American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Commerce’s selection of facts otherwise available was overly punitive and, therefore, not in accordance with law
• stating that 19 U.S.C. § 1677c gives Commerce “broad discretion” in calculating antidumping margins for “uncooperative respondents”
• holding the corroboration requirement tempers .the deterrent value of an AFA rate to prevent overreaching reality to maximize deterrence
• concluding it would be abuse of discretion for Commerce to “select unreasonably high rates with no relationship to the respondent’s actual dumping margin”
• explaining that an AFA rate should be “a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent’s actual rate, [here, the China-wide entity,] albeit with some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to noncompliance” (emphasis added)
• noting that “[i]t is clear . . . that [Congress] intended for an adverse facts available rate to be a reasonably accurate estimate of the respondent’s actual rate, albeit with some built-in increase intended as a deterrent to non-compliance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).