836 F. Supp. 2d 1382
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- Union challenged Commerce Final Results of the 14th CORE review, including a 7.56% dumping margin.
- The court previously held zeroing lawful in Union Steel II and ordered remand to reconsider model-match for laminated CORE.
- Commerce on remand found laminated CORE and non-laminated painted CORE are not identical in physical characteristics and lowered Union’s margin to 7.45%.
- Union challenged the remand decision; Dongbu and related cases prompted reconsideration of zeroing.
- The court ordered a second remand to explain or revise zeroing consistent with Dongbu/JTEKT, and Commerce must file within 60 days.
- Commerce later noted it would cease using zeroing in antidumping reviews.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laminated CORE may be deemed identical to non-laminated painted CORE | Union argues laminates and paints are not identical; should be same category | Commerce found material differences and commercial significance | Laminate and non-laminate are not identical; remand affirmed the revised model-match |
| Whether the remand redetermination properly changed the model-match methodology | Union supports the change based on court remand; seeks proper record-based justification | Remand justified by substantial evidence and court order | Remand redetermination upheld; methodology revised as required |
| Whether the court should reconsider the use of zeroing | Dongbu/JTEKT require explanation or reversal of zeroing in reviews | Existing law permitted zeroing in reviews prior to Dongbu/JTEKT; no reconsideration | Court grants reconsideration; orders second remand to explain or revise zeroing per Dongbu/JTEKT |
Key Cases Cited
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (industry-wide standards insufficient to prove minor differences)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (remand to explain inconsistent § 1677(35) interpretation in investigations vs. reviews)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding improper explanation for § 1677(35) interpretation; requires remand)