2018 CIT 73
Ct. Intl. Trade2018Background
- Seventh administrative review of antidumping order on steel nails from China for Aug 1, 2014–Jul 31, 2015; Commerce issued Final Results assigning margins March–April 2017.
- Commerce selected two mandatory respondents by volume: Stanley (rebutted PRC-control presumption; received calculated rate 5.78%) and Lianda (failed to rebut; assigned PRC-wide AFA rate 118.04%).
- Seventeen other exporters qualified for separate rates (cooperative but not individually examined); Commerce applied the "all-others" rate equal to Stanley's 5.78% pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(c)(5)(A).
- Petitioner Mid Continent challenged: (1) the all-others calculation (arguing AFA rates should be included to reflect economic reality), (2) valuation of Stanley's sealing tape (argued adhesive/end-use category 3919.10 is better), and (3) valuation of Stanley's plastic granules (argued granules are finished products and should be classified under 3921.90.90).
- Commerce used Thai import data (GTA) from selected surrogate country Thailand to value factors of production; Stanley’s reported inputs described tape as biaxially oriented polypropylene and granules as calcium carbonate‑reinforced polypropylene sold in bulk.
- Court sustained Commerce: applied statutory general rule to compute all-others rate and upheld use of HTS 3920.20.10 for sealing tape and HTS 3902.10.90 for plastic granules as best available information.
Issues
| Issue | Mid Continent's Argument | Government/Stanley Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| All-others rate calculation | Commerce should include AFA rates (Lianda, Suzhou) to reflect economic reality; use simple average (result ~80.62%). | Statute and precedent require use of §1673d(c)(5)(A) general rule in reviews; exclude AFA rates and use Stanley's non‑AFA margin (5.78%). | Court: Commerce lawfully applied §1673d(c)(5)(A); 5.78% sustained. |
| Sealing tape surrogate valuation | Tape is self‑adhesive; end‑use/basket HTS 3919.10 better captures adhesive characteristic. | Record shows tape base material is biaxially oriented polypropylene; HTS 3920.20.10 is more product‑specific and best available. | Court: Commerce reasonably chose HTS 3920.20.10; valuation sustained. |
| Plastic granules surrogate valuation | Granules are finished product (contain calcium carbonate); should be classified under HTS 3921.90.90 (plates/sheets/strips). | Granules are polypropylene in primary form (granules sold in bulk); HTS 3902.10.90 specifically covers polypropylene granules and matches Chapter Notes. | Court: Commerce reasonably chose HTS 3902.10.90; valuation sustained. |
| Representativeness of Stanley's rate for Separate Rate Companies | Prior high margins and PRC‑wide rates for other respondents show Stanley's low rate is unrepresentative. | Largest exporter selected under statute is presumed representative absent record evidence to the contrary; prior segments differ and do not prove unrepresentativeness. | Court: No record showing Stanley's rate is unrepresentative; reliance on Stanley permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory framework contemplates applying investigation methods to administrative reviews)
- Qingdao Sea-Line Trading Co. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (criteria for best available surrogate information)
- Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 866 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir.) (applying investigation methods in NME administrative reviews)
- Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (all‑others rate must bear relationship to investigated margins)
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.) (rebuttable presumption of state control in NME proceedings)
- Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 848 F.3d 1006 (Fed. Cir.) (separate‑rate analysis in NME reviews)
- SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 3d 1254 (CIT) (support for selecting HTS categories that reflect primary material)