Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10135
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Commerce imposed antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture from China in 2005.
- In 2008 Commerce began a third administrative review covering 2007 imports.
- Initial preliminary results (2009) used NSO volume data for wood inputs and Diretso Design financials for surrogate ratios.
- Yihua challenged reliance on NSO data and the Diretso Design financial statements; Commerce adopted WTA weight data for most wood inputs and excluded Diretso Design statements.
- Trade Court remanded for explanations on weight vs. volume data and for reevaluating Diretso Design's data source; on remand, Commerce continued weight data for all wood inputs and again excluded Diretso Design’s statements.
- Court of International Trade affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; this court now reviews standing, data reliability, and the use of weight vs. volume data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yihua has standing to challenge weight data | Yihua has injury-in-fact and proper rights. | AFMC argues lack of standing or waiver concerns. | We hold standing; jurisdiction exists to review. |
| Use of weight-based vs volume-based data for lumber inputs | Weight data likely understates lumber value due to green wood issues. | Weight data is best available information and most consistent. | Reversed; weight-based data should be reinstated for lumber valuation. |
| Remand on Diretso Design financial statements | Diretso Design data should be used as a comparable. | Indeterminate ownership and alternative statements suffice; exclude Diretso Design. | Affirmed exclusion of Diretso Design statements. |
| Whether to re-open the record or rely on existing data for valuation | If weight data unsuitable, re-open record or use alternative data. | Commerce reasonably chose between imperfect data sets without reopening. | Commerce's First Redetermination deemed reasonable; remand to reinstate it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (2008) (standing and injury redressability)
- United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (standing and review scope)
- Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (review of agency decisions)
- Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agency appeal standards)
- Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479 (1933) (consolidation and party rights in suits)
- Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988) (standing and party access to review)
- Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2011) (data reliability in surrogate valuation (remand context))
- Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (weight vs. volume data impact on surrogate values)
- Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (second remand; data challenges)
- Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standard of review for agency determinations)
- Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988) (standing—ample opportunity to appeal)