MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States
2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 101
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2012Background
- This case follows remand from MacLean-Fogg Co. v. United States regarding the all-others countervailing duty rate for Chinese aluminum extrusions.
- Commerce previously used an all-others rate equal to the mandatory respondents’ AFA rate (374.15%) based on noncooperation.
- The court in MacLean-Fogg I approved the use of AFA and the exclusion of voluntary respondents’ rates but required a rational connection to the all-others group.
- On remand, Commerce again based the all-others rate solely on mandatory respondents’ AFA, arguing representativeness due to market share.
- Plaintiffs challenge whether using 100% of alleged subsidies to derive the rate is remedial and reasonably related to all-others, not punitive.
- The court remands to Commerce to provide a sufficient explanation tying the rate to the all-others record and proper policy/legality considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether mandatory respondents’ AFA rate is a reasonable all-others proxy | MacLean-Fogg argues the rate is not reasonably connected to all-others | Commerce says mandatory respondents’ rate reasonably reflects market representativeness | Remanded for explanation of reasonableness and potential adjustment |
| whether 100% subsidy program use is appropriate for all-others | Rate overstated relative to actual programs used | 100% use prevents rate manipulation and ensures representativeness | Remanded for record-based justification of program usage level |
| whether including AFA-based mandatory rates complies with statute and precedent | AFA rates may not be used to determine all-others without noncooperation specifics | Statutory framework and precedent permit using mandatory AFA rates | Remanded for further articulation of statutory/precedential justification |
Key Cases Cited
- PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (supports using AFA rates and data corroboration within discretion)
- Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co. v. United States, 36 CIT __ (2012) (cites need for traceable, record-based justification (Slip Op. 12-79))
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 36 CIT __, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (2012) (requirement that rate reasonably reflect non-investigated exporters’ margins)
- F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (reiterates limits on agency discretion and data use in CVDs)
- Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (cites precedent on adverse inferences and reasonableness in CVD rate setting)
- Nucor Corp. v. United States, 32 CIT 1380, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (2008) (agency weighs evidence; remand for proper basis of rate)