36 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1573
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- This consolidated action challenges Commerce’s fifth administrative review of antidumping duties on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables from China; the court reviews Commerce’s Third Remand Results after multiple prior remands.
- Central contested items: Commerce’s surrogate valuation for brokerage & handling (B&H), whether B&H should account for bill-of-lading frequency (document preparation/customs clearance), Commerce’s use of zeroing in an NME administrative review, and a 20ft-to-40ft container cost conversion factor.
- Commerce initially used a $645 World Bank data point (believed to be a 17-city average) for B&H; later record showed $645 was a Mumbai-only figure and the 17-city average was $473.94.
- The court directed Commerce to use the $473.94 17-city average as the best available information in a prior remand; Commerce implemented it on the third remand but did so under protest and provided new rationale favoring the $645 Mumbai data.
- Foshan Shunde argued Commerce should further adjust B&H to reflect that document preparation/customs clearance costs were incurred only once per ~6.2 containers; Commerce rejected that adjustment as unsupported and unreliable.
- The court (Judge Gordon) sustained Commerce’s Third Remand Results, denied Home Products’ motion for reconsideration, upheld zeroing in the administrative review, and vacated/then sustained the container conversion holding as appropriate on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| B&H baseline selection | Foshan/Since Hardware: $645 was mischaracterized; court should direct use of $473.94 17-city average as best available | Commerce: $645 (Mumbai) is more reliable and comparable; prefers single-city data due to update frequency and port activity | Court sustained Third Remand Results using $473.94; found Commerce’s late shift to reliability/single-city comparability arbitrary given prior record and selection criteria focused on a broad market average |
| Document preparation & customs clearance frequency (bill of lading) | Foshan: World Bank data excludes multi-container bills; record supports adjusting B&H to reflect fees incurred once per ~6.2 containers | Commerce: World Bank metric is aggregate and does not permit that specific adjustment; Foshan’s 6.2 figure based on a small, unreliable sample | Court sustained Commerce’s refusal to adjust; Commerce reasonably found the World Bank figure not specific and Foshan’s sample unreliable |
| Zeroing in NME administrative review | Foshan: Union Steel inapplicable; zeroing here is unreasonable and disadvantages NME respondents because normal values are yearly averages | Commerce: Zeroing justified under Union Steel; A-to-T methodology and transaction-specific export prices justify zeroing even in NME reviews | Court sustained Commerce’s use of zeroing, adopting Union Steel’s rationale that A-to-T with transaction-specific export prices can reveal masked dumping and is a reasonable interpretation under Chevron |
| Container-size conversion factor & Home Products’ motion for reconsideration | Home Products: Commerce should use $645 when computing Foshan’s B&H; also sought reconsideration re: conversion factor | Commerce/Pls: Court had directed use of 17-city average; conversion factor previously contested | Court denied Home Products’ reconsideration; vacated portion of prior opinion on conversion factor and sustained Commerce’s 50% conversion in Second/Third Remand Results |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (establishes two-step framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretation)
- Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (upheld zeroing in administrative reviews under A-to-T methodology as a reasonable interpretation)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (administrative determinations reviewed for reasonableness/substantial evidence)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (Supreme Court 1938) (quoted definition of substantial evidence)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (Commerce’s interpretations govern absent unambiguous statutory language)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. v. United States, 738 F.3d 1320 (argument-waiver principle for undeveloped briefing)