Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01216/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition
Appellee
Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.
Appellant
Hyosung D&P Co., Ltd.
Appellant
SH Trading, Inc.
Appellee
Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co. Ltd.
Appellee
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURERS 

COALITION,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HYOSUNG D&P CO., LTD., EHWA DIAMOND 

INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, SH TRADING, INC., SHINHAN

DIAMOND INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1216, 2015-1224

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:06-cv-00248-RKM, 1:09-cv-00508-RKM, 

1:09-cv-00509-RKM, 1:09-cv-00510-RKM, Senior Judge R. 

Kenton Musgrave.

______________________ 

Decided: December 14, 2015

______________________ 

 DANIEL B. PICKARD, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

MAUREEN E. THORSON. 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2015
2 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US

 JEFFREY S. GRIMSON, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, 

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant Hyosung 

D&P Co., Ltd. Also represented by JILL A. CRAMER,

KRISTIN HEIM MOWRY, SARAH M. WYSS. 

 MARK PARDO, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant Ehwa Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. Also 

represented by ANDREW THOMAS SCHUTZ; MAX FRED 

SCHUTZMAN, NED H. MARSHAK, BRUCE M. MITCHELL, New 

York, NY.

 ALEXANDER V. SVERDLOV, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee 

United States. Also represented by FRANKLIN E. WHITE,

JR., BENJAMIN C. MIZER; AMAN KAKAR, Office of Chief 

Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United 

States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

 MICHAEL PAUL HOUSE, Perkins Coie, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees SH Trading, Inc., Shinhan Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd. Also represented by 

DAVID JOHN TOWNSEND. 

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, PLAGER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. 

In late 2006, the Department of Commerce announced 

that it was changing one of the methods it uses to calculate whether imported goods are being sold in the United 

States at less than fair value, i.e., being dumped. Commerce also addressed the issue of what dumping proceedings would be governed by the new policy, which generally 

made it more difficult to find dumping. When two companies found to have dumped in the present case—

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2015
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US 3

Hyosung D&P Co., Ltd. and Ehwa Diamond Industrial 

Co., Ltd.—argued that their case is among those governed 

by the new policy, Commerce disagreed. We uphold 

Commerce’s determination, because Commerce spoke 

ambiguously on the timing issue in adopting its new 

policy and Commerce reasonably resolved the ambiguity 

to exclude the present matter.

BACKGROUND

A 

Commerce and the International Trade Commission 

share responsibility for investigations about whether an 

antidumping duty should be imposed on goods being 

imported in the United States, and they proceed in two 

stages—first making certain preliminary determinations 

and then, for those investigations which proceed, making 

final determinations. See 19 U.S.C. §§ 1673–1677n. 

Commerce investigates and ultimately determines whether the goods at issue are being or are likely to be sold in 

the United States at less than fair value, as measured in 

various ways specified by statute. §§ 1673(1), 1673d(a), 

1677–1677n. The Commission determines whether a 

domestic industry is “materially injured” or threatened 

with material injury, or whether establishment of a 

domestic industry is materially retarded, by reason of 

imports or sales for which Commerce has made an affirmative determination (i.e., found dumping). §§ 1673(2), 

1673d(b)(1). The statute provides for issuance of an 

antidumping-duty order—imposing import duties in 

amounts keyed to the magnitude of the underpricing—if 

both agencies make the specified affirmative final determinations against the imports, and it provides for termination of the investigation if either agency does not make 

those determinations. §§ 1673, 1673d(c)(2); see 19 C.F.R. 

§§ 351.205(a), 351.210(a). Specified determinations of 

Commerce and the Commission are reviewable in the 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2015
4 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US

Court of International Trade, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a, and then 

this court, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

Commerce sometimes determines whether dumping is 

occurring, and if so in what amounts, by examining 

certain pools of goods and calculating an average amount 

by which they are being sold at less than fair market 

value. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35). Before early 2007, Commerce employed “zeroing” in making that calculation: for 

goods sold above fair value, Commerce treated the sale 

price as being at (rather than above) fair value—it zeroed 

out the margins above fair value. Thus, Commerce permitted no offset against below-fair-value sales in the 

calculation of the average, resulting in larger average 

dumping margins than if offsetting had been allowed. See 

Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101, 1104 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013); Corus Staal BV v. Dep’t of Commerce, 395 F.3d 

1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Advanced Tech. & Materials 

Co. v. United States, 33 I.T.R.D. 1874 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

2011); Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the 

Weighted-Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Investigation; Final Modification, 71 Fed. Reg. 77,722 

(Dec. 27, 2006) (Final Modification). 

On October 31, 2005, the World Trade Organization 

issued a report stating that Commerce’s practice of zeroing in certain investigations violated the WTO Antidumping Agreement. See Advanced Tech., 33 I.T.R.D. at 

1874. Commerce responded by proposing a formal change 

in its methodology for calculating dumping margins in 

investigations, following the notice-and-comment procedures specified in 19 U.S.C. § 3533 for adopting revisions 

of policies based on certain WTO determinations. It 

published a notice in the Federal Register on March 6, 

2006, proposing to abandon its policy of zeroing and 

seeking public comment. Antidumping Proceedings: 

Calculation of the Weighted Average Dumping Margin 

During an Antidumping Duty Investigation, 71 Fed. Reg. 

11,189 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 6, 2006). In its “TimetaCase: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/14/2015
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US 5

ble” section, Commerce proposed that the new policy 

would apply only to “investigations initiated on the basis 

of petitions received on or after the first day of the month 

following the date of publication of the Department’s final 

notice” of the new policy. Id. at 11,189.

On December 27, 2006, after receipt of public comments, Commerce published its final modification, explaining that it would indeed discontinue its practice of 

zeroing in investigations. Final Modification, supra. 

Commerce departed from its initially proposed policy, 

however, in the respect at issue here: it expanded the pool 

of investigations to which the new policy would apply, no 

longer limiting its application to new investigations. In 

its “Timetable” section, which the “Summary” identified 

as setting forth the schedule for implementing the change, 

71 Fed. Reg. at 77,722, Commerce stated that the change 

in policy would apply “in all current and future antidumping investigations as of the effective date.” Id. at 77,725. 

In the “Analysis of Final Comments” section, Commerce 

stated that it had “determined to apply the final modification adopted through this proceeding to all investigations 

pending before the Department as of the effective date.” 

Id. (emphasis added). And it noted that there were only 

seven such investigations, all of them initiated by petitions filed after March 6, 2006, when the new no-zeroing 

policy was proposed. Id. 

Commerce set January 16, 2007, as the effective date 

for the new policy. Id.; id. at 77,722. Commerce later 

changed the effective date to February 22, 2007. Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the WeightedAverage Dumping Margins in Antidumping Investigations; Change in Effective Date of Final Modification, 72

Fed. Reg. 3,783 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 26, 2007).

B 

On June 21, 2005—many months before the March 

2006 proposal to end zeroing—Commerce began investiCase: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/14/2015
6 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US

gating possible dumping by several Chinese and Korean 

producers and exporters of diamond sawblades (circular 

sawblades made partly of diamonds). Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China and the 

Republic of Korea, 70 Fed. Reg. 35,625 (Dep’t of Commerce Jun. 21, 2005). On May 22, 2006, Commerce 

published its final determination that two companies, 

appellants Hyosung and Ehwa, had engaged in dumping. 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the Republic 

of Korea, 71 Fed. Reg. 29,310 (Dep’t of Commerce May 22, 

2006) (Commerce Final Determination). Commerce used 

zeroing in calculating an average dumping margin for 

each company. Id.1

Under the statutory regime, after Commerce reached 

its final determination, the Commission made its final 

determination regarding domestic-industry injury. In 

July 2006, the Commission found no such injury. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From China and 

Korea, 71 Fed. Reg. 39,128 (Jul. 11, 2006). In late July 

2006, the Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition—

a group of domestic producers, which filed the petition 

that prompted Commerce’s investigation here—

challenged the Commission’s determination in the Court 

of International Trade under 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(ii). See Ehwa Br. 5. The matter was in 

1 Issues & Decisions Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Investigation of 

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of Korea, May 15, 2006, at 40–42, 

http://enforcement. trade.gov/frn/summary/KOREASOUTH/E6-7771-1.pdf. 

 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/14/2015
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US 7

the Court of International Trade when, in December 2006, 

Commerce adopted its new no-zeroing policy.

In February 2008, well after the early-2007 effective 

date of the new no-zeroing policy, the Court of International Trade remanded the matter to the Commission for 

further consideration. Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. 

United States, 32 C.I.T. 134 (Feb. 6, 2008). In May 2008, 

the Commission found threatened material injury. Diamond Sawblades & Parts Thereof from China & Korea, 

USITC Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1092 and -1093, USITC Pub. 

4007 (May 2008). That determination was sustained by 

the Court of International Trade in January 2009, Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 33 C.I.T. 48 

(Jan. 13, 2009), and this court later affirmed, Diamond 

Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 612 F.3d 1348, 

1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

While the merits were on appeal in this court, the 

Court of International Trade issued a writ of mandamus 

directing Commerce to publish an antidumping-duty 

order. Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 

650 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 1334 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009). Commerce did so on November 4, 2009, using the calculations 

it had made in May 2006 using zeroing. Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty 

Orders, 74 Fed. Reg. 57,145 (Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 4, 

2009). This court eventually affirmed the mandamus 

order. Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 

626 F.3d 1374, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Hyosung and Ehwa filed challenges in the Court of 

International Trade. With the court’s permission, Commerce corrected some ministerial errors in its final determination. Amended Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof From the Republic of Korea, 75 Fed. Reg. 14,126 

(Dep’t of Commerce March 24, 2010). In 2013, the Court 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 7 Filed: 12/14/2015
8 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US

of International Trade decided the issue now presented 

for decision to us: it held that Commerce did not err by 

deeming its new no-zeroing policy inapplicable to the 

calculation of the dumping margin in this matter. Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 2013 WL 

5878684 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2013).

The Court of International Trade entered a final decision on October 29, 2014. J.A. 1. Hyosung and Ehwa 

timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(5).

DISCUSSION

Because we are presented only with a legal question, 

we decide this dispute de novo: we apply the same standard applied by the Court of International Trade, asking if 

the Commerce decision at issue is “not in accordance with 

law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). See Michaels Stores, 

Inc. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1388, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). The question is not whether Commerce committed 

any reversible error in what it decided in the Final Modification about which dumping proceedings would be 

governed by the new no-zeroing policy; the question is 

only what it did decide. As to that interpretive question, 

it is undisputed that it suffices for us to uphold Commerce’s answer if we conclude that the Final Modification 

is ambiguous on the point and Commerce’s interpretation

is a reasonable resolution of the ambiguity. See Auer v. 

Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997); Michaels Stores, 766 

F.3d at 1391; Cathedral Candle Co. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 400 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

In the investigation at issue here, Commerce had, by 

the Final Modification’s effective date of February 2007, 

completed its non-ministerial work, making a “final 

determination” of dumping in May 2006. Even the Commission had completed its work, making a negative injury 

determination in July 2006. The matter was pending 

before the Court of International Trade. And when it 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 8 Filed: 12/14/2015
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US 9

returned to Commerce in 2009, Commerce had no more 

than ministerial work to complete in order to issue an 

antidumping-duty order.

We conclude that the Final Modification is at best 

ambiguous as it applies to the present matter. In fact, 

aspects of the Final Modification strongly support Commerce’s determination. We therefore uphold Commerce’s 

determination that the no-zeroing policy does not apply 

here. 

As we have noted, the Final Modification’s Timetable 

section says that the new policy will apply “in all current 

and future antidumping investigations as of the effective 

date,” 71 Fed. Reg. at 77,725, while an explanatory 

statement in the response to public comments, within a 

section entitled “Whether Implementation Should Apply 

to On-Going Investigations,” says that “the Department 

has determined to apply the final modification adopted 

through this proceeding to all investigations pending 

before the Department as of the effective date,” id. at 

77,724-25. We need not decide whether even the former 

language, if it stood alone, might properly be read to 

exclude a matter, like this one, that was not before either 

Commerce or the Commission in February 2007 and did 

not thereafter return to Commerce for non-ministerial 

work. The “current . . . investigations” language does not 

stand alone, but is accompanied by the facially narrower 

language, “pending before the Department,” which we 

must take as explanation, not a statement of an inconsistent position. At least when read together, the language can reasonably be given Commerce’s 

interpretation—as not reaching investigations in which

Commerce had already made a final determination of 

whether dumping was taking place (by February 2007) 

and did not thereafter return to Commerce for substantive determinations.

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 9 Filed: 12/14/2015
10 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US

The two-agency structure of antidumping investigations admits of that view. To be sure, one might well

treat an “investigation,” under the statute and regulations, as a single matter that is “pending” before both 

Commerce and the Commission from the time it is initiated until it results in a termination or rescission of the 

investigation or issuance of an antidumping-duty order. 

Cf. 19 C.F.R. § 351.102(b)(30) (defining “investigation”). 

But that is not the only facially reasonable view. As 

relevant here, it also makes linguistic and structural 

sense to view the investigation as pending before Commerce until Commerce completes its work, except for any 

ministerial work like correcting arithmetic errors or 

formal entry of an order, and then pending only before the 

Commission for its injury determination, which comes 

later. 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b) (Commission makes injury 

determination only as to imports or sales “with respect to 

which [Commerce] has made an affirmative determination” of dumping). The agencies, after all, investigate 

different aspects of a dumping allegation: Commerce 

investigates whether dumping has occurred, and Commerce investigates whether such dumping has or had or 

threatens certain domestic effects. 

That view makes particular sense in determining the 

application of the Final Modification to the present matter, because there is powerful internal evidence that the 

Final Modification was not meant to apply to the Diamond Sawblades investigation. First: Commerce explained in the Final Modification that “[a]ll of the 

currently pending investigations were initiated as a result 

of petitions filed after the date of publication of the Department’s proposed modification,” i.e., March 6, 2006. 71 

Fed. Reg. at 77,725. The petitions in this case were filed

much earlier—in 2005. 70 Fed. Reg. at 35,625. Second: 

When Commerce stated in the Final Modification that it 

would apply to “all investigations pending before the 

Department as of the effective date,” it also stated that 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 10 Filed: 12/14/2015
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US 11

“[t]he number of pending antidumping investigations is 

few (i.e. there are seven ongoing antidumping investigations).” 71 Fed. Reg. at 77,725. Hyosung, Ehwa, and 

Commerce all agree in this court that this investigation is

not one of the seven investigations (which consist of those 

filed after March 6, 2006). See Hyosung Br. 33; Ehwa Br. 

31 n.7; Gov’t Br. 16 n.3. Diamond Sawblades does not 

disagree. Diamond Sawblades Br. 2. Third: Commerce 

explained that “even in the most advanced of the on-going 

investigations, there is sufficient time to permit the 

parties to comment on the application of this approach 

prior to the final determination in the investigation.” 71 

Fed. Reg. at 77,725 (emphasis added); see id. (in investigations where Commerce had made a preliminary determination, parties will have an opportunity to comment on 

application of the new policy). The implication is that 

Commerce had not made a final determination in any of 

the investigations to which the new policy would apply;

but in this matter, Commerce had already done so. 71 

Fed. Reg. at 29,310.

Later events in this investigation did not make this a 

new investigation (a “future antidumping investigation[],” 

71 Fed. Reg. at 77,725) or make unreasonable the conclusion that this investigation had not been pending before 

Commerce in February 2007. When Commerce took up 

the Diamond Sawblades matter again in 2009, after the 

Court of International Trade upheld the Commission’s 

finding of injury (after remand), Commerce performed 

only ministerial actions. It issued the antidumping-duty 

order based on its 2006 determination, 74 Fed. Reg. at 

57,145, then made a ministerial correction based on an

arithmetic error it had recognized in June 2006 but not 

implemented at the time, because the Commission had 

the matter before it. See Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and 

Parts Thereof From the Republic of Korea, 75 Fed. Reg. 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 11 Filed: 12/14/2015
12 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US

14,126 (Mar. 24, 2010). Hyosung and Ehwa have pointed 

to no more substantive actions that Commerce took.

Hyosung and Ehwa argue that the treatment of this 

investigation as outside the Final Modification is contradicted by Commerce’s later decision to apply the Final 

Modification to a separate investigation, Polyvinyl Alcohol 

From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 76 Fed. Reg. 5562 (Feb. 1, 2011). Commerce’s 

decision in the Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan matter 

gives us pause in assessing the coherence of Commerce’s 

interpretation of the Final Modification. But we do not 

think, in the end, that Commerce’s decision in that matter 

suffices to make unreasonable Commerce’s decision that 

the no-zeroing policy of the Final Modification is inapplicable here.

In the Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan matter the 

Commission issued a preliminary determination of insufficient injury before Commerce reached even a preliminary determination as to whether dumping had occurred, 

and the Commission’s negative preliminary determination precluded Commerce from going forward. Initiation 

of Anti Dumping Duty Investigation: Polyvinyl Alcohol 

From Taiwan, 69 Fed. Reg. 59,204 (Oct. 4, 2004); Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan, 69 Fed. Reg. 63,177 (Oct. 29, 

2004). At the time the Final Modification took effect, 

therefore, the Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan matter had 

not been the subject of a Commerce final determination; 

by February 2007, the matter had just been remanded to 

the Commission for reconsideration of its preliminary 

injury determination. See Celanese Chems. Ltd. v. United 

States, 31 Ct. Int’l Trade 279, 280 (Jan. 29, 2007). Only in

March 2010 did the matter return to Commerce, and only 

then did Commerce do the extensive work involved in 

reaching a final determination of dumping—

questionnaire issuance, verification, scope amendment, 

etc. See Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: Preliminary 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 12 Filed: 12/14/2015
DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US 13

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 55,552

(Sep. 13, 2010); see 76 Fed. Reg. at 5,562. In particular, 

only then did Commerce calculate the respondent’s average dumping margin, which it had not previously done in 

this matter. 75 Fed. Reg. at 55,558.

Commerce could readily decide that the Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan proceeding was situated differently 

from the present matter regarding the “final determination” point mentioned by Commerce in the Final Modification, 71 Fed. Reg. at 77,722, 77,725. The key Commerce 

work, including the margin determinations to which 

zeroing is relevant, was not yet done there, whereas here 

it was. That work was done only after the Final Modification’s effective date, whereas here no such work was done 

after the effective date. Thus, for reasons not applicable 

here, the investigation in the Polyvinyl Alcohol From 

Taiwan matter to which the no-zeroing policy was applied 

can be described as a “future” investigation, as of February 2007, insofar as Commerce’s active role was concerned. We need not decide whether, as Commerce briefly 

suggested at oral argument, the investigation might be 

described, in the alternative, as having been “pending 

before the Department” in February 2007 within the 

meaning of the Final Modification (Commerce’s work in 

the overall investigation got interrupted well before it

arrived at a dumping determination, and the matter had 

been remanded to the Commission by February 2007). 

Those considerations ultimately seem to us enough to 

prevent Commerce’s result in the Polyvinyl Alcohol From 

Taiwan matter from making its result here unreasonable. 

And that is so even though neither matter was among the 

seven mentioned by Commerce in the Final Modification

(both were initiated before March 2006). We think it 

reasonable for Commerce to treat the issue of coverage as 

one to be assessed by looking at the Final Modification as 

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 13 Filed: 12/14/2015
14 DIAMOND SAWBLADES MANUFACTURER v. US

a whole, not any single word (“pending” or “current”) from 

its text. The particularly strong reasons that support a 

finding of non-coverage of the present matter are not 

contradicted by the weaker case for finding coverage of 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan. 

CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the Court of International 

Trade.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1216 Document: 79-2 Page: 14 Filed: 12/14/2015