551 F.Supp.3d 1360
Ct. Int'l Trade2021Background
- This case arises from Commerce’s antidumping investigation of certain steel nails from Oman, where Commerce used constructed value (CV) because home‑market/third‑country sales were insufficient.
- Commerce applied the third alternative CV method and selected financial statements of Hitech (a Thai screw producer) to calculate CV profit.
- Mid Continent and Oman Fasteners challenged Commerce’s choices; the Federal Circuit (Mid Continent III) remanded, directing Commerce to address record indications that Hitech may have received countervailable subsidies.
- On second remand, Commerce again relied on Hitech, noting no quantifiable subsidy and that Hitech’s operations were more comparable to nails than alternatives (e.g., Sundram).
- The Court of International Trade found Commerce’s Second Remand Results conclusory: Commerce did not explain why this case differs from prior determinations that disregarded Hitech for subsidy evidence, nor did it adequately compare Hitech’s unquantified subsidy problem against deficiencies in alternative data.
- The court remanded again, requiring Commerce to (at minimum) meaningfully address the possible subsidies in Hitech’s statements and to explain any comparative analysis or decision not to reopen the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce can rely on Hitech’s financial statements despite record indications of possible subsidies | Hitech’s statements contain evidence of a subsidy (cited in prior Commerce determinations) and therefore should be excluded | No quantifiable subsidy amount on record; Hitech remains the best available source for CV profit | Remanded: Commerce failed to justify treating this case differently from prior determinations and must seriously engage subsidy evidence before relying on Hitech |
| Whether Commerce adequately compared Hitech’s deficiencies to alternative sources (e.g., Sundram) | Commerce ignored Hitech’s unquantifiable subsidy problem and did not explain why Sundram’s non‑comparable auto production is a greater defect | Commerce considered comparability and manufacturing similarity and thus reasonably chose Hitech | Remanded: Commerce’s comparative analysis was conclusory; agency must meaningfully weigh relative deficiencies and explain choice |
| Whether Commerce erred in refusing to consider LSI’s partially/late translated financial statements or in not reopening the record | Commerce should accept/reconsider LSI translations or reopen the record to obtain usable alternatives | Commerce properly enforced translation/deadline rules; reopening is discretionary and not required | Not disturbed as a mandatory relief: court left reopening to Commerce’s discretion but noted Commerce may reopen if it finds doing so necessary on remand |
| Whether Commerce’s Second Remand Results complied with the Federal Circuit’s remand instructions | Commerce did not comply; its explanations are insufficient | Commerce contends it reexamined the record and complied | Remanded: court held Commerce did not provide the required explanation and must reassess consistent with Mid Continent III |
Key Cases Cited
- Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 941 F.3d 530 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (remanding and requiring Commerce to address possible subsidies in surrogate financial statements)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining preferred and alternative methods for constructed value profit and that Commerce may use other reasonable methods when actual data are unavailable)