Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United States, 2014 WL 1426444

Background

This consolidated action challenges Commerce’s fifth administrative review of the antidumping order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables from China; plaintiffs are Since Hardware and Foshan Shunde.
Central administrative choices at issue: (1) selection of an Indian company financial statement (Infiniti Modules) to calculate surrogate financial ratios (and rejection of Maximaa), and (2) Commerce’s valuation method for brokerage & handling (B&H) surrogate costs using World Bank "Doing Business 2010: India" data.
On prior remand proceedings the court found Commerce’s initial public-availability justification for Infiniti unreasonable and directed further explanation; Commerce issued two remand results.
The record contains Doing Business data for Mumbai and subnational reports for 16 other Indian cities; Commerce used the Mumbai-only $645 per-20ft-container baseline (excluding inland transport) and converted to a per-kilogram B&H rate using Foshan Shunde’s estimated 20-ft container weight and other adjustments.
Foshan Shunde raised multiple objections to the B&H calculation: (a) Mumbai-only $645 is not the best available proxy given 16 other equal-quality city data points; (b) Commerce’s choice of a 50% increase for ports/terminal handling from 20ft to 40ft containers is unsupported (record shows increases as low as 30%); (c) Commerce ignored bill-of-lading evidence that document-prep and customs-clearance fees occur only once per ~6.2 containers; (d) Commerce’s use of an estimated 20-ft weight to convert per-container costs to per-kilogram is unsupported.
The court sustains Commerce’s selection of the Infiniti Modules financial statements and rejection of Maximaa, but remands the B&H calculation for reconsideration and instructs Commerce to prepare a clear public summary of its B&H computation; the zeroing issue was also remanded for Commerce to address.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Selection of Infiniti Modules financial statements	Infiniti statements are not publicly available; Commerce previously mischaracterized availability	Commerce: Infiniti has been used on public records in prior proceedings and parties had access and comment; public-availability standard applied reasonably on remand	Sustained: Commerce’s Second Remand reasonably justified reliance on Infiniti given prior use and party familiarity
Rejection of Maximaa financial statements	Respondents argued Maximaa suitable and should be included	Commerce: record evidence shows Maximaa transitioning lines of business and other defects; petitioner rebutted Maximaa’s suitability	Sustained: Commerce reasonably rejected Maximaa; record not developed to require its use
Use of Mumbai-only $645 Doing Business value as B&H baseline	Mumbai-only is unrepresentative; record contains 16 additional equal-quality city data points and the 17-city average is more representative	Commerce: World Bank design gives prominence to largest port city; decline to second-guess Doing Business statistical assumptions	Not sustained: Court requires Commerce to use the broader 17-city data (or otherwise justify not doing so); Mumbai-only is not reasonable as the baseline
Components and conversions in B&H formula (50% ports increase; per-container vs per-kg; bill-of-lading frequency)	50% multiplier is the high end; evidence supports ~30–50% so Commerce should use a reasonable average (e.g., 1.4); documentary evidence shows doc/customs fees apply per ~6.2 containers; per-kg conversion is unsupported because Doing Business reports per-container fees	Commerce: treated the three components discretely, used available rate schedules to inform ports handling increase, and converted per-container data to per-kg using Foshan Shunde’s estimated 20-ft weight	Partially sustained/ remanded: Court rejects the unreasoned selection of the 50% increase and requires Commerce to reconsider and adopt a reasonable multiplier (e.g., average); Commerce must address the bill-of-lading evidence (apply 1/6.2 if supported) and stop relying on an unsupported per-kg relationship or else use Foshan Shunde’s actual 40-ft weight or average units-per-container instead

Key Cases Cited

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (describing substantial-evidence review of agency determinations)
Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S.) (defining substantial evidence standard)
Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S.) (agency findings may be supported even with two inconsistent inferences)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S.) (two-step framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretation)
United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (U.S.) (Commerce deference in antidumping context)
Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir.) (adverse facts available context; use of built-in increase sustained when supported)
QVD Food Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir.) (parties bear burden to develop administrative record)
Am. Silicon Techs. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1033 (Fed. Cir.) (remand scope and Commerce’s ability to collect/analyze data)
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (U.S.) (deference to agency reasonable interpretations)