Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 17
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2011Background
- This action challenges Commerce's third AD duty review results for wooden bedroom furniture from China (Final Results and Amended Final Results).
- Plaintiffs include Lifestyle, Orient, Yihua Timber, Dream Rooms, Ron's Warehouse, Emerald, Trade Masters; AFMC and Vaughan-Bassett are intervenor defendants.
- Commerce preliminarily determined Orient lacked separate rate status and assigned a 216.01% PRC-wide AFA rate; Yihua Timber received 29.89% and Dream Rooms the PRC-wide rate for failure to respond.
- Dream Rooms allegedly did not receive a supplemental rate questionnaire, yet Commerce found it ineligible for a separate rate and assigned PRC-wide rate.
- Commerce used WTA data for wood inputs (gross weight) instead of NSO volume data in the Final Results; several surrogate-data issues were raised.
- Court grants remand to address Orient's separate rate explanation, wood inputs data, MDF tariff subheading, potential comparable merchandize for Diretso/Global Classic, surrogate labor value, and negative export pricing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initiation notice and respondent selection violated regulations | Lifestyle asserted improper initiation notice affected Orient's selection | Commerce properly selected two respondents; notification satisfied purposes | No reversible error; no substantial prejudice shown |
| Orient's separate rate status and AFA rate validity | Orient merited separate rate; AFA rate of 216.01% not corroborated or commercial-realistic | Orient failed to fully cooperate; AFA corroboration acceptable under law | Remanded to explain or corroborate Orient's AFA rate; separate rate status to be reconsidered |
| Dream Rooms' separate rate status | Dream Rooms improperly assigned PRC-wide rate due to claimed non-receipt of questionnaire | Reliant on evidence of delivery and weighing affidavits; substantial evidence supports PRC-wide rate | Upheld as supported by substantial evidence; remand not required for Dream Rooms |
| Wood inputs surrogate value data and shift from NSO volume to WTA gross weight | NSO data more reliable; shift without substantial explanation improper | WTA data not shown unreliable; data on record permitted | Remanded to explain or reconsider wood-input data methodology |
| MDF tariff subheading choice and PSCC vs WTA headings | PSCC subheadings with densities should be used; WTA subheading 4411.29 may misstate density | WTA subheadings appropriate given record; PSCC considerations insufficient | Remand to reconsider MDF tariff subheading selection |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2010) (corroboration required for AFA rates; economies of scale discussed)
- Gallant Ocean (Thai) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2010) (AFA corroboration must reflect commercial reality; margins matter)
- Dorbest IV, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2010) (economies of scale; surrogate-financial data considerations)
- GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 715 F.Supp.2d 1337 (CIT 2010) (methodology for surrogate values and factory overhead analysis)