Nat'l Nail Corp. v. United States
2018 CIT 1
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2018Background
- Consolidated ITC challenge to Commerce Final Results for the sixth review of steel nails from PRC (Aug 1, 2013–Jul 31, 2014).
- Commerce assigned Shandong Oriental Cherry to PRC-wide rate (118.04%) based on adverse facts available (AFA) and collapsed Shandong with five affiliates.
- Commerce found Shandong ineligible for a separate rate due to incomplete/unreliable Section C/D responses; used separate-rate information only for collapsing analysis.
- Commerce declined to determine absence of government control for Shandong in the separate-rate review, despite finding complete evidence for collapsing.
- Plaintiffs (National Nail and Shandong) challenge AFA use and PRC-wide assignment, seeking remand for a separate-rate determination if warranted.
- Court grants remand to reassess Shandong’s eligibility for a separate rate, and to determine a separate rate if appropriate within 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly denied a separate rate for Shandong. | Shandong eligibility for a separate rate supported by record. | AFA applied due to incomplete/unreliable responses, justifying PRC-wide rate. | Remand required to reassess separate-rate eligibility. |
| Whether AFA can be used for Shandong’s separate-rate determination based on other incomplete data. | AFA should not taint separate-rate analysis if independent rate information exists. | AFA from C/D responses affects overall adequacy, including separate-rate data. | Remand to separate analysis; cannot rely on AFA to negate separate-rate data without specific deficiencies. |
| Whether Commerce's collapse of Shandong with affiliates affects liability for separate rate. | Collapse evidence supports independence from government control. | Collapsing justification supports lack of separate rate. | Remand to evaluate de jure/de facto control independently of collapse finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (AFA and best-of-ability standards govern agency determinations)
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (NME separate-rate presumption and rebuttal standards)
- Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (CIT 2005) (record facts may support collapsing without tainting separate-rate data)
- QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Commerce relies on information submissions to build the record; burden on parties to supply complete facts)
- Qingdao Taifa Group Co. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. 2009) (review standards for NME antidumping and separate-rate determinations)