Nan Ya Plastics Corp. v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 22
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- This action arises from Commerce’s administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from Taiwan.
- Nan Ya Plastics challenged Commerce’s total Adverse Facts Available (AFA) rate of 74.34% assigned after Nan Ya failed to cooperate in the review.
- Commerce selected 74.34% as Nan Ya’s total AFA rate by corroborating against Shinkong’s margins and by evaluating whether the rate was aberrational.
- Nan Ya argued the rate was an aberration—statistically and practically unsupported by the data.
- The court remands to Commerce for addressing Nan Ya’s statistical arguments and to explain the corroboration framework if the De Ceceo corroboration standard does not apply.
- The remand also requires explanations of statutory standards governing the AFA rate selection and potential reconsideration of corroboration obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 74.34% AFA rate reasonable and properly corroborated? | Nan Ya contends the rate is aberrational and not grounded in Nan Ya’s commercial reality. | Commerce argues the rate is corroborated by Nan Ya’s prior margins and Shinkong’s data, within a margin range. | Remanded for further explanation and reconsideration of corroboration and reasonableness. |
| Does statutory corroboration apply when the AFA rate comes from information obtained in the course of a review? | Nan Ya relies on De Ceceo corroboration; argues the rate must be corroborated. | Commerce asserts corroboration is not required when the AFA rate stems from data obtained in the review. | Remanded to address corroboration framework and statutory standards in the first instance. |
| What standards govern evaluating aberrationality of an AFA rate? | Nan Ya uses IRS interquartile range and standard-deviation analyses to show aberration. | Court should defer to agency discretion in selecting secondary information. | Remand to consider Nan Ya’s statistical arguments under applicable corroboration principles. |
| Should the agency address post hoc rationalizations raised by the agency during litigation? | Court should not rely on post hoc rationalizations. | Agency may defend its decision with explanations in the record. | Court notes remand is appropriate; requires addressing arguments in the first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence and reasonableness standard in agency review)
- Dupont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence and agency deference)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1945) (substantial evidence and reasonableness standard in administrative action)
- De Ceceo Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (corroboration requirements for AFA margins)
- Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (AFA rate must have grounding in commercial reality)
- Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (balancing accuracy and deterrence in AFA selections)
- PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (precedent for corroborated corroboration of AFA margins)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (use of prior margins to corroborate AFA)