National Nail Corp. v. United States
2018 CIT 125
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2018Background
- Commerce conducted the first administrative review (2015-2016) of the antidumping order on certain steel nails from Taiwan covering five firms; National Nail is a U.S. importer of nails from Hor Liang (a non-examined company).
- In the preliminary results Commerce assigned Unicatch a 34.20% margin and preliminarily assigned that rate to non-examined firms (Romp, Hor Liang); PT Enterprise and Bonuts received AFA-based margins (78.17%).
- Mid Continent argued in the administrative proceeding that Unicatch’s data should be rejected and that Unicatch should receive an AFA rate.
- In the Final Results Commerce applied adverse facts available (AFA) to Unicatch, PT Enterprise, and Bonuts, assigning each 78.17%, and then assigned that 78.17% rate as the all-others rate for Romp and Hor Liang.
- National Nail did not participate in the administrative review but filed suit in the CIT under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) seeking review of Commerce's calculation of the all-others rate.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing (i) jurisdiction is unavailable because (c) jurisdiction could have been pursued via participation; National Nail conceded it was not pursuing (c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CIT has §1581(i) jurisdiction to review Commerce's Final Results when plaintiff did not participate administratively | National Nail: could not have raised the specific all-others AFA issue in the admin record because Commerce changed the all-others calculation only in the Final Results; §1581(c) remedy would be manifestly inadequate | Government: §1581(i) is a residual jurisdiction that does not apply where §1581(c) could have been used; National Nail could have participated and protected its interests | Court: Dismissed for lack of §1581(i) jurisdiction; (c) could have been available and National Nail did not show (c) would be manifestly inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (jurisdictional threshold must be resolved before merits)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (court must dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Norsk Hydro Can., Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347 (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Shoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Reservation v. United States, 672 F.3d 1021 (court may consider extrinsic evidence when jurisdictional facts disputed)
- Sunpreme Inc. v. United States, 892 F.3d 1186 (§1581(i) is residual; unavailable if §1581(c) could have been used unless (c) remedy manifestly inadequate)
- NEC Corp. v. United States, 806 F.2d 247 (jurisdictional requirements cannot be waived on equitable grounds)
- Int'l Custom Prods., Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1324 (financial harm alone does not make (c) remedy manifestly inadequate)
- Miller & Co. v. United States, 824 F.2d 961 (same principle regarding inadequacy of statutory remedy)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 544 F.3d 1289 (definition and standard for "manifestly inadequate")