Zhejiang Dunan Hetian Metal Co., Ltd. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12599
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- DunAn challenged Commerce's antidumping final determination on frontseating service valves from China in the U.S. ITC/Commerce proceeding, with DunAn as mandatory respondent.
- Commerce used India as the surrogate market economy and Brass bar surrogate values; challenged inclusion of Japan, France, UAE data under HTS 7407.21.10.
- InfoDrive Indian import data and WTA data were reconciled to value brass bar; DunAn argued misclassification but Commerce preserved the broader HTS category.
- Commerce verified DunAn's December 2007 U.S. sales data and found discrepancies; resulting in partial adverse facts available (AFA) applied to two FSVs' December 2007 sales.
- Labor value was set by regression analysis using 61 market-economy countries; later court decisions in Dorbest would later affect the validity of that method.
- Court vacated and remanded, with instructions to address the partial AFA for December 2007 quantity and to value labor consistent with Dorbest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brass bar surrogate value include imports from Japan/France/UAE? | DunAn argues those imports are not brass bar and should be excluded. | Commerce reasonably concluded data were not clearly misclassified and should be included as best available information. | Inclusion sustained; proper best available information standard applied. |
| Use of partial adverse facts available for December 2007 sales? | Commerce improperly used AFA to fill missing December 2007 quantity data. | AFA appropriate due to DunAn's cooperation failures and data gaps. | Remanded to limit AFA to the quantity issue and for proper calculation of the total dumping margin. |
| Labor valuation methodology under 19 C.F.R. § 351.408(c)(3)? | Regression-based surrogate wage data from multiple countries is improper for non-market economies. | Regression method is permissible and consistent with statute. | Remanded; labor valuation must comply with Dorbest, which disallows regression approach in this context. |
| Standard of review and overall remand scope? | Challenges to Commerce's discretion require deference but not unchecked. | Commerce's determinations should be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. | Court vacates ITC decision and remands for specified issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (substantial-evidence standard for reviewing antidumping determinations)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (deference to Commerce's expertise in antidumping law)
- F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (adverse-inference selection and gaps in record evidence)
- Shakeproof Assembly Components v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (context for best available information and causation of margins)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (regulatory-compliance of regression analysis for labor valuation in NME cases)