The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co. v. United States
964 F. Supp. 2d 1311
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Consolidated action challenging first administrative review of PRC steel nails antidumping duty order.
- Commerce denied intermediate input methodology, declined adverse facts available, and selected surrogate financial ratios and electricity values.
- Commerce issued Final Results and Amended Final Results; Stanley challenged several conclusions.
- Government moved for partial voluntary remand to reconsider surrogate financial ratios in light of new agency practice.
- Court granted remand and denied Stanley’s and Mid Continent’s motions on certain issues; ruling partially in favor of Mid Continent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intermediate input methodology was required | Mid Continent urged intermediate input use due to missing data | Commerce properly applied factors of production data; exceptions not met | Not required; intermediate input not applicable |
| Whether adverse facts available should have been used | Mid Continent contends missing data warrants adverse VA | Stanley cooperated; no basis for adverse VA | Adverse VA not warranted; neutral facts used |
| Surrogate financial ratios data source selection | Stanley argued Lakshmi/Sundram preferable; Sundram inconsistent data | Bansidhar, J&K, Nasco provide best nails-related ratios | Remand granted to reconsider surrogate financial ratio selection |
| Surrogate electricity valuation source | Mid Continent argues 2009 data more contemporaneous and accurate | 2008 data deemed more contemporaneous; selection justified | Remand warranted to clarify contemporaneity rationale and consider best information |
| Ministerial error claim by Stanley | Commerce failed to correct an error in converting weight bases | Stanley failed to exhaust administrative remedies; no ministerial error remedy here | Claim rejected for lack of exhaustion; remand already granted on other issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (discretion in surrogate value methodology; reasonableness standard)
- Ningbo Dafa Chem. Fiber Co. v. United States, 580 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (best available information in valuing factors of production)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (exhaustion of ministerial error remedies; timing of objections)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1983) (agency action must be rationally explainable; not perfect but discernable)
- Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (context for remand/disposition in antidumping actions)