The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. v. United States
2017 CIT 156
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2017Background
- Commerce completed the fourth administrative antidumping review of Certain Steel Nails from the PRC and assigned Stanley (The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.) a weighted-average dumping margin of 3.92% using a mixed average-to-transaction (A‑to‑T) / average-to-average (A‑to‑A) methodology following its differential pricing analysis.
- The differential pricing analysis consists of three parts: the Cohen’s d test (CDT) to detect groups of U.S. sales that differ in price, a Ratio Test (value thresholds 0–33%, >33–66%, ≥66%) to determine coverage, and the Meaningful Difference Test comparing margins under A‑to‑A vs. mixed methodology (25% relative change or movement across de minimis).
- Stanley challenged Commerce’s use and implementation of the CDT, the Meaningful Difference Test, and argued Commerce violated 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(f) (2008) by initiating targeted‑dumping analysis without an allegation and using non‑standard statistics.
- The court stayed proceedings pending related Federal Circuit decisions (Mid Continent, Apex I/II), received supplemental briefing, and held oral argument before issuing its opinion.
- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s Final Results and denied Stanley’s motion for judgment on the agency record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of differential‑pricing / use of A‑to‑T in administrative reviews | Stanley: Statute does not authorize targeted‑dumping (A‑to‑T) in reviews; differential pricing conflicts with congressional intent | U.S.: Commerce may fill statutory gaps; A‑to‑T in reviews is authorized and reasonable | Court: A‑to‑T and differential pricing are lawful; JBF RAK and Chevron deference apply; held reasonable |
| Validity of Cohen’s d test (CDT) for identifying price patterns | Stanley: CDT is inappropriate (designed for sample inference; thresholds arbitrary; should require statistical significance) | U.S.: CDT reasonably measures effect size; Commerce explained thresholds and application; statistical significance not required when full population known | Court: CDT reasonably applied; Commerce provided adequate explanation; not arbitrary |
| Application of Meaningful Difference Test / whether Commerce explained why A‑to‑A cannot account for differences | Stanley: Test does not explain why A‑to‑A cannot account for patterns; Commerce compared at different aggregation levels (CONNUM vs. total sales) | U.S.: Stanley failed to raise this specific challenge administratively; Commerce had not been afforded chance to address it | Court: Stanley failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to the aggregation/Meaningful Difference issue; court declined to reach merits |
| Applicability of 19 C.F.R. § 351.414(f)(1)(i) and (f)(3) (2008) to administrative reviews | Stanley: Those regulatory provisions (standard statistical techniques; allegations requirement) apply to reviews and were violated | U.S.: The provisions apply to investigations, not reviews; Stanley lacks viable claim | Court: Section 351.414(f) subsections cited apply to investigations and do not govern this administrative review; Stanley’s arguments fail; Stanley has standing but no entitlement to relief on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (upholding differential‑pricing framework principles and reviewing Commerce’s Meaningful Difference Test issues on related facts)
- Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 846 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (addressing Commerce’s repeal of the Limiting Regulation and rulemaking requirements)
- JBF RAK LLC v. United States, 790 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (confirming Commerce may apply A‑to‑T methodology in reviews and fill statutory gaps)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference framework for statutory interpretation)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency must provide reasoned explanation for discretionary actions)