Slip Op. 08-115
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
GLEASON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS,
INC. and PRECISION PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Plaintiffs, Before: Richard W. Goldberg,
Senior Judge
v.
UNITED STATES, Court No. 06-00089
Defendant,
and
CENTRAL PURCHASING, LLC,
Defendant-
Intervenor.
OPINION
[Commerce’s remand results are sustained].
Date: October 22, 2008.
Crowell & Moring, LLP (Matthew P. Jaffe) for Plaintiffs Gleason
Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc.
Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP (Louis S. Mastriani, William
C. Sjoberg) for Defendant-Intervenor Central Purchasing, LLC.
Gregory D. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; Patricia M.
McCarthy, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice (Stephen C.
Tosini); Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of
Commerce (Carrie Lee Owens), of counsel, for Defendant United
States.
Court No. 06-00089 Page 2
GOLDBERG, Senior Judge: This matter is before the Court
pursuant to our remand in Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. v.
United States, 32 CIT __, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (2008) (“Gleason
II”). On remand, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)
held that Central Purchasing, LLC’s (“Central Purchasing”) hand
truck model 43615 was not within the scope of the antidumping
duty order in place against certain hand trucks manufactured in
China. For the reasons that follow, Commerce’s results are
sustained.
I. BACKGROUND
The procedural history of this case has been laid out at
length in Gleason II. See id. at __, 556 F. Supp. 2d at 1346.
Briefly the relevant facts are as follows: in 2004, Commerce
entered an antidumping duty order on certain types of hand
trucks manufactured in China. See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 69 Fed. Reg. 70,122
(Dep’t. Commerce Dec. 2, 2004) (notice of antidumping duty
order). A hand truck covered by this order must possess four
design elements: (1) a vertical frame; (2) a handle or handles;
(3) two or more wheels; and (4) a projecting edge capable of
sliding under a load. See id. In 2004, Central Purchasing
asked Commerce to determine whether two of its hand carts models
fell under the antidumping duty order. Commerce initially
Court No. 06-00089 Page 3
determined that both models were outside the scope of the
antidumping duty order. See Final Scope Ruling for Central
Purchasing, LLC’s Two Models of Welding Carts (Feb. 15, 2006).
Plaintiffs Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision
Product’s Inc. (collectively “Gleason”) contested this
determination, and upon review of Gleason’s motion, Commerce
requested a voluntary remand to re-evaluate the characteristics
of Central Purchasing’s hand trucks. This Court granted
Commerce’s request. See Gleason Indus. Prods. Inc., v. United
States, Slip Op. 07-40, 2007 WL 781196 (CIT Mar. 16, 2007)
(“Gleason I”). On remand, Commerce found that both models were
included within the scope of the antidumping duty order. See
Redetermination on Remand Pursuant to Gleason Indus. Prods.,
Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 07-40 (CIT, Mar. 16, 2007)
(“First Remand Results”).
Central Purchasing contested Commerce’s First Remand
Results—arguing that Commerce’s conclusions lacked substantial
evidence. On review, this Court affirmed Commerce’s results in
part, and reversed in part. This Court affirmed Commerce’s
conclusion that model 93851 was within the scope of the
antidumping duty order, but reversed Commerce’s conclusions
regarding model 43651 because of the agency’s erroneous findings
regarding the design of its projecting edge. See Gleason II, 32
CIT at __, 556 F. Supp. 2d at 1349. On remand, the Court
Court No. 06-00089 Page 4
ordered Commerce to evaluate whether model 43651’s projecting
edge was capable of sliding under a load.
II. JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1581(c). The 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.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1) (2000).
Substantial evidence is “something less than the weight of the
evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent
conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative
agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”
Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).
III. DISCUSSION
On remand, Commerce found that model 43651’s projecting
edge was not capable of sliding under a load, and was outside
the scope of the antidumping duty order. See Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand in Gleason Indus.
Prods. v. United States, Slip Op. 08-42 (CIT, Apr. 14, 2008)
(“Second Remand Results”). Gleason contests this determination,
and raises two primary arguments: (1) that model 43615’s
projecting edge is capable of sliding under a load; and (2) that
this model’s elevated projecting edge is only an additional
Court No. 06-00089 Page 5
feature which does not place the model outside the scope of the
antidumping duty order. These arguments are addressed in turn.
A. Design of Model 43615’s Projecting Edge
Gleason first argues that the design of model 43615’s
projecting edge allows it to slide under a load. According to
Gleason, models 43615 and 93581 have substantially similar
projecting edges, and that since model 93851 is covered under
the antidumping duty order, model 43851 should also be covered.
This argument lacks merit. Model 43615’s projecting edge is not
flush with the ground, but is instead located a 1/2 inch from
the bottom of its vertical frame. In Commerce’s view, this
alone would not prevent the projecting edge from sliding under a
load were the hand truck slightly tilted to meet the load. See
First Remand Results, at 11-12. However, model 43615’s
projecting edge also has a 1 1/4 inch raised lip which forms one
side of a square box. This square box provides secure storage
space, and prevents loads from sliding off or out of the area of
the projecting edge. According to Commerce, this 1 1/4 inch
raised lip makes 43615’s projecting edge significantly different
than that of model 93581. Model 93851’s projecting edge,
although also raised a 1/2 inch from the base of its vertical
frame, faces downward. This design feature, according to
Commerce, is what allows model 93851’s projecting edge to slide
under a slightly tipped load. Id.
Court No. 06-00089 Page 6
On remand, Commerce found that model 43615’s raised edge
prevents it from sliding under a load, as a load would have to
be lifted or rolled onto the projecting edge over this 1 1/4
raised lip “because the lip acts as barrier to sliding any load
onto the [projecting edge].” Second Remand Results, at 5. In
short, models 43615 and 93851 are significantly different, and
Commerce’s determination that a 1 1/4 inch raised lip prevents
model 43615’s projecting edge from sliding under a load is
reasonable. If the projecting edge “of model 43615 were slid
under a load, the four-sided 1 1/4 inch on the [projecting edge]
would force the load to drop into the four-sided tray.” Second
Remand Results, at 9. Evidence indicates that this could
potentially cause an explosion, and violate the requirements for
safely handling pressurized cylinders–the most common load for
this design model. See id. Accordingly, Commerce’s conclusions
regarding the design of models 43615 and 93815 are supported by
substantial evidence.
B. The Elevated Toe Plate as an Additional Feature
Gleason also argues that the 1 1/4 inch raised lip of model
43615’s projecting edge is an additional physical characteristic
which should not exclude this model from the scope of the
antidumping duty order. This argument is meritless. According
to the antidumping duty order, the fact “that the hand truck may
exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical
Court No. 06-00089 Page 7
frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and
the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical
frame, is not a basis for exclusion . . . .” Hand Trucks from
China, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122. However, model 43615’s raised
edge is not an additional characteristic–but instead relates
directly to the requirements of the antidumping duty order. The
scope language explicitly states that the hand cart’s projecting
edge must be capable of sliding under a load for the purposes of
lifting and moving that load. Id. Here, Commerce did not find
that model 43615 was outside the scope of the antidumping duty
order because of it possessed a 1 1/4 raised edge, but instead
because this raised edge prevents the model from performing a
required function. Accordingly, Commerce’s conclusions are
supported by substantial evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, this Court sustains Commerce’s
remand results.
/s/ Richard W. Goldberg
Richard W. Goldberg
Senior Judge
Date: October 22, 2008
New York, New York
ERRATA
Slip Op. 08-115
On Page 3: in the text, “regarding model 43651,” “43651” should
be replaced with “43615”
On Page 4: in the text, “to evaluate whether model 43651,”
“43651” should be replaced with “43615”
On Page 4: in the text, “Commerce found that model 43651,”
“43651” should be replaced with “43615”
On Page 5: in the text, “According to Gleason, models 43615 and
93581,” “93581” should be replaced with “93815”
On Page 5: in the text, “is covered by the antidumping duty
order, model 43851,” “43851” should be replaced with “43615”
On Page 5: in the text, “significantly different than that of
model “93581,” “93581” should be replaced with “93851”
On Page 6: in the text, regarding the design of models 43615,
and 93815,” “93815” should be replaced with “93851”
Dated: October 24, 2008
ERRATA
On Slip Op. 08-115:
On Page 5: in the text, “According to Gleason, models 43615 and 93581,” “93581” should be
replaced with “93851”.
Dated: October 27, 2008.