965 F.3d 1320
Fed. Cir.2020Background
- AK Steel filed a petition leading Commerce to investigate corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) from Taiwan for the POI April 1, 2014–March 31, 2015.
- Commerce selected Prosperity and Yieh as mandatory respondents; both disclosed affiliation with Synn; Commerce initially collapsed Yieh and Synn and later collapsed Prosperity, Yieh, and Synn together for the final determination.
- Commerce’s collapsing finding produced a double-digit dumping margin in the Final Determination; the Trade Court vacated and remanded in Prosperity I for reliance on out‑of‑POI evidence and directed Commerce to redo its collapse analysis.
- On remand Commerce relied only on the Prosperity–Synn relationship (20% ownership, board overlap, tolling/galvanizing agreement, purchase/sale activity) and re‑collapsed all three; the Trade Court affirmed that remand determination.
- Commerce also found Prosperity misreported product “minimum specified yield strength” and applied adverse facts available; the Trade Court in Prosperity I had earlier rejected that finding as based on ambiguous instructions, leading Commerce on remand to recalculate margins without adverse facts.
- The Federal Circuit held Commerce’s collapse decision unlawful because it failed to evaluate the totality of circumstances among all entities being collapsed, but it upheld Commerce’s finding that Prosperity misreported yield strength; the case is vacated and remanded to the Trade Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce must evaluate § 351.401(f) factors across all entities when collapsing multiple affiliated firms | Prosperity/Yieh: Once two firms are collapsed, Commerce may treat that collapsed unit as a single entity and need only analyze relationships to that collapsed unit (i.e., analyze Prosperity → Yieh/Synn) | Commerce/United States: Not required to analyze every pair; it permissibly focused on Prosperity→Synn evidence to justify collapsing all three | Held: Error. Commerce must consider the totality of circumstances among all entities being collapsed (either each pair or each entity’s relation to an already‑collapsed unit). Collapse vacated and remanded |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Commerce’s finding that Prosperity misreported yield strength (warranting adverse facts) | Prosperity (and Trade Court in Prosperity I): Questionnaire ambiguous; Prosperity’s internal method was a reasonable interpretation, so data should be accepted | AK Steel/Commerce: Questionnaire and examples referenced ASTM industry standards; Prosperity’s records use ASTM specs; evidence supports misreporting and noncompliance | Held: Substantial evidence supports Commerce. The Trade Court erred to reverse; that aspect of its judgment vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Commerce may treat related entities as a single entity for antidumping calculations)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (collapsing determinations depend on totality of the facts)
- Zhaging New Zhongya Aluminum Co. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1298 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2015) (totality of the circumstances approach in collapsing analyses)
- Bell Supply Co., LLC v. United States, 348 F. Supp. 3d 1281 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2018) (Commerce must explain how each collapsing factor weighs in the totality analysis)
- Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (totality of circumstances requires evaluation of all pertinent evidence)
- Continental Plastic Containers v. Owens Brockway Plastic Prod., Inc., 141 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (totality of circumstances is assessed across all relevant facts)
- AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (discussed by parties regarding treatment of already‑collapsed entities)