Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10008
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Bestpak, a Chinese exporter of narrow woven ribbons, was part of a Department of Commerce antidumping investigation against PRC and Taiwan ribbons; Commerce selected two mandatory respondents (Yama and Jintian) for individual review; Yama received a de minimis margin while Jintian received a 247.65% AFA China-wide rate after Jintian refused cooperation; Bestpak sought a separate rate (non-mandatory respondent) and was assigned a 123.83% rate by averaging Yama’s de minimis and Jintian’s AFA margins; Commerce relied on a limited record and a simple average due to lack of additional margins; Bestpak appealed to the Court of International Trade (CIT) and the case was remanded for a more robust explanation; CIT upheld Bestpak I’s remand but criticized the simple-average method and required further explanation; after remand, Commerce relied on a minimal AUV-based analysis to justify the 123.83% rate, which Bestpak challenged as lacking substantial evidence; CIT ultimately vacated and remanded to Commerce for additional investigation and explanation; Bestpak separately challenged the invoiced data as a basis for a zero rate but failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the court held that exhaustion was not satisfied and thus did not consider the invoice argument.
- Bestpak sought to show that Commerce’s simple-average methodology did not reasonably reflect potential dumping margins and that a zero rate could be supported by additional invoice data.
- Commerce argued that 1673d(c)(5)(B) and the SAA permit any reasonable method, including averaging de minimis and AFA margins, when calculating the all-others rate, and that the record supported Bestpak’s margin despite the limited data.
- The CIT concluded the simple-average approach was not unreasonable on the statute alone but that the particular application here failed to show a reasonable correlation to Bestpak’s actual dumping margins due to data insufficiency and reliance on a single measured benchmark.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce’s simple-average method complies with the statute | Bestpak: method not supported by substantial evidence; not reasonably reflecting margins | Bestpak: method permitted by 1673d(c)(5)(B) and SAA; de minimis and AFA can be averaged | Partially favorable to Bestpak; method allowed but applied unreasonably given record limitations |
| Whether the 123.83% Bestpak rate is supported by substantial evidence and reflects economic reality | Bestpak: margins rest on insufficient data and unsubstantiated correlation to AUVs | Commerce: AUVs provide reasonable reflection and authority to rely on them | Unfavorable to Commerce; remand for additional substantiation and consideration of more data |
| Whether Bestpak exhausted administrative remedies regarding the invoice argument | Bestpak: invoice supports zero rate but raised late; CIT should consider | Bestpak failed to raise invoice issue during remand; exhaustion required | In favor of exhaustion requirement; CIT did not abuse discretion in not considering invoice argument |
| Whether the CIT should vacate and remand for further agency proceedings | Bestpak: agency failed to provide substantial evidence tying margin to reality | Agency acted within discretion; remand appropriate | Vacate and remand to Commerce for further proceedings |
| Whether the court should consider whether the Jintian/Yama data set was sufficient | Bestpak: only two data points; inadequate basis for broad rate | Record limitations justified limited sampling | Remand to obtain additional information and explanations accountability |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (sustainability of anti-dumping determinations requires substantial evidence)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence standard; review requires adequate record support)
- Thai Pineapple Canning Indus. Corp. v. United States, 273 F.3d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (reasonableness of methodology in light of economic reality)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (economy-wide and reasonableness of agency actions in regulatory schemes)
- F.Lii de Cecco di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (policy against punitive, aberrational margins; require correlation to reality)
- SNR Roulements v. United States, 402 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (antidumping context; fairness and reasonable calculations)
- Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009) (treatment of AFA and all-others methodology; corroboration)