Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Mfg. Co. v. United States

• Court: United States Court of International Trade
• Decided: June 23, 2026
• Docket: 24-00085
• Status: Published

Opinion

Slip Op. 26-67

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

NANJING DONGSHENG SHELF MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge

Defendant, Court No. 24-00085

and

COALITION FOR FAIR RACK IMPORTS,

Defendant-Intervenor.

OPINION AND ORDER

[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results of redetermination pursuant to the remand order in the antidumping duty review of certain steel racks from the People’s Republic of China.]

Dated: June 23, 2026

Gregory S. Menegaz, Alexandra H. Salzman, and Vivien J. Wang, The Inter- Global Trade Law Group PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With her on the brief was Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Director. Of counsel on the brief was Samuel E. Court No. 24-00085 Page 2

Childerson, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C. Jesus N. Saenz, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C., and Laurel Don Havens, III, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C. also appeared.

Roger B. Schagrin, Luke A. Meisner, and Saad Y. Chalchal, Schagrin Associates, of Washington, D.C, for Defendant-Intervenor Coalition for Fair Rack Imports. Alessandra A. Palazzolo, Christopher T. Cloutier, Elizabeth J. Drake, Jeffrey D. Gerrish, Justin M. Neuman, Maliha Khan, Nicholas J. Birch, Nicholas C. Phillips, and William A. Fennell also appeared.

Choe-Groves, Judge: This action involves the U.S. Department of

Commerce’s (“Commerce”) final results in the administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain steel racks from the People’s Republic of China

(“China”) for the period of review of September 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022.

Compl., ECF No. 10; Certain Steel Racks and Parts Thereof from the People’s

Republic of China (“Final Results”), 89 Fed. Reg. 25,235 (Dep’t of Commerce

Apr. 10, 2024) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review and final

determination of no shipments; 2021–2022), and accompanying issues and

decisions memorandum (“Final IDM”), ECF No. 20-5.

Before the Court is Commerce’s remand redetermination, filed pursuant to

the Court’s Opinion and Order in Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co.,

Ltd. v. United States (“Nanjing I”), 49 CIT __, 781 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (2025). Final

Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“Remand

Redetermination”), ECF No. 44-1. Court No. 24-00085 Page 3

For the following reasons, the Court sustains the Remand Redetermination.

BACKGROUND

The Court presumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

history of this case. See Nanjing I.

On September 16, 2019, Commerce published an antidumping duty order

and countervailing duty order covering steel racks produced in China. Certain

Steel Racks and Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China (“Antidumping

Duty Order”), 84 Fed. Reg. 48,584 (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 16, 2019) (amended

final affirmative antidumping duty determination and antidumping duty order; and

countervailing duty order). Commerce initiated an administrative review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on November 3, 2022. Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews (“Initiation Notice”), 87 Fed. Reg.

66,275 (Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 3, 2022), corrected Initiation of Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 88 Fed. Reg. 50 (Dep’t of

Commerce Jan. 3, 2023). Plaintiff Nanjing Dongsheng Shelf Manufacturing Co.,

Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Nanjing”), a Chinese producer and exporter of goods covered

by the Antidumping Duty Order, was identified as a respondent at the time

Commerce initiated the administrative review. Initiation Notice, 87 Fed. Reg. at

66,278. Court No. 24-00085 Page 4

In the Final Results, Commerce rejected Nanjing’s Separate Rate

Certification as untimely, decided not to select Nanjing as a mandatory respondent,

and applied adverse facts available to assign Nanjing the China-wide entity

antidumping duty rate. Final Results, 89 Fed. Reg. at 25,236–37; Final IDM at 24–

31.

In Nanjing I, the Court held that Commerce’s decision not to select Nanjing

as a mandatory respondent was not in accordance with law and unsupported by

substantial evidence because Commerce failed “to comply with the statutory

requirements for the selection of mandatory respondents based on exporters of the

‘largest volume’ of subject merchandise under 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(2)[.]”

Nanjing I, 49 CIT at __, 781 F. Supp. 3d at 1380. The Court held that Nanjing’s

Separate Rate Certification was untimely, but Nanjing filed it only one week after

the deadline and at the same time that the other respondents considered filed their

certifications based on their extended deadlines. Id. The Court concluded that

Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification was reasonably available to Commerce. Id.

The Court remanded for Commerce to reconsider the selection of mandatory

respondents and Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification, and deferred consideration

of Nanjing’s remaining arguments. Id.

In its Remand Redetermination, Commerce reversed its prior determination,

accepted Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification, and treated Nanjing as a Court No. 24-00085 Page 5

mandatory respondent. Remand Redetermination at 3–4. Commerce assigned

Nanjing a 25% weighted-average dumping margin. Id. at 27. Commerce denied

Nanjing’s request for a by-product/scrap offset after determining that there was

insufficient record evidence to demonstrate that the quantity of steel scrap sold

during the period of review was less than the quantity of scrap generated. Id. at

24–27.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vi) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c). The Court shall hold unlawful any

determination found to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or

otherwise not in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The Court

also reviews determinations made on remand for compliance with the Court’s

remand order. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38 CIT 727,

730, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

DISCUSSION

Nanjing filed comments opposing the Remand Redetermination and argues

that Commerce’s decision to deny Nanjing’s scrap offset request was unsupported

by record evidence and Commerce’s past practice. Pl.’s Remand Comments at 1–

3, ECF No. 46. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor filed comments requesting

that the Court sustain Commerce’s Remand Redetermination and reject Nanjing’s Court No. 24-00085 Page 6

arguments. Def.’s Comments Supp. Remand Results (“Def.’s Comments”) at 5–9,

ECF No. 48; Def.-Interv.’s Reply Comments Remand Redetermination at 2–8,

ECF Nos. 49, 50.

On remand, Commerce reversed its prior determination in the Final Results

and accepted Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification. Remand Redetermination at

5. Commerce treated Nanjing as a mandatory respondent and issued

questionnaires to Nanjing to gather the information used by Commerce to calculate

the 25% weighted-average dumping margin assigned to Nanjing. Id. at 4, 27.

Commerce also determined that Nanjing was not entitled to a scrap offset because

there was insufficient record evidence to show either the amount of scrap

generated during the period of review, or that the amount of scrap sold during the

period of review was less than the quantity of scrap generated during the period of

review. Id. at 24–27.

Nanjing argues that Commerce erred in denying a scrap offset. Pl.’s

Comments at 1–3. Nanjing contends that it claimed the offset amount of scrap

based on the total quantity of steel scrap sold during the period of review, and

determined the unit consumption for each type of steel scrap by multiplying the

unit standard weight of steel for each CONNUM by a ratio created by allocating

total steel scrap sold to self-produced products based on standard steel weight for

such products. Id. at 1. Nanjing avers that in the draft remand, first review, second Court No. 24-00085 Page 7

review, and investigation, Commerce granted an offset, and it is arbitrary to now

determine otherwise based on the same records. Id. at 2–3. Defendant argues that

Nanjing did not exhaust its administrative remedies because Nanjing did not raise

its objections to the offset denial properly before the agency. Def.’s Comments at

6–7.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d), the Court “shall, where appropriate, require

the exhaustion of administrative remedies.” 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d). The Court

“generally takes a ‘strict view’ of the requirement that parties exhaust their

administrative remedies.” Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States,

716 F.3d 1370, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Corus Staal BV v. United States,

502 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “[A]bsent a strong contrary reason, the

court should insist that parties exhaust their remedies before the pertinent

administrative agencies.” Boomerang Tube LLC v. United States, 856 F.3d 908,

912 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Corus Staal BV, 502 F.3d at 1379). Generally,

exhaustion requires that a party submit an administrative case brief to Commerce

presenting all arguments that continue to be relevant to Commerce’s final

determination or results. Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed.

Cir. 2010); see 19 C.F.R. § 351.309(c)(2) (“[t]he case brief must present all

arguments that continue in the submitter’s view to be relevant to the . . . final

determination or final results”). “If a party fails to put forth a relevant argument Court No. 24-00085 Page 8

before Commerce in its case brief, then that argument is typically considered

waived and will not be considered by a court on appeal.” DuPont Teijin Films

China Ltd. v. United States, 38 CIT 1099, __, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1338, 1354 (2014).

There are limited exceptions to the exhaustion requirement: when “(1)

plaintiff’s argument involves a pure question of law; (2) there is a lack of timely

access to the confidential record; (3) a judicial decision rendered subsequent to the

administrative determination materially affected the issue; or (4) raising the issue

at the administrative level would have been futile.” Ninestar Corp. v. United

States, 48 CIT __, __, 687 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1326 (2024) (quoting Gerber Food

(Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 33 CIT 186, 193, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1370, 1377

(2009)). The exhaustion requirement may also be waived “if the issue was raised

by another party, or if it is clear that the agency had an opportunity to consider it.”

Holmes Prod. Corp. v. United States, 16 C.I.T. 1101, 1104 (1992); see also

Pakfood Pub. Co. v. United States, 34 C.I.T. 1122, 1145, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1327,

1351 (2010).

In the administrative proceedings before Commerce, Nanjing failed to

challenge Commerce’s determination that Nanjing was not entitled to a scrap

offset. See Remand Redetermination at 24 (noting the lack of comments on the

offset issue from Nanjing for the draft remand results). Nanjing did not argue in its

remand comments before the Court that an exception to the exhaustion doctrine Court No. 24-00085 Page 9

applies, and the Court concludes that neither the law nor the facts describe a

“strong contrary reason” for permitting Nanjing to sidestep the requirement to

exhaust its administrative remedies. Boomerang Tube LLC, 856 F.3d at 912.

The Court concludes that Nanjing did not exhaust its administrative

remedies as to Nanjing’s argument that Commerce erred in the Remand

Redetermination by denying an offset because Nanjing failed to address the issue

during the remand administrative proceeding when it had an opportunity to express

dissatisfaction with Commerce’s actions. Because Nanjing did not exhaust its

administrative remedies, Nanjing has waived this argument before the Court.

Accordingly, the Court will not opine on this issue, and the Court sustains

Commerce’s Remand Redetermination. Court No. 24-00085 Page 10

CONCLUSION

The Court holds that Commerce complied with the Court’s remand order in

accepting Nanjing’s Separate Rate Certification and treating Nanjing as a

mandatory respondent. The Court holds that Nanjing waived its objections to

Commerce’s denial of a scrap offset.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Redetermination is sustained.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge Date: June 23, 2026 New York, New York