Bond Street, Ltd. v. United States, (2011)

Extract

---

Bond Street, Ltd. v. United States, (2011)

Slip Op. 11-37

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BOND

STREET,L

TD.,:Plaintiff,:v.:

U

NITED

STATES,:

Court No. 08-00049

Defendant,:and:

G

LEASON

INDUSTRIAL

PRODUCTS,I

NC.:andP

RECISION

PRODUCTS,I

NC.,: Defendant-Intervenors.[Sustaining U.S. Department of Commerce’s remand determination reaffirming agency ruling thatsubject hand cart is within scope of antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the People’sRepublic of China]Dated: April 12, 2011

James Caffentzis (James Caffentzis), for Plaintiff.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M.

McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department ofJustice (Stephen C. Tosini and Joshua E. Kurland); Thomas M. Beline, Office of the Chief Counselfor Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Of Counsel; for Defendant.

Crowell & Moring, LLP (Matthew P. Jaffe), for Defendant-Intervenors.

OPINION

RIDGWAY, Judge:

Pending before the Court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to CourtRemand, filed by the U.S. Department of Commerce pursuant to the decision in Bond Street I. SeeParts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China (“Remand Results”); Bond Street, Ltd. v. UnitedStates, 33 CIT ____, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (2009) (“Bond Street I”).

Bond Street I remanded to Commerce the agency’s determination that the Stebco PortableSlide-Flat Cart (style no. 390009 CHR) – imported by Plaintiff Bond Street, Ltd., a New Yorkimporter of business and travel products – falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order onhand trucks from the People’s Republic of China. See

Bond Street I, 33 CIT at ____, 637 F. Supp.2d at 1351-52; Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China: ScopeRuling on Stebco Portable Slide-Flat Cart Inv. No. A-570-891 (May 30, 2007) (AdministrativeRecord (“A.R.”) Doc. No. 12) (“Scope Ruling”);1Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucksand Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 70,122 (Dec. 2, 2004)(“Antidumping Order”). In particular, Bond Street I ruled that Commerce’s Scope Ruling could notbe sustained because the agency had “failed to . . . make a determination as to whether the toe plateof the Stebco cart can ‘slide[] under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load,’” anoperational/functional requirement set forth in the Antidumping Order, and the central focus of thislitigation. See

Bond Street I, 33 CIT at ____, 637 F. Supp. 2d at 1350 (quoting, inter alia,Antidumping Order, 69 Fed. Reg. 70,122).1The complete administrative record in this action includes the record compiled byCommerce during the initial scope proceeding, as well as the record that the agency compiled in thecourse of the remand proceeding. Citations to documents in the administrative record of the initialscope proceeding are noted as “A.R. Doc. No. ____,” while citations to documents in the record ofthe remand proceeding – the supplemental administrative record – are noted as “S.A.R. Doc. No.____.”On remand, Commerce “found through testing [of ] Bond Street’s Stebco Cart that [the cart]is adept at sliding under a load for the purposes of lifting/moving that load. Additionally, once theprojecting edge/toe plate is slid under a load, the projecting edge/toe plate remain[s] stable and there

[is] no difficulty in lifting and moving the load.” See Remand Results at 4; see also id. at 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12. Commerce thus concluded that – in addition to possessing the four specific physicalcharacteristics required by the Antidumping Order – the Stebco cart also has “the operational andfunctional ability to slide under a load for the purposes of lifting and/or moving that load.” See id.at 4; see also id. at 1-2, 10, 12. Commerce’s Remand Results therefore reaffirmed the agency’searlier determination that the Stebco cart falls within the scope of the Antidumping Order. See

Remand Results at 1-2, 9, 12.

Bond Street contends that “the tests conducted by [Commerce] do not provide a basis for .. . find[ing] that the Stebco [cart] . . . slide[s] under a load” within the meaning of the AntidumpingOrder, and that the agency failed to properly consider certain tests conducted by Bond Street andthe agency itself. See Plaintiff’s Comments on Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to CourtRemand (“Pl.’s Brief”) at 2, 3. In addition, Bond Street critiques the adequacy of Commerce’sexplanation of its remand determination, and raises various other procedural objections. See, e.g.,id. at 3-4. Bond Street concludes that the Remand Results are not supported by substantial evidencein the record, and are otherwise not in accordance with law. See generally id.; Plaintiff’s Reply toDefendant’s Response to Bond Street’s Comments Upon Commerce’s Remand ...

See the full content of this document

---