Slip Op. 08-115 

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]. 

 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.