KYD, Inc. v. United States
807 F. Supp. 2d 1372
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- KYD challenged Commerce's Second Remand Results in a third anti-dumping review of carrier bags from Thailand.
- Commerce selected a 94.62% AFA rate based on transaction-specific margins from two cooperative respondents when KYD’s data were not fully usable.
- KYD argued its data could yield a closer, reasonably accurate estimate of its rate and should be used where possible.
- Commerce explained KYD’s data were incomplete and not directly comparable to the uncooperative exporters; used KYD data only to guide product matching.
- Commerce corrected an ink-coverage programming error, discarded a أقل representative rate, and sustained the 94.62% rate as consistent with the remand order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 94.62% rate complies with the remand order. | KYD argues for using its data to calculate a closer rate. | Commerce argues KYD data incomplete; rate derived from cooperative margins reflects commercial reality. | Yes; 94.62% rate sustained as reasonable under remand. |
| Whether corroboration requirements apply to the chosen AFA rate. | KYD argues corroboration needed for reliance on KYD data. | Corroboration not required since margins from cooperative respondents used. | Corroboration not required; rate still supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether the ink-coverage adjustment error undermines the rate. | KYD contends error affected the margin. | Commerce corrected the error and still justified the rate. | No; corrected value retained a reasonable, supported margin. |
Key Cases Cited
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (KYD I; governs use of adverse-inference margins and corroboration)
- Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (requires reasonably accurate estimate of rate for uncooperative respondents)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (establishes the highest prior margin as probative but rebuttable)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (cites methodology for calculating margins)
- Parkdale Int'l v. United States, 475 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (emphasizes accurate, not arbitrary, margin calculation)
- Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. United States, 6 F.3d 1511 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (relevant to record evidence standard for ASR)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explains substantial evidence standard)