remand |
| Whether the 122.88% TAFA rate is supported by substantial evidence for the KYD entries | KYD presented information suggesting lower margins | Rate corroborated by prior TAFA precedent and analysis | Not supported by substantial evidence; lacking corroboration for KYD entries; remand for reevaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed.Cir.2010) (affirming remand concepts and importer-specific issues in KYD I)
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 613 F.Supp.2d 1371 (CIT 2009) (KYD I remand context and Rhone discussion)
- Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2010) (affirming need for corroboration of adverse rate; practitioner guidance on TAFA)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed.Cir.1990) (progenitor for Rhone presumption and corroboration principles)
- Consol. Bearings Co. v. United States, 348 F.3d 997 (Fed.Cir.2003) (entry-focused margins and statutory interpretation framework)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 258 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2001) (distinguishing importer/ exporter margins and calculation methods)
- De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed.Cir.2000) (statutory interpretation and agency deference in antidumping)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1339 (Fed.Cir.2002) (position on corroboration and margins in TAFA context)
- PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2009) (corroboration/value of high margins as deterrence with bounds)