Maclean-Fogg Co. v. United States
2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 48
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2012Background
- This action challenges Commerce's all-others countervailing duty rate for aluminum extrusions from China.”
- Commerce initially selected three large-volume respondents as mandatory, then used adverse facts available (AFA) for them due to non-cooperation.
- Voluntary respondents ( Zhongya and Guang Ya groups) had rates on record but were not used to compute the all-others rate.
- Final determination set all-others at 374.15% using the AFA rates of the mandatory respondents and excluded voluntary rates under 19 C.F.R. § 351.204(d)(3).
- Plaintiffs argue the all-others rate should be based on all individually investigated respondents (mandatory and voluntary) and that the regulation allowing exclusion of voluntary respondents is invalid; court remands for a reasonable explanation of Commerce’s choice.
- Statutory framework permits a reasonable method for all-others when rates are zero, de minimis, or calculated under AFA, and Commerce must provide a rational connection between data and result; remand to reconsider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1671d(c)(5)(A)(i) unambiguously requires all-others to be based on individually investigated respondents | Maclean-Fogg asserts all-others must reflect all individually investigated. | Commerce contends the statute is ambiguous and allows a reasonable method, including excluding voluntary respondents. | Ambiguous; remanded for reasonable method analysis. |
| Whether 19 C.F.R. § 351.204(d)(3) validly fills statutory gaps regarding voluntary respondents | Regulation improperly excludes voluntary rates and misreads statute. | Regulation is a reasonable interpretation of 1671d(c)(5)(A) and WTO guidance supports exclusion. | Regulation upheld as reasonable interpretation on remand. |
| Whether Commerce's use of mandatory respondents' AFA rates to set all-others is reasonable | Using AFA rates for large exporters as all-others is not logically connected to remaining parties. | Statute allows use of a reasonable method, including AFA-derived rates, when other data are unavailable. | Not clearly reasonable; remand for explanation and justification. |
| Whether Commerce failed to connect facts to its chosen all-others rate and erred in selecting respondents | Choosing largest responders as mandatory and excluding voluntary rates lacks logical nexus. | Agency decisions fall within reasonable discretion. | Remand to provide rational connection and justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB., 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence standard requires reasoned explanation)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reasonableness standard in agency review)
- Burlington Truck Lines Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1962) (requires rational connection between facts and choice)
- Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Chevron step two—permissible construction governs if unambiguous)
- Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 F.3d 83 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (context on agency interpretation and record burden)
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (remedial nature of anti-dumping/colicy considerations)
- Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must rationally explain its actions)