11 F.Supp.3d 1326 (CIT. 2014), 12-00384, Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States
|Citation:||11 F.Supp.3d 1326|
|Opinion Judge:||Leo M. Gordon, Judge.|
|Party Name:||JIAXING BROTHER FASTENER CO., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant|
|Attorney:||No. 12-00384 Gregory S. Menegaz, J. Kevin Horgan, and John J. Kenkel for deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC for Plaintiffs Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd., aka Jiaxing Brother Standard Parts Co., Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd., and RMB Fasteners Ltd. Carrie A. Dunsmore, Trial Attorney, Comme...|
|Case Date:||September 25, 2014|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Gordon, Judge: This action involves the second administrative review conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce (" Commerce" ) of the antidumping duty order covering steel threaded rod from the People's Republic of China (" PRC" ). See Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, 77 Fed. Reg. 67,332 (Dep't of Commerce Nov. 9, 2012) (final results second admin. review) (" Final Results" ); see also Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Second Administrative Review of Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China, A-570-932 (Nov. 5, 2012), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/PRC/2012-27438-1.pdf (last visited this date) (" Decision Memorandum" ). Before the court are the Results of Redetermination, ECF No. 39 (" Remand Results" ), filed by Commerce pursuant to Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co. v. United States, 38 CIT __, 961 F.Supp.2d 1323 (2014) (" Jiaxing I" ). Familiarity with the court's decision in Jiaxing I is presumed. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012),1 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2012).
Plaintiffs Jiaxing Brother Fastener Co., Ltd., aka Jiaxing Brother Standard Parts Co., Ltd., IFI & Morgan Ltd., and RMB Fasteners Ltd. (collectively, " Plaintiffs" ) challenge Commerce's continued selection of Thailand as the primary surrogate country. For the reasons that follow, the court sustains Commerce's Remand Results.
I. Standard of Review
For administrative reviews of antidumping duty orders, the court sustains Commerce's " determinations, findings, or conclusions" unless they are " unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). More specifically, when reviewing agency determinations, findings, or conclusions for substantial evidence, the court assesses whether the agency action is reasonable given the record as a whole. Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence has been described as " such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). Substantial evidence has also been described as " something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966). Fundamentally, though, " substantial evidence" is best understood as a word formula connoting reasonableness review. 3 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice § 9.24 (3d ed. 2014). Therefore, when addressing a substantial
evidence issue raised by a party, the court analyzes whether the challenged agency action " was reasonable given the circumstances presented by the whole record." Edward D. Re, Bernard J. Babb, and Susan M. Koplin, 8 West's Fed. Forms, National Courts § 13342 (2d ed. 2014).
In both the Final Results and the Remand Results, Commerce selected Thailand over the Philippines as the primary surrogate country and used Thai data to value all of Plaintiffs' factors of production. Commerce did so in part because it believed a Thai company called Capital Engineering Network Public Company Limited (" CEN" ) could serve as an adequate proxy for Plaintiffs' overhead, SG& A, and profit ratios. Plaintiffs contend that Commerce's use of CEN arbitrarily conflicts with Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, 77 Fed. Reg. 66,952 (Dep't of Commerce Nov. 8, 2012) (prelim. results third admin. review) (" Wire Hangers" ), a preliminary determination in a proceeding involving merchandise similar to steel threaded rod that Commerce issued one day prior to the Final Results contested here. Pl.'s Comments on Remand Determ. 1-2, ECF No. 43 (" Pls.' Br." ).
In Wire Hangers, Commerce selected the Philippines over Thailand as the primary surrogate country because of concerns over the available Thai data, and in particular, problems it identified with a CEN financial statement. Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, A-570-918, at 14-16 (Nov. 8, 2012), available at...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP