Shandong Huarong MacHinery 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.

• finding that respondents’ failure to provide relevant information about their agency sales invoicing scheme justified Commerce’s application of AFA
• upholding application of the country-wide rate where the information on the record necessary to calculate a separate rate was incomplete and unverifiable
• “Absent a valid decision to use facts otherwise available, Commerce may not use an adverse inference.”
• “[T]wo prior determinations are not enough to constitute an agency practice that is binding on Commerce.”
• “[B]y merely selecting a rate from a previous review, Commerce has not provided the court with sufficient factual findings justifying its application of the 139.31% rate.”
• “Commerce maintains an established practice of not making circumstances-of-sale adjustments in NME cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).