Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United States
2013 WL 2364200
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- This ITC case challenges Commerce’s fifth administrative review of the antidumping order on Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables from China, including remand redeterminations.
- Plaintiffs challenge Commerce’s financial statement selection (Infiniti Modules vs. Maximaa; and Omax) and surrogate data used for brokerage and handling, cotton fabric, and labor wage rates.
- On remand, Commerce sustained labor wage rate and cotton fabric valuations but remanded the financial statement selection and brokerage/handling issues for further consideration.
- Commerce initially found Infiniti Modules’ ‘06–‘07 statements publicly available but later determined they were not publicly available; the court remanded to reconcile public-availability standards with Steel Grating guidance and Catfish Farmers.
- Commerce ultimately retained, on remand, the decision to exclude Omax as a surrogate due to its auto-primary focus, while still deferring reconsideration of Maximaa vs Infiniti Modules and B&H methodology.
- The court sustained the cotton fabric surrogate valuation and labor wage rate valuation, and remanded to Commerce to reconsider (a) Maximaa vs Infiniti Modules, (b) container-size and port-nearness effects on B&H, and (c) related calculations, with remand results due by July 30, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public availability standard for Infiniti Modules data | Infiniti data publicly available per prior reviews. | Infiniti data publicly available due to record use and familiarity. | Remanded to reconcile public-availability standard; Infiniti data not sustained as publicly available. |
| Appropriateness of Maximaa vs Infiniti Modules selection | Maximaa more contemporaneous and/or more similar; should be used. | Infiniti Modules data more consistent with long-standing practice and record. | Remand to reconsider which financial statements best represent surrogate values. |
| Omax as surrogate and its relevance | Omax should be considered; it may produce relevant data for ironing tables. | Omax primarily auto producer; not suitable surrogate. | Remand partially sustained; overall exclusion of Omax upheld on the record. |
| Brokerage and handling (B&H) surrogate value methodology | World Bank data may misstate export-related costs; seaport proximity matters. | World Bank data appropriate; container-size adjustments justified; proximity to seaports not material. | Remand to reconsider B&H calculations, including seaport data and container-size adjustments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence standard and reasonableness review in administrative determinations)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (substantial evidence framework and reasonableness in agency findings)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Chevron framework for interpreting statutes in the absence of unambiguous language)
- Catfish Farmers of Am. v. United States, 641 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (CIT 2009) (standard for public availability of surrogate data; use of supplemental information)
- Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co. v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (CIT 2012) (reasonableness of converting B&H data across container sizes; proportionality considerations)
- Home Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 837 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (CIT 2012) (remand procedures and alignment with prior remand determinations)