United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 21-105

Before the Court in Echjay Forgings Private Limited v. United States, et. al., Court No. 18-00230, Slip Op. 21-105 (August 20, 2021) was Commerce’s Remand Results, which the Court ordered in Echjay I so that Commerce could further explain or reconsider its decision to collapse the Doshi family companies for purposes of calculating an antidumping margin for stainless steel flanges from India and China. Id. at 2-3. “On remand, Commerce reversed itself and determined not to collapse the entities because they were not affiliated.” Id. Plaintiff (“Echjay”) did not challenge the Remand Results. Id. Defendant-Intervenor (“Coalition”) challenged the Remand Results contending that Commerce’s decision to reverse its affiliation and collapsing determinations was inadequately supported by the partition documents that separate the three branches of the Doshi family, as cited by Commerce. Id. at 6. Defendant (“Government”) requested that the Court sustain Commerce’s Remand Results. Id. at 3. For the following reasons, the Court affirmed Commerce’s Remand Results and entered judgment for the Government. Id.

The standard of review in this action is set forth in 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i): “[t]he court shall hold unlawful any determination, finding or conclusion found . . . to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. at 5. The Court also reviews the determinations pursuant to remand “for compliance with the court’s remand order.” Id. Per Commerce’s regulation, “all three prongs must be met in order for Commerce to make a finding that entities should be collapsed. 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(f).” Id. at 8. Here, on remand, “Commerce reconsidered its collapsing determination and reversed itself, finding that none of the three collapsing requirements were met.” Id. at 5. Commerce noted that it continued to find the Doshi family members affiliated under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(A), but that “due to particular and explicit legal arrangements, the Doshi family could not control or influence the operations of” the Doshi Companies. Id. at 5-6. Because there was no common control, Commerce concluded that the Doshi Companies were not affiliated under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(33)(F) or under Commerce’s regulation, 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(f). Id. at 6. Therefore, the Court found that the “unique circumstance of legal separation agreements between family members supports Commerce’s decision to not collapse companies owned by family members in this instance.” Id. In this case, the Court concluded that Commerce complied with its remand order. Id. at 7. “Commerce addressed and adequately explained evidence regarding the Doshi family’s partition and reversed its decision to collapse the Doshi Companies.” Id. The Court affirmed Commerce’s conclusion that there is no affiliation between the Doshi Companies. Id. at 8. As such, the Court sustained Commerce’s Remand Results as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. Id.