Slip Op. 08-42 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

GLEASON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, 

INC. and PRECISION PRODUCTS, 

INC., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 

 Defendant, 

and 

CENTRAL PURCHASING, LLC, 

 Defendant- 

 Intervenor. 

Before: Richard W. Goldberg, 

 Senior Judge 

Court No. 06-00089 

OPINION

[Commerce’s remand results are sustained in part and remanded in 

part]. 

 Date: April 14, 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. 

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting 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 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 2

Commerce (Carrie Lee Owens), of counsel, for Defendant United 

States. 

GOLDBERG, Senior Judge: This matter is before the Court 

following its grant of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

(“Commerce”) voluntary remand request. See Gleason Indus. 

Prods., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 07-40, 2007 WL 781196 

(CIT Mar. 16, 2007). On remand, Commerce held that Central 

Purchasing, LLC’s (“Central Purchasing”) welding carts were 

within the scope of an antidumping duty order in place against 

certain hand trucks manufactured in China. For the reasons that 

follow, Commerce’s results are sustained in part and remanded in 

part. 

I. BACKGROUND

 In 2004, Commerce entered an antidumping duty order on 

certain varieties 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). At that time, Central 

Purchasing asked Commerce to determine whether two of its 

welding carts, models 93851 and 43615, were within the scope of 

this order. Upon investigation, Commerce found that Central 

Purchasing’s carts 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). 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 3

 Plaintiffs Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and Precision 

Products, Inc. (collectively “Gleason”) challenged this 

determination and filed a motion for judgment on the agency 

record. Upon review of Gleason’s motion, Commerce requested a 

voluntary remand to consider whether: (1) Central Purchasing’s 

welding carts possessed a projecting edge capable of sliding 

under a load;1 and (2) whether Central Purchasing’s welding carts 

were within the scope of the antidumping duty order due to its 

express mention of cylinder hand trucks. The Court granted 

Commerce’s request. See Gleason, 2007 WL 781196, at *5. On 

remand, Commerce determined that Central Purchasing’s welding 

carts were included within the scope of the order because they 

possessed a projecting edge capable of sliding under a load, and 

also qualified as cylinder hand carts under the order’s scope 

language. Central Purchasing appeals this remand determination.2

 

 

1

 In its voluntary remand request, Commerce stated that it wanted 

to review whether the cart’s projecting edges “easily” slid 

under a load for the purposes of moving or lifting the load. In 

Commerce’s remand results, the agency conceded that the term 

“easily” is not part of the scope language and that 

consideration of the ease with which the edge slides under an 

item is not a relevant consideration. See Results of 

Redetermination on Remand Pursuant to Gleason Indus. Prods., 

Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 07-40 (CIT Mar. 16, 2007), at 14 

(“Remand Determination”). 

2

 Central Purchasing also argues that Gleason failed to exhaust 

its administrative remedies and that Commerce failed to maintain 

a complete administrative record. These arguments lack merit. 

 (footnote continued) 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 4

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 “means such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 

(1938). However, 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). In sum, this standard asks only whether 

Commerce’s interpretation is reasonable. See Nippon Steel Corp. 

v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, 

Commerce’s findings must be “reached by ‘reasoned 

decisionmaking,’ including an examination of the relevant data 

and a reasoned explanation supported by a stated connection 

 

The exhaustion argument was rendered moot when this Court 

granted Commerce’s voluntary remand request. See Gleason, 2007 

WL 781196, at *5. The administrative record argument has also 

been addressed because the Court found no error when it 

previously denied Central Purchasing’s Motion to Supplement the 

Administrative Record. 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 5

between the facts found and the choice made.” See Husteel Co. v. 

United States, 31 CIT __, , 491 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1291 (2007) 

(citing Elec. Consumers Res. Council v. Fed. Energy Regulatory 

Comm’n, 747 F.2d 1511, 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).

III. DISCUSSION

 On remand, Commerce found Central Purchasing’s welding 

carts were within the scope of the antidumping duty order 

because the carts possessed the required physical 

characteristics and qualified as cylinder welding carts. The 

Court’s analysis focuses solely on the first determination 

because regardless of whether these carts qualify as cylinder 

welding carts, they must also possess the required physical 

characteristics to be within the order’s scope.3

 Pursuant to the 

order, hand trucks must have four physical components: (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

Hand Trucks from China, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122. All parties 

agree that Central Purchasing’s carts possess the first three 

components. Central Purchasing, however, argues that its 

welding carts lack a projecting edge. Under the antidumping 

 

3 Commerce concedes this point in its Remand Determination

noting that “[a]s required by the Department’s regulations, 

the Department must analyze the physical characteristics of 

Central Purchasing’s welding carts with the characteristics 

of hand trucks covered by the order regardless of whether the 

welding carts are cylinder hand trucks.” Remand Determination, 

at 14. 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 6

duty order, a projecting edge (or “toe plate”) is defined as “a 

horizontal projecting edge or edges . . . perpendicular or 

angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of 

the vertical frame.” Id. This projecting edge must also 

“slide[] under a load for the purposes of lifting and moving a 

load.” Id. The issue of whether Central Purchasing’s welding 

carts are within the scope of this order hinges on whether 

Commerce’s conclusion that these carts possess projecting edges 

capable of sliding under a load is supported by substantial 

evidence. 

A. The Projecting Edges’ Physical Characteristics 

 On remand, Commerce examined whether the welding carts’ 

“storage trays” qualified as projecting edges. The evidence 

submitted by both parties demonstrates that these trays extend 

out at of a height of roughly 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 inches from the 

bottom of their respective vertical frames. Central Purchasing 

argued that because these trays are not flush with the bottom of 

the carts’ vertical frames they fall outside the order’s scope. 

Commerce disagreed.4

 

 

4

 Central Purchasing also claims that its models have restrictive 

external bars which place its carts outside the order’s scope. 

However, these external bars do not impact a projecting edge’s 

ability to slide under a load, but merely limit the size of load 

the cart can slide under. At best, these bars constitute an 

additional feature, which the scope order makes clear does not 

remove a cart from the antidumping duty order’s application. 

See Hand Trucks from China, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122. 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 7

 To support its determination, Commerce relied on the 

language of both the antidumping duty order and the 

International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) final investigative 

report. Under the order, a projecting edge is “a horizontal 

projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled 

to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the 

vertical frame.” Id. Similarly, the ITC’s final investigative 

report defined a projecting edge as: “[a] load support nose 

member . . . [that] is connected to the lower front portion of 

the frame.” Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from China, 

USITC Pub. 3737, Inv. No. 731-TA-1059 (Final), at I-4, N.12 

(Nov. 2004). According to this language, a projecting edge is 

not required to be flush with the vertical frame to fall within 

the order’s scope. As the welding cart trays are both connected 

to and perpendicular or angled toward the vertical frame of both 

welding cart models, substantial evidence supports Commerce’s 

conclusion. 

B. The Projecting Edges’ Ability to Slide Under Loads

 Commerce also concluded that the projecting edges of models 

93851 and 43615 are capable of sliding under a load if the load 

is slightly tipped or tipped.5

 See Results of Redetermination on 

 

5 In the past, Commerce has drawn a distinction between a 

projecting edge’s ability to slide under a load, and a 

 (footnote continued) 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 8

Remand Pursuant to Gleason Indus. Prods., Inc. v. United States, 

Slip Op. 07-40 (CIT Mar. 16, 2007), at 11—12 (“Remand 

Determination”). Commerce found that the downward facing 

vertical edges of the carts’ projecting edges, or the outside 

edges that would actually meet a load, assist users in sliding 

the welding carts under loads. Id. However, Commerce 

overlooked a critical distinction between the two models of 

Central Purchasing’s welding carts. While models 93851 and 

43615 are similar in many aspects, the vertical edges of their 

projecting edges are different. Model 93851’s vertical edge is 

turned downward, but model 43615’s vertical edge is not. See

id. at 23. In light of this distinction, Commerce’s conclusions 

regarding each model must be evaluated separately. 

 

 

projecting edge’s ability to have a load slid across or onto it. 

See Final Scope Ruling: Antidumping Duty Order on Hand Trucks 

From the People’s Republic of China (A-570-891); Expeditors 

Tradewin, LLC, on behalf of Ameristep Corp., Inc. (May 15, 

2007); see also Def. Intervenor’s. Br. at 29 n.13. 

According to Commerce, if a cart’s projecting edge can slide 

under a load, the cart will be within the scope of the order. 

If the cart’s projecting edge is only capable of having a load 

slid across or onto it, the cart will not fall within the 

order’s scope. In the present case, Commerce found that Central 

Purchasing’s welding carts can perform both functions as the 

welding carts’ ability to have a load slid across their 

projecting edges does not prevent these edges from also sliding 

under a load. See Remand Determination, at 25—26. In short, 

the presence of this additional “sliding across” function does 

not place Central Purchasing’s welding carts outside the order’s 

scope. See Hand Trucks from China, 69 Fed. Reg. at 70,122. 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 9

i. Model 93851

 The vertical edge of model 93851’s projecting edge slopes 

downward toward potential loads. Model 93851’s projecting edge 

is elevated only slightly and not to the degree to render 

tipping a load to allow the projecting edge to slide under 

implausible. This model’s projecting edge is 1 1/4 inches thick 

making it durable and capable of lifting and moving a load as 

required under the order’s scope language. See id. at 23—24. 

Additionally, no warnings or user limitations indicate that this 

model is prohibited from sliding under a load, which can provide 

evidence of the intended purpose of an alleged hand truck’s 

projecting edge. See Vertex Int’l, Inc. v. United States, Slip 

Op. 06-10, 2006 WL 160295, at *5 (CIT Jan. 19, 2006). These 

facts provide substantial evidence in support of Commerce’s 

determination that model 93851 falls within the scope of the 

antidumping duty order. 

ii. Model 43615

 Substantial evidence does not support Commerce’s 

conclusions regarding the ability of model 43615’s projecting 

edge to slide under a load. In contrast to model 93815, model 

43615’s projecting edge functions as a “box” for holding welding 

equipment which consists of a flat tray surrounded by four 

upturned walls, and its vertical edge does not face downward. 

Central Purchasing specifically noted that this model’s vertical 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 10

edge “cannot be described as facing downward because all four 

sides of the toe plate form a tray with the sides upturned.” 

Remand Determination, at 23—24. Commerce attempted to rebut 

Central Purchasing’s argument by claiming it relied on the 

cart’s generalized features and that this cart is substantially 

similar to model 93851. See id. at 27. However, substantial 

evidence requires “a reasoned explanation supported by a stated 

connection between the facts found and the choice made.” 

Husteel Co., 31 CIT at __, 491 F. Supp. 2d at 1291 (citing Elec. 

Consumers Res. Council, 747 F.2d at 1513). Commerce 

specifically relied on its erroneous evaluation of model 43615’s 

vertical edge when it concluded that “[b]ecause the vertical 

edge of the toe plate faces downward, the user can both slide a 

load onto the welding cart and slide the toe plate or projecting 

edge under a load without obstruction.” Remand Determination, 

at 11—12. In ignoring the substantial design differences 

between the two models, Commerce’s analysis of model 43615 is 

unsupported in its present form and its determination that the 

cart falls within the order’s scope lacks substantial evidence. 

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, this Court sustains Commerce’s 

remand results in part and remands in part. On remand, Commerce 

must evaluate whether model 43615’s projecting edge is capable 

of sliding under a load for the purpose of lifting and moving 
Court No. 06-00089 Page 11

that load. If Commerce is unable to do so, it must find that 

model 43615 falls outside the scope of the antidumping duty 

order. A separate order shall be entered accordingly. 

 /s/ Richard W. Goldberg__

 Richard W. Goldberg 

 Senior Judge

Date: April 14 , 2008 

 New York, New York