Background
The consolidated actions challenged the Department of Commerce’s first administrative review of an antidumping duty order covering mobile access equipment from China. Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., Ltd., a Chinese producer, challenged Commerce’s selection of Turkey as the primary surrogate country, its use of the Cohen’s d test, and its deduction of Section 301 duties from Dingli’s U.S. sales prices.
The Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment, representing domestic producers, separately challenged Commerce’s valuation of several production inputs. It argued that Commerce should have used more specific Turkish tariff classifications instead of Bulgarian data or broader Turkish classifications.
The Court’s Holding
The court sustained Commerce’s determination in both actions. It held that substantial evidence supported selecting Turkey as the primary surrogate country and Bulgaria as a secondary surrogate country. Commerce reasonably found the Turkish financial statements more complete, determined that the record did not establish that hyperinflation rendered the Turkish data unreliable, and identified shortcomings in the Bulgarian movement-expense and financial-statement data.
The court concluded that any error in using the Cohen’s d test was harmless because Commerce retained the average-to-average comparison method Dingli favored and no issue was being remanded that could change that result. It also held that Commerce properly deducted Section 301 duties from U.S. price because the implementing notice made those duties additional to all other applicable duties. Finally, the court upheld Commerce’s input valuations because the Coalition had not supplied record evidence establishing that its proposed tariff codes were exhaustive or more appropriate.
Key Takeaways
- Commerce retains broad discretion to select the best available surrogate information, and the court will not reweigh competing record evidence.
- Section 301 duties must be deducted from U.S. price when the implementing instrument states that they apply in addition to other duties.
- A party proposing narrower tariff classifications must support their specificity and completeness with record evidence rather than unsupported representations or counsel’s arguments.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Commerce’s flexibility to use data from more than one surrogate country and underscores the evidentiary burden borne by parties challenging surrogate-country and input-valuation choices. It also applies Federal Circuit precedent to confirm that the text of the instrument imposing a trade duty—not the duty’s policy objective—determines whether Commerce must deduct it from U.S. price.