Home Products Intern., Inc. v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

Home Products代写 This case concerns an antidumping duty order issued in 2004 covering floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and ···

 

What is the case about? Home Products代写

This case concerns an antidumping duty order issued in 2004 covering floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables. And certain parts thereof from the People’s Republic of China. Commerce determined that Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since Hardware”) and other Chinese exporters were selling ironing tables in the United States at less than fair value. And the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) found material injury.

Thereafter, in the first and second administrative reviews of that antidumping order, Commerce calculated dumping margins for Since Hardware of 0.45 percent and 0.34 *1372 percent respectively. Because the agency considers dumping margins of less than 0.5 percent to be de minimis. Commerce accordingly did not impose any antidumping duties on Since Hardware for these review periods.

In March 2008 Home Products代写

Plaintiff-appellant Home Products International, Inc. (“Home Products”) initiated an action in the Trade Court challenging the results of Commerce’s second administrative review on the grounds. That Commerce calculated an improperly low dumping margin.

While Home Products’ challenge to the second administrative review was pending in the Trade Court. Commerce was conducting its third administrative review of the same antidumping order. During that proceeding, new evidence was brought to light that indicated Since Hardware had submitted falsified documents to Commerce during the third administrative review. Commerce concluded that the documents were unreliable and inaccurate. Commerce’s findings regarding this alleged conduct were detailed in two memoranda that the agency adopted in its final results. Understanding the nature of the alleged falsifications requires a brief overview of certain aspects of antidumping law.

In May 2009 Home Products代写

In light of the results of the third administrative review and in particular Commerce’s apparent agreement that the same discrepancies appeared on certificates Since Hardware submitted during the second administrative review Home Products moved the Trade Court to amend its complaint in its challenge to the second administrative review. It requested that the court remand the case to Commerce for reconsideration in light of the newly discovered evidence of falsification in the second administrative review.

Home Products代写
Home Products代写

The government opposed, arguing that “Home Products’ contention that ‘newly discovered evidence’ exists is not relevant” because “judicial review of antidumping duty administrative reviews is limited to `review upon the basis of the record made before the agency which issued the decision. Considering only the second administrative review record, the government contended, Home Products had failed to show that Commerce’s final results were unsupported by substantial evidence. The Trade Court denied Home Products’ motions, and thereafter issued a final judgment in the government’s favor regarding Home Products’ original action.

What is the Issue? Home Products代写

The question presented here is whether the Trade Court is obligated to remand a decision to Commerce for reconsideration when new evidence comes to light. That the agency proceedings under review were tainted by material fraud.

According to Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352 1360 (Fed. Cir.2008). It was held that Commerce itself has the authority to reopen a proceeding if it later discovers evidence of fraud in the original proceeding. Similar principles should govern when fraud is discovered while the agency proceeding is on appeal.

The decision Home Products代写

Held that the Court of International Trade (“Trade Court”) abused its discretion in declining to remand the case to the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). And accordingly the was reversed and remanded with instructions. That the case be remanded to Commerce for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Home Products代写
Home Products代写

更多其他:Case study代写 商科论文代写 学术代写 Report代写 cs代写 代写论文 研究论文代写 人文社科代写  Review代写 艾莎代写 Essay代写 艺术论文代写 文学论文代写 心理学论文代写 哲学论文代写 cs论文代写

合作平台:天才代写 幽灵代  写手招聘  paper代写

 
QQ在线咨询
售前咨询热线
QQ:3554475127
售后咨询热线
QQ:3042439236