2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 85
Ct. Int'l Trade2017Background
- This case reviews Commerce’s remand determination in the antidumping investigation of certain oil country tubular goods from Taiwan, specifically whether reported customer rebates should be allowed in the antidumping calculation.
- Tension Steel (the respondent) reported rebate adjustments; Commerce originally rejected rebates not shown by contracts to be known to buyers at time of sale.
- The court in Tension Steel I found that Commerce’s practice conflicted with the plain language of Commerce regulations and Papierfabrik, and remanded directing Commerce to grant Tension’s rebates.
- On remand, Commerce recalculated margins by granting all reported rebates; the recalculated weighted-average margin for Tension became zero percent.
- Petitioners (led by Maverick) challenged Commerce’s compliance with the remand, arguing Papierfabrik is an outlier and that Commerce has discretion to deny rebates not evidenced as contemplated at sale.
- The Court sustained Commerce’s Remand Results, refusing to revisit its prior ruling and concluding Commerce reasonably complied with the remand order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce must grant rebate adjustments when rebates were not explicitly in sales contracts or shown to be known at time of sale | Maverick: Papierfabrik is an outlier; Commerce may deny rebates absent evidence they were contemplated at sale to prevent manipulation | Commerce/Respondent: Commerce followed the court’s remand and granted rebates consistent with Papierfabrik and the regulations | Court: Sustains remand — follows Papierfabrik; Commerce reasonably granted rebates and complied with remand |
| Whether Commerce sufficiently explained how the record supports granting rebates on remand | Maverick: Commerce failed to explain record support for granting rebates | Commerce: It complied with the remand order and acknowledged petitioner objections, relying on verified record evidence | Court: Maverick’s claim lacks merit; Commerce’s obedience to remand and reliance on verified record is reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States, 971 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (CIT 2014) (interpreting Commerce’s regulation to require rebate adjustments reflected in purchaser’s net outlay)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standard for substantial-evidence review of agency action)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantiality of evidence requires accounting for record detractors)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (agency findings may be supported even if record permits alternative conclusions)