Trade Courts Update for Week of May 3, 2016

United States Court of International Trade

 

Court Sustained Fourth Remand Results

In Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v. United States, Court No. 09-123, Slip Op. 16-42 (April 28, 2016), the Court considered the United States Department of Commerce’s (“the Department” or “Commerce”) Fourth Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Second Corrected Version) dated June 18, 2015 (ECF Dkt. No. 202-2) (“Fourth Remand Results”).  Originally, this matter was before the court on Since Hardware’s challenge to the Department’s Finals Results of the Third Administrative Review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”). See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the PRC, 74 Fed. Reg. 11,805 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 16, 2009) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review) (“Final Results”). The period of review (“POR”) was August 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007.

On remand, Commerce was instructed to demonstrate why the rate of 157.68 percent assigned to Since Hardware based on adverse facts available (“AFA”) was relevant to the company and reflected its commercial reality, or to select and properly corroborate a new rate. Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. v. United States (Since Hardware IV), 39 CIT __, Slip Op. 15- 15, at 24–26 (Feb. 18, 2015). In the Fourth Remand Results, Commerce states that it was unable to corroborate1 the 157.68 percent rate, and instead selected a new rate of 72.29 percent.  Plaintiff Since Hardware Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”) challenged the rate, arguing that it was not properly corroborated. 

When Commerce selects a reasonable adverse facts available rate, it must balance statutory objectives of finding “an accurate dumping margin and inducing compliance.” Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, Commerce is required to corroborate information obtained during a review with secondary information from independent sources.  According to the court, citing Commerce’s decision “the 72.29 percent rate is derived from two calculated rates . . . , and was also the rate in effect for all companies which have demonstrated they are separate from the PRC-wide entity. . . . This rate is therefore reflective of Foshan Shunde’s commercial reality because similar exporters of subject merchandise were able to, and actually did, import subject merchandise into the United States at this rate.”  Slip Op. pg. 12.  For these reasons the Court sustained the Fourth Remand Results. 

 

Default Judgment Granted

In United States v. Horizon Products International, Inc., Court No. 14-0104, Slip Op. 16-43, the court considered plaintiff’s motion for default judgment for a civil penalty in the amount of $324,540 plus post judgment interest.  Given Horizon’s stated intention not to continue to defend this action, and in the interest of securing “the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action, USCIT R. 1, the court concluded that it may be appropriate to direct entry of default against Horizon for failure to defend this action.