Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States
2014 CIT 17
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2014Background
- Xinjiamei requested a new-shipper review for folding metal tables and chairs covering June 1, 2009–May 31, 2010; Commerce selected India as the surrogate country and used GTA Indian import data (HTS 7211.2990) to value cold‑rolled steel coil.
- Xinjiamei placed alternative data on the record (JSW advertised prices and JSW sales data, metalprices.com Brazilian data, Northern Europe and world benchmark data, and later London Metal Exchange billet prices) arguing the GTA Indian data produced an aberrational average unit value (AUV).
- The Department initially retained the GTA Indian import data in the Final Results, but the Court remanded, finding Commerce had not adequately explained why the GTA data was reliable and non‑aberrational in light of other record evidence.
- On remand Commerce reopened the record, added GTA data from other potential surrogate countries and Brazilian GTA export data, and issued Draft Results comparing the GTA Indian AUV to other countries’ AUVs and to the alternative datasets, finding the GTA Indian data reliable and non‑aberrational.
- Xinjiamei did not submit comments on the Draft Results (it added London Metal Exchange data earlier), and Commerce issued Remand Results largely reiterating the Draft Results; Xinjiamei then raised objections in court challenging Commerce’s continued use of the GTA Indian data.
- The Court declined to consider arguments raised for the first time before the Court because Xinjiamei failed to exhaust administrative remedies, found the futility and pure‑law exceptions inapplicable, and held Commerce’s Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence and comply with the remand order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the GTA Indian import data is reliable and non‑aberrational for valuing cold‑rolled steel coil | GTA: GTA Indian data is aberrational and JSW retail prices (or other alternatives) are better; Commerce failed to compare properly and consider sample size and tariff‑heading specificity | Commerce: GTA Indian data is best available, corroborated by GTA data from other surrogate countries and superior to JSW and other datasets | Held: Commerce complied with remand; GTA Indian data is supported by substantial evidence and non‑aberrational |
| Whether plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by commenting on Draft Remand Results | Xinjiamei did not respond to Draft Results but argues remand decision still unlawful | Commerce: Xinjiamei failed to exhaust and cannot raise new arguments now | Held: Xinjiamei failed to exhaust; futility and pure‑law exceptions do not apply; court declines to consider new arguments |
| Whether Commerce properly rejected JSW advertised and sales data as best available information | JSW data better reflects Indian domestic prices and industry production | Commerce: JSW advertised data is offers not sales and from one firm; JSW sales data is not specific and may be distortive | Held: Commerce reasonably rejected JSW data as less specific, less representative, and insufficiently corroborated |
| Whether other alternative data (metalprices.com Brazil, Northern Europe, London Metal Exchange) undermined GTA Indian data | Xinjiamei: These datasets show lower prices and show GTA Indian AUV is aberrational | Commerce: These datasets are less specific, not contemporaneous or verifiable, or not comparable inputs (e.g., billet vs. coil) | Held: Commerce reasonably found those data less reliable or aberrational and adequately explained comparisons |
Key Cases Cited
- Mittal Steel Galati S.A. v. United States, 502 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007) (Commerce must do more than identify flaws in rejected datasets)
- Guangdong Chem. Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (agency must evaluate its chosen data, not just reject others)
- Zhejiang DunAn Hetian Metal Co. v. United States, 652 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (standard: whether a reasonable mind could conclude Commerce chose the best available information)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (futility exception to exhaustion requires party to have fully presented its argument to agency)
- Itochu Bldg. Prods. v. United States, 733 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (exhaustion promotes agency authority and judicial efficiency)