Tianjin MacHinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States
33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1020
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- This action reviews Commerce's final redetermination on antidumping duties for PRC heavy forged hand tools in the thirteenth administrative review, including bars/wedges and picks/mattocks.
- Tianjin I sustained aspects of Commerce's Final Results and remanded issues related to the AFA rates assigned to TMC and Huarong for bars/wedges.
- On remand, Commerce sought to justify the 139.31% AFA rate for TMC and Huarong's bars/wedges with additional, contested factual support and not a formal reopening of the record.
- The court granted remands to evaluate whether the 139.31% rate is reasonably related to the companies and whether a different AFA rate should be used; it also remanded regarding TMC's picks/mattocks AFA rate of 98.77%.
- Commerce ultimately sustained the First Remand Results in part but remanded for new determinations on the AFA rates for Huarong (139.31% found punitive) and for TMC's picks/mattocks (98.77%) with instructions to base rates on commercial reality and a built-in deterrent.
- Remand results were due May 4, 2011, with subsequent briefing timelines set by the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AFA rate for TMC and Huarong bars/wedges | Tianjin argues 139.31% is not reliably linked to their margins | Commerce cites volatility and built-in deterrence as corroboration | Sustained the 139.31% rate despite remands |
| AFA rate for TMC picks/mattocks | 98.77% rate lacks relevance and corroboration to TMC | Rate supported by some corroborating margins and Rhone Poulenc approach | Remanded to choose a lower rate based on commercial reality |
| Use of Rhone Poulenc presumption in corroboration | Presumption cannot replace statutory corroboration requirements | Presumption may be used where appropriate | Court cautions on overreliance; remand to ensure substantial evidence of commercial reality |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (AFA must have grounding in commercial reality; widespread punitive rates rejected)
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Commercial reality requirement; corroboration of AFA margins ensures credibility)
- De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AFA discretion is not unlimited; must avoid punitive, uncorroborated rates)
- PAM S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Selected transactions must reasonably reflect actual margins; corroboration is key)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Presumption cannot replace corroboration; but informs AFA when appropriate)