Mueller Comercial De Mexico, S. De R.L. De C v. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9884
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Commerce reviewed antidumping duties on circular welded non‑alloy steel pipe from Mexico for Nov. 1, 2008–Oct. 31, 2009; Mueller (exporter/importer) sold pipe in the U.S. mostly purchased from two Mexican suppliers, TUNA and Ternium.
- Ternium failed to provide product‑specific cost‑of‑production data requested by Commerce; TUNA provided detailed cost data and fully cooperated.
- Commerce used facts‑available under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) and substituted TUNA data for missing Ternium data, but instead of using the full TUNA dataset it relied on three TUNA transactions that produced a much higher dumping margin for Mueller (final rate 19.81%; preliminary was 4.81%).
- Commerce had previously assigned Ternium an AFA rate of 48.33% under § 1677e(b) for Ternium’s own failure to cooperate; Mueller fully cooperated but challenged Commerce’s use of selective TUNA data tied to Ternium’s non‑cooperation.
- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s Final Results; Mueller appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding Commerce’s accuracy rationale unsupported but permitting consideration of inducement/evasion policy factors if applied reasonably.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce permissibly used only three least‑favorable TUNA transactions (rather than full TUNA data) as facts otherwise available to calculate Mueller’s rate | Mueller: Commerce arbitrarily "cherry‑picked" a small unfavorable subset; no substantial evidence supports accuracy claim | Commerce: using the three transactions best approximated Ternium costs and produced the most accurate rate for Mueller | Court: Commerce’s ‘‘accuracy’’ justification was unsupported by substantial evidence; selection must be reassessed on remand |
| Whether Commerce may consider deterrence/inducement/evasion policies when choosing facts otherwise available under § 1677e(a) for a cooperating party | Mueller: Such deterrence rationales amount to AFA and are improper for a cooperating party under Changzhou | Commerce: Policy considerations (to induce Ternium cooperation and prevent evasion via Mueller) legitimately inform choice of surrogate facts under (a) | Held: Commerce may consider inducement/evasion policies under § 1677e(a) but must prioritize accuracy and apply those policies reasonably and case‑specifically |
| Whether collateral effects of adverse inferences against a non‑cooperator can lawfully affect a cooperating party’s rate | Mueller: It’s unfair to penalize a cooperating party based on another’s non‑cooperation | Commerce: Collateral consequences are permissible to prevent evasion and induce cooperation | Held: Collateral effects are not categorically barred; they may be considered but must be reasonable and not subordinate accuracy for cooperating parties |
| Remedy and burden on remand | Mueller: Remand to recalculate using full TUNA data or other reasonable surrogate | Commerce: Maintain final rate based on its selection and policy rationales | Held: Vacated and remanded for Commerce to recalculate Mueller’s rate consistent with opinion—accuracy must prevail, but inducement/evasion may be weighed reasonably |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishes use of subsections (a) and (b) for facts available and AFA)
- Nippon Steel v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.) (Commerce must use other information when requested information is missing)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (U.S.) (agency must rely on the rationales it actually invoked)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (U.S.) (deference to reasonable agency interpretation under Chevron)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.) (agency interpretations get deference when reasonable)
- F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir.) (AFA should aim for reasonably accurate estimate with deterrent element for non‑cooperators)
- Changzhou Wujin Fine Chem. Factory v. United States, 701 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (for cooperating parties, deterrence cannot dominate accuracy; case‑specific analysis required)
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir.) (importer may be able to induce exporter’s cooperation; evasion concerns justify certain agency choices)
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.) (unfair to apply adverse inferences when cooperating party lacks control over non‑cooperator)
- ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 482 U.S. 270 (U.S.) (administrative law principles on agency decisionmaking)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 95 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory constraints on agency selections)