2011 WL 2466202
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Schaeffler Italia and Schaeffler Group USA challenge Commerce's Final Results assigning Schaeffler Italia a 15.10% dumping margin in the 19th Italy review, based on SKF's margin.
- Commerce did not examine Schaeffler Italia individually; the Final Results applied SKF's rate to Schaeffler Italia as the sole non-selected respondent.
- The POR is May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008.
- Commerce initiated reviews for multiple respondents; SKF was the only one examined; Schaeffler Italia was not selected for individual examination.
- Plaintiffs argued the 15.10% rate was unlawful, unreasonable, and inequitable compared to Schaeffler Italia’s prior (1.57%) rate; plaintiffs also argued exhaustion and remand issues.
- Court holds that under 777A(c)(2) the Department had no lawful alternative but to assign a margin based on an examination of Schaeffler Italia, and ultimately denies remand relief and judgment for the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15.10% rate for Schaeffler Italia violated the statute | Schaeffler Italia argues the rate is unlawful and unrepresentative | Commerce used SKF's rate as the basis due to non-exhaustive selection | Rate based on SKF applied to Schaeffler Italia was unlawful as applied |
| Whether the court should remand to calculate an individual margin for Schaeffler Italia | Remand to use Schaeffler Italia's POR sales to determine its own rate | No remand because statutory mechanism requires current margin assignment | Remand denied; no statutory basis for a different margin |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies forecloses challenge | Schaeffler Italia preserves the right to challenge the non-examination ground on remand | Plaintiffs withdrew voluntary respondent request and thus failed to exhaust | Exhaustion bars challenge on the individual examination ground |
| Whether the court should grant any other form of relief | Seek relief to adopt a more representative rate | No relief possible without violating statute or deferring to Commerce | No alternative relief warranted; court declines broader remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhejiang Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 33 CIT _, 637 F.Supp.2d 1260 (2009) (limits on interpreting 'reasonable number' under 777A(c)(2))
- Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. United States, 33 CIT _, 662 F.Supp.2d 1337 (2009) ( Chevron deference applied to agency statutory construction)
- Asahi Seiko Co. v. United States, 34 CIT _, 751 F.Supp.2d 1335 (2010) (exhaustion doctrine and administrative remedies)
- Asahi Seiko Co. v. United States, 35 CIT _, 755 F.Supp.2d 1316 (2011) (exhaustion and remand considerations)