755 F. Supp. 2d 1304
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Union contests Commerce's Final Results of the 14th administrative review of CORE from Korea, which assigned a 7.56% dumping margin.
- Union challenges Commerce's calculation of G&A and interest expense ratios using Union's 2007 financial statements instead of 2006.
- Union disputes Commerce's model match methodology, arguing laminated CORE should not be treated as identical to painted CORE for matching.
- Union challenges Commerce's zeroing of margins under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35) in the Final Results, including the Section 123 context.
- The court determines Commerce acted lawfully on G&A/interest ratios, grants remand on the model match issue, and affirms zeroing.
- Remand instructions direct Commerce to review and reconsider the model match methodology, potentially reclassify laminates, with a 90-day remand period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of G&A/interest data selection | Union argues 2006 statements should be used. | Union's 2007 statements more closely match the POR. | Commerce acted reasonably; use of 2007 statements affirmed. |
| Remand on model match for laminated CORE | Laminate CORE should be a separate type category from painted CORE. | No separate type category; existing methodology supported by record. | Remand granted to review and reconsider model match methodology. |
| Lawfulness of zeroing in final results | Section 123 interpretation requires new review of zeroing; WTO dispute on zeroing. | Zeroing upheld by binding circuit precedent. | Zeroing upheld; consistent with binding precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (upholds zeroing in administrative reviews)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (zeroing in reviews sustained)
- NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (zeroing rationale in reviews affirmed)
- Union Steel Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 645 F.Supp.2d 1298 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009) (precedent on model-match and laminates in prior panel)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 395 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (treaties/WT0 implications for statutory interpretation)