Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 21
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- This case challenges Commerce's final results of the antidumping duty administrative review for wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC.
- The court has issued three prior remands (Lifestyle I–III), requiring corroboration and adjustment of Orient’s AFA rate.
- Initial remand results used a 216.01% AFA rate for Orient, corroborated by limited Yihua Timber data, which the court found insufficient.
- In the second remand, Commerce calculated a 130.81% AFA rate for Orient using limited corroboration, which the court again deemed inadequately supported.
- On the third remand, Commerce set Orient’s AFA rate at 83.55% using the top 15% of ranked Yihua Timber sales; AFMC contests but the court sustains the rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 83.55% is a lawful AFA rate for Orient. | AFMC argues 83.55% is not sufficiently adverse. | Commerce properly corroborated and selected 83.55% under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. | Yes; 83.55% is sustained as properly corroborated. |
Key Cases Cited
- PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (adverse inferences must be reasonable and grounded in evidence)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (adverse inferences framework in AFA context)
- Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rate must deter non-compliance but not be punitive)