Nantong Uniphos Chems. Co., Ltd. v. United States
2017 CIT 131
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Nantong Uniphos et al.) sued under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) to challenge Commerce’s final affirmative antidumping determination on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1‑diphosphonic acid from China and related agency memoranda.
- The complaint alleges seven counts; defendant moved under USCIT Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement as to Counts Three, Five, and Six.
- Count Three broadly alleges Commerce applied “excessive and improper” adjustments to surrogate data, overstating surrogate values, without identifying which values or adjustments.
- Count Five alleges Commerce “mis-apprehended” key facts and made decisions contrary to the record, but does not identify the facts or decisions.
- Count Six alleges Commerce’s antidumping duty deposit rate calculation was unlawful and unsupported, but offers only conclusory legal assertions.
- The court found these counts insufficiently particularized, granted the motion for a more definite statement, and ordered plaintiffs to specify the particular surrogate values and adjustments (Count Three), the key facts misapprehended (Count Five), and the legal grounds for contesting the deposit rate calculation (Count Six). Plaintiffs were given deadlines to file the more definite statement or amended complaint and to submit a revised joint status report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts Three, Five, Six meet Rule 8 pleading requirements | Plaintiffs argued additional factual detail is unnecessary and counts can be read with the complaint as a whole | Defendant argued counts are vague, bald assertions that prevent fair notice and impede preparation and case scheduling | Court held counts are too conclusory and granted motion for a more definite statement; ordered plaintiffs to specify details for each count |
| Whether Iqbal/Twombly permit the level of detail plaintiffs provided | Plaintiffs argued Iqbal does not require ‘‘detailed factual allegations’’ and their allegations suffice | Defendant relied on Iqbal/Twombly to say labels-and-conclusions are insufficient | Court applied Iqbal/Twombly: plaintiffs must provide factual enhancement beyond naked assertions; their allegations failed that standard |
| Whether the special posture of an administrative-record appeal relaxes pleading specificity | Plaintiffs suggested they need not plead details because agency record development differs from standard litigation | Defendant argued plaintiffs already have the administrative record and must plead specific claims | Court emphasized plaintiffs participated in the agency record and thus must plead with specificity; §1581(c) posture supports higher specificity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain more than labels and conclusions; factual enhancement required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must give defendant fair notice and factual allegations must raise claim above speculative level)
- Sioux Honey Ass’n v. United States, 672 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (applies Twombly standard; factual allegations must raise right to relief above speculative level)