Tension Steel Indus. Co. v. United States
2017 CIT 84
Ct. Intl. Trade2017Background
- Commerce conducted an antidumping investigation of certain oil country tubular goods from Taiwan and issued a Final Determination denying certain rebate adjustments claimed by respondent Tension Steel.
- Commerce denied rebates it believed were not known to buyers at the time of sale, following its prior practice; Tension challenged that denial in court.
- The Court in Tension Steel I held that Commerce’s practice conflicted with the plain language of Commerce’s regulations (as explained in Papierfabrik) and remanded, directing Commerce to grant Tension’s rebate adjustments.
- On remand, Commerce recalculated Tension’s margin after granting all reported rebates; the resulting weighted-average margin was zero percent.
- Petitioners (Maverick and others) challenged Commerce’s compliance with the remand, urging the court to reject Papierfabrik as an outlier and to reinstate Commerce’s prior discretion to deny rebates not contemplated at time of sale.
- The Court reviewed the remand results, found Commerce reasonably followed the court’s prior order and applicable law, and sustained the Remand Results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce permissibly denied rebate adjustments not known to buyers at time of sale | Tension: Commerce must calculate normal value net of price adjustments reflected in purchaser’s net outlay; rebates properly claimed should be granted | Commerce/Petitioners: Prior practice allowed denial of rebates not contemplated at sale to prevent manipulation; Papierfabrik is wrongly decided | Court: Followed Papierfabrik; remand compliance was required and Commerce reasonably granted the rebates |
| Whether Papierfabrik is an outlier and should not govern this case | Maverick: Papierfabrik departs from prior precedent and unlawfully restricts Commerce’s discretion | Government/Maverick: Commerce retained discretion to require proof and deny suspect rebates | Court: Rejected Maverick’s attempt to relitigate; concluded cited precedents are inapplicable or distinguishable and upheld Papierfabrik’s reasoning |
| Whether the record supports Commerce’s Remand Results | Maverick: Commerce failed to explain how record supports granting all rebates | Commerce: Followed court order and noted record verification of rebate amounts | Court: Found Commerce’s action reasonable given the record (including on-site verification) and sustained Remand Results |
| Whether claimed rebates posed risk of manipulation or were illusory | Maverick: argued broad authority exists to reject potentially manipulable rebates | Tension: rebates were documented and verified; no evidence of manipulation | Court: No finding of manipulation; record showed verification, so rebates accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for substantial-evidence review of Commerce determinations)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (Sup. Ct.) (substantiality of evidence must consider record that detracts from its weight)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence and review scope)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (Sup. Ct.) (administrative findings permissible despite possible inconsistent conclusions)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (Sup. Ct.) (quoted on substantial-evidence standard)