Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 1:18-cv-00113

Background

Commerce conducted a changed‑circumstances review (initiated 2016) of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel (SS) bar from India after Petitioners alleged Venus Wire resumed dumping.
Venus previously received a partial revocation (2011) and reported using SS wire rod and SS "black bar"/SS rounds as inputs to produce SS bar sold in the U.S.
In the Final Results Commerce applied the “NWR” (narrow woven ribbons) style test to identify the producer, concluded Venus was not the producer of SS bar made from SS rounds (its unaffiliated suppliers were), reinstated Venus in the order, and assigned Venus a 30.92% margin using total adverse facts available (AFA).
The Court (Venus I) remanded, asking Commerce to explain why it used the NWR test instead of the agency’s substantial‑transformation test and deferred Venus’s challenge to total AFA.
On remand Commerce explained it applies the substantial‑transformation test when country‑of‑origin is at issue and uses the NWR test when the input and output are the same class/kind; Commerce left its producer finding and total‑AFA decision unchanged.
The Court sustained Commerce’s producer determination under the NWR test but remanded the total‑AFA decision because Commerce failed to adequately consider record evidence about Venus’s practical ability to induce supplier cooperation and whether Venus had a duty to identify inputs before being asked.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce should have applied the substantial‑transformation test (rather than the NWR test) to decide who is the producer of SS bar made from SS rounds	Venus: substantial‑transformation is relevant and has been used where input/output are same class/kind; Commerce erred in rejecting it	U.S./Commerce: substantial‑transformation applies to country‑of‑origin questions; where input and output are same class/kind and country not at issue, NWR test governs	Court: Commerce permissibly used the NWR test here and its finding that Venus is not the producer is supported by substantial evidence
Whether Commerce permissibly applied total AFA because Venus failed to induce unaffiliated suppliers to provide cost data (Mueller inducement/evasion rationale)	Venus: it took „all reasonable steps"; Commerce did not analyze Venus’s lack of control/leverage over suppliers or suppliers’ reasons for non‑cooperation	U.S./Commerce: Venus could have induced cooperation (threaten to stop purchases); Mueller allows inducement/evasion policy considerations	Court: Commerce’s reliance on inducement was unsupported — agency failed to address record evidence undermining its conclusion; remand required for reconsideration
Whether Commerce permissibly used total AFA because Venus did not clearly identify that it purchased subject SS bar inputs until Commerce’s third supplemental questionnaire	Venus: it used industry terminology in its earlier responses and was not asked to state whether inputs were subject merchandise until SQR3	U.S./Commerce: Venus used varying terms and obscured that inputs were subject merchandise	Court: Commerce cannot rely on that rationale — a respondent need only answer what Commerce asks; remand required if agency continues to rely on obfuscation to support AFA

Key Cases Cited

Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (approving use of inducement/evasion rationales in selecting facts otherwise available under certain circumstances)
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (defining "best of its ability" cooperation standard)
SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 630 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (warning that adverse inferences may be unfair where respondent lacks control over noncooperating suppliers)
Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (discussing total AFA and circumstances for use when reported data are unreliable)
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (substantial‑evidence review requires considering record evidence that detracts from the agency’s conclusion)
Apex Frozen Foods Private Ltd. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Chevron framework applies to Commerce’s antidumping methodology)