Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 3d 1348

Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation of certain steel nails from Oman and selected Oman Fasteners as the mandatory respondent.
Commerce’s Final Determination (May 20, 2015) calculated constructed-value (CV) profit using a third-country company’s (Hitech, Thailand) financial statements under 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(B)(iii) rather than Omani or other home‑market data.
Commerce declined to apply a statutory “profit cap,” finding the record lacked suitable home‑market data for a cap.
Oman Fasteners and Mid Continent challenged aspects of the Final Determination; the court previously remanded two issues for further explanation: (1) Commerce’s reliance on third‑country comparable‑product data over home‑market data for CV profit and (2) Commerce’s refusal to calculate a profit cap.
On remand Commerce explained in greater detail why Hitech’s statements best approximate Oman Fasteners’ production experience and re-affirmed that no reliable profit‑cap source exists on the record.
The Court sustained Commerce’s Remand Redetermination, finding Commerce’s explanations reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce lawfully used Hitech (Thai) financial statements (third‑country, comparable product) to calculate CV profit instead of Omani/home‑market data	Oman Fasteners: statute and prior practice favor home‑market data; third‑country data is less tied to respondent’s actual sales experience and may be tainted	Commerce: CV profit must approximate respondent’s production experience; comparable‑product data can better reflect inputs, capital structure, and costs than unrelated home‑market companies; Hitech is the best available record source	Court sustained: Commerce provided a reasoned, substantial‑evidence explanation that Hitech best approximates Oman Fasteners’ production experience and selection was a “reasonable method.”
Whether Commerce was required to calculate and apply a profit cap	Oman Fasteners: a profit cap is needed to constrain an anomalous CV profit and more accurately reflect Oman Fasteners’ home‑market profit experience	Commerce: no reliable home‑market or other record source exists for a meaningful cap (LSI financials rejected; Omani companies’ data not comparable; other rates unreliable)	Court sustained: Commerce adequately examined record and reasonably concluded no suitable facts‑available profit cap exists; declining to cap is supported by substantial evidence.

Mid Continent Steel & Wire, Inc. v. United States, 203 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (CIT 2017) (prior opinion remanding selection of CV profit data and profit‑cap issue)
Husteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (CIT 2015) (CV profit should approximate respondent’s home‑market profit experience)
Atar S.R.L. v. United States, 730 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (purpose of profit cap is to prevent anomalous CV profit results)