Background
In September 2019, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued an antidumping duty order covering steel racks produced in China. Commerce subsequently conducted an administrative review covering the period September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022, in which Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co., Ltd. — a Chinese producer and exporter of covered goods — was identified as a respondent. In the Final Results published in April 2024, Commerce rejected Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification as untimely, declined to select Nanjing as a mandatory respondent, and applied adverse facts available to assign Nanjing the China-wide entity antidumping duty rate.
Nanjing challenged those results before the Court of International Trade. In an earlier ruling, Nanjing I (781 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (2025)), the court held that Commerce’s failure to select Nanjing as a mandatory respondent did not comply with the statutory volume-based selection requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2). The court also found that while Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification was technically untimely — filed one week late — it was filed simultaneously with other respondents’ certifications submitted under extended deadlines, making it reasonably available to Commerce. The court remanded for Commerce to reconsider both issues.
On remand, Commerce reversed course: it accepted Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification, treated Nanjing as a mandatory respondent, issued questionnaires, and calculated a 25% weighted-average dumping margin. Commerce also denied Nanjing’s request for a by-product scrap offset, finding insufficient record evidence that the quantity of steel scrap sold during the review period was less than the quantity generated.
The Court’s Holding
The Court sustained Commerce’s Remand Redetermination in full. It found that Commerce complied with the remand order by accepting Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification and treating Nanjing as a mandatory respondent, resulting in the assignment of a 25% weighted-average dumping margin.
On the scrap offset issue, the Court held that Nanjing had waived its objection by failing to exhaust its administrative remedies. Nanjing had not raised the offset issue in its comments during the remand administrative proceeding before Commerce — a prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d) and governing Federal Circuit precedent. The Court applied the strict exhaustion rule and found no applicable exception, as Nanjing did not argue that the issue presented a pure question of law, involved lack of access to the confidential record, was affected by a subsequent judicial decision, or would have been futile to raise administratively.
Key Takeaways
- Commerce must select mandatory respondents based on the largest volume of subject merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2); deviation from this statutory standard requires adequate justification.
- A Separate Rate Certification filed one week late but simultaneously with other respondents’ extended-deadline submissions may be deemed reasonably available to Commerce and improperly rejected as untimely.
- Parties in antidumping remand proceedings must raise all objections before Commerce during the administrative remand process or risk waiving those arguments before the Court of International Trade under the exhaustion doctrine.
- Commerce’s denial of a scrap offset based on insufficient record evidence — where the exporter failed to demonstrate that scrap sold was less than scrap generated — will stand if the exporter did not challenge the denial at the agency level.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the procedural discipline required of respondents in antidumping administrative reviews. Even where a company successfully overturns one aspect of a Commerce determination on remand, it may forfeit separate challenges — such as a request for a cost offset — by failing to press those arguments during the agency’s remand proceedings. The ruling underscores that the Court of International Trade applies a strict view of administrative exhaustion and will decline to reach the merits of unpreserved arguments regardless of their potential substantive merit.
The case also illustrates the interplay between timeliness rules and equitable considerations in Commerce proceedings. The court’s earlier ruling in Nanjing I — finding that a technically late certification was nonetheless reasonably available — signals that Commerce cannot mechanically apply deadline rules when the practical circumstances undercut any prejudice from the brief delay. Together, the two decisions provide useful guidance for Chinese exporters navigating mandatory respondent selection and separate rate procedures in antidumping reviews.