Goodluck India Ltd. v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 August 2021
• Docket Number: 2020-2017
• Citation: 11 F.4th 1335
• Parties: GOODLUCK INDIA LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellee v. UNITED STATES, Defendant ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, Plymouth Tube Co. USA, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., Zekelman Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

11 F.4th 1335

GOODLUCK INDIA LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant

ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, Plymouth Tube Co. USA, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., Zekelman Industries, Inc., Defendants-Appellants

2020-2017

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: August 31, 2021

Ned H. Marshak, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Bruce M. Mitchell; Michael Scott Holton, Jordan Charles Kahn, Washington, DC.

Robert Alan Luberda, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Melissa M. Brewer, David C. Smith, Jr.

Before Reyna, Clevenger, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Reyna, Circuit Judge.

Defendants-Appellants appeal the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade affirming a remand determination by the United States Department of Commerce in an antidumping duty investigation on U.S. imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from India. In the underlying investigation, Commerce rejected Plaintiff-Appellee Goodluck India's submission of supplemental data and relied on "adverse facts available" under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b) for its less-than-fair-value analysis, which resulted in an antidumping margin of 33.8% ad valorem applicable to Goodluck India's imports of mechanical tubing. Goodluck India appealed to the Court of International Trade, arguing that its submission was a permissible correction of a minor clerical error and that it was entitled to submit supplemental information up to the day of verification. The Court of International Trade agreed with Goodluck India and remanded to Commerce. Commerce, under protest, conducted a new less-than-fair-value analysis resulting in a zero-percent antidumping margin for Goodluck India. Defendants-Appellants challenged the remand determination, but the Court of International Trade affirmed. Defendants-Appellants now appeal to this court.

We hold that Commerce's initial determination—rejecting Goodluck India's supplemental submission on grounds that it constituted new factual information and not a minor or clerical correction of the record, and that the submission was unverifiable as it was submitted on the eve of verification—is supported by substantial evidence and not otherwise contrary to law. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

Antidumping Duty Investigation

Defendants-Appellants ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, Plymouth Tube Company USA, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, Inc. (together, "Petitioners") are U.S. domestic producers of cold-drawn mechanical tubing made from carbon and alloy steel ("mechanical tubing"). J.A. 58. In basic terms, mechanical tubing is metal piping sold in various diameters, lengths, and thicknesses suited for various mechanical applications. See generally J.A. 559.

On April 19, 2017, Petitioners filed an antidumping duty petition with the United States Department of Commerce ("Commerce") on imports of mechanical tubing.

J.A. 58. On May 9, 2017, Commerce initiated an antidumping duty investigation on mechanical tubing from several countries, including India. See id. ( Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Switzerland: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,491 (May 16, 2017) ).

Plaintiff-Appellee Goodluck India Ltd. ("Goodluck") manufactures mechanical tubing in India, which it sells in both India and the United States. J.A. 2656–64. On June 19, 2017, Commerce selected Goodluck as a respondent in the investigation and issued Goodluck a mandatory questionnaire. J.A. 103–213. Relevant here, the questionnaire solicited data regarding Goodluck's sales of mechanical tubing in its home market, India (Section B), its sales of mechanical tubing in the United States (Section C), and cost data specific to each product (Section D) applicable during the period of investigation (April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017). Id. ; see also J.A. 58 (defining period of investigation).

The questionnaire required Goodluck to create a control number ("CONNUM")¹ for each product identified in its submitted sales and cost databases. J.A. 142, 169. It also required Goodluck to use the same CONNUM for any "products with identical physical characteristics reported" across all of its submitted database files. Id.

When Commerce issued the questionnaire, it had not yet determined which physical characteristics would comprise the CONNUMs, so it left those fields blank in its instructions. See id. On July 6, 2017, Commerce issued a letter filling in those blanks, identifying which product characteristics should be used in forming each CONNUM. J.A. 440–52 (Letter from the Department, CONNUM Letter , dated July 6, 2017 ("July Letter")).²

The July Letter directed Goodluck to report, among other things, wall thickness information for its products in two questionnaire fields—Fields 2.5 and 3.5. Id. Field 2.5 called for a nominal wall thickness value, in millimeters. J.A. 443. Field 3.5, in turn, called for a two-digit code that corresponded to a range within which the nominal wall thickness fell. J.A. 450. The July Letter set forth nine codes to be used in Field 3.5 as follows:

01	=
02	=	1.00 mm to 1.09 mm
03	=	1.10 mm to 1.59 mm
04	=	1.60 mm to 3.60 mm
05	=	3.61 mm to 6.35 mm
06	=	6.36 mm to 12.00 mm
07	=	12.01 mm to 20.00 mm
08	=	20.01 mm to 40 mm
09	=	> 40 mm

Id. Thus, for example, if a product had a nominal wall thickness of 1.5 mm, then Goodluck was meant to enter "1.5 mm" in Field 2.5 and "03" in Field 3.5. J.A. 443, 450.

Shortly after Commerce issued the July Letter, Petitioners wrote to Commerce arguing that the ranges set forth in the July Letter were too broad to accurately capture cost and expense differences. J.A. 457 (Letter to the Department, re: Petitioners’ Comments on the Department's Release of Product Matching Criteria and Request for Expansion of Certain Criteria Fields , dated July 12, 2017). In particular, Petitioners asked Commerce to create more ranges for use in Field 3.5 of the questionnaire.

J.A. 459–60. Interested parties, including Goodluck, were invited to comment on or rebut Petitioners’ request for more ranges and the need for more particularized wall thickness information. Goodluck did not comment or raise any rebuttal. J.A. 566 (Letter to All Interested Parties, re: Revised Product Characteristics , dated August 7, 2017 ("August Letter")).

On August 7, 2017, Commerce issued another letter with an updated coding chart that included fourteen ranges (instead of nine) for use in Field 3.5, as follows:

01	=
02	=	1.00 mm to 1.09 mm
03	=	1.10 mm to 1.59 mm
04	=	1.60 mm to 3.60 mm
05	=	3.61 mm to 5.00 mm
06	=	5.01 mm to 6.36 mm
07	=	6.36 mm to 8.00 mm
08	=	8.01 mm to 10.00 mm
09	=	10.01 mm to 12.00 mm
10	=	12.01 mm to 15.88
11	=	15.89 mm to 20.00 mm
12	=	20.01 mm to 30.00 mm
13	=	30.01 mm to 40.00 mm
14	=	> 40 mm

J.A. 566, 577.

On August 25, 2017, Goodluck submitted its initial responses to questionnaire Sections B–D.³ J.A. 585. In those responses, Goodluck confirmed that it reported wall thickness codes according to the fourteen ranges specified in Commerce's August Letter. J.A. 613.

On November 15, 2017, Commerce issued a Preliminary Determination , tentatively assigning Goodluck a zero-percent antidumping duty rate based on its questionnaire responses. J.A. 1810–14 ( Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 82 Fed. Reg. 55,567 (Nov. 22, 2017) ).⁴

On November 22, 2017, Commerce sent Goodluck a Sales Verification Agenda outlining the plan for verifying the data in Goodluck's responses to questionnaire Sections B and C. J.A. 1816. Per standard procedure, Commerce warned Goodluck that new information would only be accepted at verification if "(1) the need for that information was not evident previously; (2) the information makes minor corrections to information already on the record; or (3) the information corroborates, supports, or clarifies information already on the record." Id. (emphasis added).

On November 27, 2017, Commerce sent Goodluck a Cost Verification Agenda, outlining the plan for verifying the data in Goodluck's Section D responses. J.A. 1833–34. Again, Commerce warned Goodluck that only the correction of "minor errors" would be allowed at verification. J.A. 1834. Commerce also specified, "Minor errors are minor mistakes in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, minor data entry mistakes, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and minor classification errors. Minor errors do not include items such as methodology changes." J.A. 1836 n.1.

On December 14, 2017, the first day of cost verification, Goodluck wrote to Commerce to identify and correct 682 misreported values in its Section B database, calling them "minor corrections." J.A. 1867–68 (Letter to the Department, Goodluck Verification Minor Corrections , dated December 14, 2017); J.A. 1873–74 (identifying Goodluck's coding errors); J.A. 2655 (counting 682 sales affected by misreported CONNUMs). Specifically, Goodluck explained that it prepared its Section B, Field 3.5 responses using the nine wall thickness codes provided in the July Letter, not the fourteen codes provided in the August Letter. J.A. 1873–74. Goodluck also explained that this mistake resulted in errors in its Section D database, which relied on CONNUMs already created for the Section B responses. Id.

On January 17, 2018, Commerce issued its Cost Verification Report, which acknowledged Goodluck's coding errors but noted that "[c]orrections of these errors would cause changes to the reported physical characteristics of 24 CONNUMs and the addition of 13...