586 F.Supp.3d 1349
Ct. Int'l Trade2022Background
- This case challenges Commerce’s third remand selection of a surrogate company (Sundram) to calculate constructed‑value (CV) profit in the antidumping investigation of certain steel nails from Oman.
- Commerce used CV because Oman Fasteners lacked sufficient home‑market or third‑country sales; CV profit may be derived from third‑country financial statements when actual data are unavailable.
- The administrative record included eleven financial statements (six Omani, two Taiwanese, LSI (Thai, partially translated), Hitech (Thai), and Sundram (Indian)). Commerce previously selected Hitech but a remand required further explanation about subsidies reflected in Hitech’s statements.
- On remand Commerce rejected the Omani, Taiwanese, and LSI statements (non‑comparable or incomplete translations), found both Hitech and Sundram showed evidence of subsidies, and selected Sundram based on contemporaneity and comparability, producing a 4.22% dumping margin.
- Oman Fasteners argued Commerce failed to compare all statements side‑by‑side, should have preferred LSI or an Omani company, and should have reopened the record to accept a full LSI translation. The Court sustained Commerce’s Third Remand Results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce reasonably selected Sundram over Hitech as the surrogate for CV profit given subsidy evidence | Oman Fasteners: Both Hitech and Sundram show subsidies; Commerce should have rejected both or better explained why Sundram was superior | Government/Mid Continent: Commerce reasonably compared key criteria (comparability, contemporaneity, customer base) and chose Sundram | Court: Sustained — Commerce adequately compared Hitech and Sundram, prioritizing contemporaneity and comparability; selection supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Commerce erred by not conducting a side‑by‑side comparison of all 11 financial statements | Oman Fasteners: Commerce should have compared every statement and would have chosen LSI or Al Jazeera | Government: Commerce permissibly screened out unusable statements and need not compare records that are untimely or missing vital information | Court: Sustained — Commerce plausibly excluded unusable statements and reasonably limited detailed comparison to the two viable candidates |
| Whether Commerce should have reopened the record to accept a full translation of LSI’s financials | Oman Fasteners: Reopening was necessary because alternatives were inferior | Government: Reopening not required; record contained adequate surrogate data and deadlines were properly enforced | Court: Sustained — Commerce acted within discretion; interested parties bear burden to develop record and reopening not compelled |
| Whether Commerce’s selection is supported by substantial evidence and law | Oman Fasteners: Agency failed to address subsidy impact and comparative deficiencies adequately | Government/Mid Continent: Agency tied decision to statutory standards and record evidence | Court: Sustained — Explanation and evidentiary basis satisfy substantial‑evidence and reasoned‑decision requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 941 F.3d 530 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (addresses use of third‑country financial statements and need to weigh comparative deficiencies and subsidies when selecting CV profit source)
- CP Kelco US Inc. v. United States, 949 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (upholds Commerce rejecting incomplete financial statements when missing information is ‘‘vital’’ and explains limits on required comparisons)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 263 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (describes alternative methods for CV profit where actual data are unavailable)
- Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (defines substantial evidence as what a reasonable mind might accept considering the whole record)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (principles on substantial‑evidence review and consideration of the whole record)
- Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Commerce must examine record and provide satisfactory explanation for its actions)