Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States, 37 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2622

Nan Ya, a Taiwanese PET film exporter, challenged Commerce’s final results of the 2010–2011 administrative review, arguing Commerce improperly applied the average-to-transaction (A-T) comparison method after finding "targeted" (masked) dumping.
Petitioners alleged Nan Ya engaged in targeted dumping; Commerce did not analyze targeted dumping for the Preliminary Results but did so post-preliminary and in the Final Results using the Nails test and then applied A-T, raising Nan Ya’s margin from ~5.20% (A-A prelim) to 8.99 (final).
Nan Ya presented record evidence (and Commerce’s own preliminary findings) showing its U.S. price fluctuations correlated with raw-material cost changes and argued those cost-driven price changes were not targeted dumping.
Commerce concluded the statute requires only identification of a pattern of prices differing significantly by purchaser/region/time and an explanation why A-A cannot account for it; it declined to inquire into the causes (e.g., raw-material costs).
The court reviewed the statutory text, administrative record, and controlling Federal Circuit authority and sustained Commerce’s Final Results, denying Nan Ya’s motion for judgment on the agency record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce must consider causation (e.g., cost changes) when conducting targeted-dumping analysis under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f‑1(d)(1)(B)	Nan Ya: Commerce must consider and weigh record evidence showing price patterns were due to raw-material cost fluctuations, not selective pricing; ignoring that renders the determination unsupported by substantial evidence	Gov./Domestic producers: The statute requires only identification of a pattern of prices differing significantly and an explanation why A-A cannot account for it; causation need not be determined	Court: Held Commerce is not required to determine why a pattern exists; substantial-evidence review sustains Commerce’s approach (citing controlling Fed. Cir. precedent)
Whether Commerce reasonably applied A‑T after finding a meaningful difference between A‑A and A‑T results	Nan Ya: A‑T was improperly applied to sales that reflected legitimate commercial price adjustments tied to costs	Gov./Domestic producers: Nails test showed significant differences by period/purchaser and A‑A could not account for them; A‑T application was permissible	Court: Upheld Commerce’s finding and A‑T application as consistent with statute and precedent

Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir.) (defines dumping and discusses A‑A masking effect)
JBF RAK LLC v. United States, 790 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.) (holds statute does not require Commerce to determine reasons for pricing pattern)
Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir.) (explains masked dumping and rationale for A‑T use)
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S.) (defines substantial evidence standard)
Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.) (Chevron deference discussion)
NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 557 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir.) (agency explanation and substantial‑evidence framework)
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1286 (CIT) (discusses why A‑T may be necessary when A‑A masks targeted dumping)