Mukand, Ltd. v. United States, 767 F.3d 1300

Mukand appeals a Court of International Trade decision affirming Commerce's application of adverse facts available (AFA) in an antidumping duty calculation on stainless steel bar from India.
Commerce applied AFA after Mukand failed to provide production cost data broken down by size despite five questionnaires during a February 1, 2009–January 31, 2010 administrative review.
Product size is a significant product characteristic for dumping-margin calculations; Commerce sought size-specific cost data to differentiate products and compute accurate constructed values.
Mukand initially reported identical costs across sizes and repeatedly asserted size-based costs were not reasonably available without detailed substantiation; Commerce warned that failure to supply could lead to AFA.
Mukand did not contact Commerce for clarification and only provided size-specific data after preliminary results were issued, prompting Commerce to sustain AFA and set a 21.02% rate; the Trade Court and this court affirmed.
The court reviews for substantial evidence and de novo, upholding Commerce’s use of total AFA due to Mukand's incomplete, non-cooperative responses across multiple questionnaires.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was AFA justified for Mukand's conduct?	Mukand argues it cooperated to the best of its ability.	Commerce properly resorted to AFA due to repeated noncooperation and incomplete data.	Yes; substantial evidence supports AFA due to repeated failure to provide size-specific costs.
Should partial AFA have been used instead of total AFA?	Mukand contends only a portion of data was deficient.	Deficiencies were core to the analysis and not limited to discrete data; total AFA appropriate.	No; total AFA supported by substantial evidence because size-specific costs were essential to all calculations.
Did Mukand’s late production of size-specific data after preliminary results affect the outcome?	Mukand argues data produced late should have mitigated the deficiency.	Late data does not remedy earlier failures and cannot cure overall record deficiencies.	No; late data did not negate the substantial cooperation shortfall or the need for AFA.
Is the standard of review properly applied to Commerce’s use of AFA?	Review should defer more to Mukand's explanations and interpretations.	Administrative record supports AFA; substantial evidence standard applied correctly.	Yes; the court affirms under de novo review with respect to legal standard and substantial-evidence support.

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (best-of-its-ability standard for cooperation in antidumping)
Sango Int’l L.P. v. United States, 567 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence review in antidumping cases)
Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 548 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (guidance on substantial evidence review)
Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court 1966) (scope of judicial review in administrative actions)
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 1994 (1994) (URAA administrative-action guidance on adverse-inference purposes)