Zhejiang Sanhua Co., Ltd. v. United States
2015 WL 1867435
Ct. Intl. Trade2015Background
- This action involves Commerce’s admin review of the antidumping duty order on frontseating service valves from China.
- Sanhua’s brass and copper byproduct offsets were calculated using a product-specific extrapolation from total scrap rather than direct product records.
- Commerce identified problems with Sanhua’s method, including yield loss and reliance on inputs unrelated to scrap.
- Commerce used “facts available” to adjust offsets to account for yield loss, applying a weighted-average adjustment.
- Sanhua challenged (i) the use of the revised offsets, (ii) the ministerial error submission rejection, and (iii) Commerce’s 15‑day liquidation policy; the court sustains the Final Results on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of facts available for brass/copper offsets | Sanhua argues the method ties to internal records, not verifiable data. | Commerce reasonably adjusted offsets using available record evidence to reflect yield losses. | upheld; use of facts available sustained. |
| Ministerial error submission rejection | Sanhua contends three pages were not new information and should be considered. | Commerce properly rejected new information and denied the ministerial error correction. | upheld; ministerial error denial sustained. |
| Commerce's 15-day liquidation policy | Sanhua challenges the policy as unlawful. | Court lacks full jurisdiction/standing to review and policy is reasonable interpretation. | issue waived; court does not reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence standard and reasonableness review)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence; reasonableness)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (finality and reasonableness in agency review)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Eurodif S.A., 555 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (interpretation governs in absence of clear statutory language or unreasonable resolution of ambiguity)