CIT Sustains Zeroing in China Hand Tools AD Case; Results Came Before End of Zeroing in Investigations
The Court of International Trade sustained the International Trade Administration’s second redo of the final results from the 2004-05 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles, from China (A-570-803). CIT had previously said the Adverse Facts Available (AFA) rates of (a) 139.31% applied to Shandong Huarong Machinery Co.’s sales of bars/wedges; and (b) 98.77% applied to Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Co.’s sales of picks/mattocks, were insufficiently corroborated. This time, CIT sustained the ITA’s recalculation of the AFA rates at (a) 47.88%, and (b) 32.15%, respectively, as sufficiently corroborated.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
In a reversal from recent rulings, CIT also sustained the ITA’s use of zeroing.
CIT Sustains Zeroing Despite Recent Cases
Plaintiffs argued that their AFA rates were improperly based on calculations using a zeroing methodology. In recent cases, with the exception of Union Steel v. U.S. (which is currently on appeal), CIT had been remanding the use of zeroing back to the ITA for reconsideration in light of court of appeals rulings in Dongbu Steel Co. v. U.S.¸ among other cases, or at least granting a stay until resolution of the Union Steel appeal.
Final Results at Issue Came Before End of Zeroing in Investigations, said CIT
However, in this case, CIT said it found plaintiffs’ arguments “unpersuasive” because, among other reasons, (1) the decision to cease using zeroing in investigations (which created the inconsistency between zeroing in administrative reviews while not zeroing in investigations that was at issue in Dongbu) occurred after the final results at issue in this case were issued; (2) no court has invalidated the use of zeroing in administrative reviews; and (3) the court has regularly approved antidumping margins calculated using zeroing.
Therefore, CIT sustained the final results of the ITA’s second remand redetermination.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 11022321 for earlier remand of the AFA rates used for plaintiffs.
See ITT’s Online Archives 11071237 for summary of the CAFC JTEKT ruling, which, citing its earlier Dongbu ruling, required an explanation from the ITA of its continued use of zeroing in reviews, and 11040408 for summary of CAFC Dongbu ruling. See also ITT’s Online Archives 12030543 for summary of later CIT decision in Union Steel v. U.S.,currently on appeal, which affirmed the use of zeroing in administrative reviews.
See ITT’s Online Archives 12053107 and 12053008 for summary of recent CIT remands for zeroing in AD cases in orange juice from Brazil and carbon steel flat products from Korea (voluntary), respectively. See also ITT’s Online Archives 12060528 for summary of CIT issuing a stay in a case involving a zeroing challenge pending resolution of the Union Steel appeal.)
(Slip Op. 12-83, dated 06/14/12 (public version 06/25/12), Judge Eaton)