Chandan Steel Ltd. v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHANDAN STEEL LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1291
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:21-cv-00540-TCS, Senior Judge Timothy C.
Stanceu.
______________________
Decided: June 4, 2026
______________________
J EREMY WILLIAM D UTRA, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
G EOFFREY M. L ONG, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by T ARA K. HOGAN, P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE; P AUL HENRY T HORNTON, III, Office of the Chief
Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United
States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 1 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 2
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
Chandan Steel Limited (“Chandan”) appeals from a
final decision of the Court of International Trade (“Trade
Court”) upholding an antidumping order on stainless steel
flanges from India by the International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”). See Kisaan Die Tech Priv. Ltd. v. United
States, 665 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023)
(“Decision”). For the reasons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A group of domestic flange producers petitioned
Commerce to initiate an antidumping investigation into
stainless steel flanges from India. See Subject: Decision
Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the
Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Stainless Steel
Flanges from India, 83 ITADOC 13246 (Mar. 28, 2018). In
March 2018, Commerce published a Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (“LTFV”),
stating that stainless steel flanges from India were being,
or likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Id. This
included sales of stainless steel flanges by Chandan and
another entity not party to this appeal, known as the
“Bebitz/Viraj single entity.” Id.
In August 2018, Commerce issued a final
determination of sales at LTFV of imports of stainless steel
flanges from India. Decision, 665 F. Supp. 3d at 1368.
Commerce then published an antidumping order on
stainless steel flanges from India with an adjusted margin
of 19.16% against Chandan and 145.25% against the
Bebitz/Viraj single entity. Id. at 1367–68, 1377 n.9 . The
antidumping order applied only to flanges with a one-half
inch to twenty-four inch nominal pipe size. Id. at 1372.
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 2 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 3
In December 2019, Commerce initiated its first
administrative review of the antidumping order for entries
of stainless steel flanges from India made during a period
of review of March 28, 2018, through September 30, 2019.
Id. at 1368.
In March 2020, Commerce selected Chandan as the
sole mandatory respondent and issued to it an initial
antidumping questionnaire. Id.; J.A. 83–85. In the initial
questionnaire, Commerce asked Chandan to provide all
comparison-market sales in the period of review plus those
same sales from a “window period” of three months prior to
and two months after the period of review. See Decision,
665 F. Supp. 3d at 1370–71; J.A. 171. In June 2020,
Chandan responded with the requested data for the period
of review, but omitted the window period data. See
Decision, 665 F. Supp. 3d at 1371–72; J.A. 165–66, 170–71;
see also J.A. 221–33.
In response, Commerce issued a second questionnaire
to Chandan in August 2020, asking Chandan to supply the
missing information. See Decision, 665 F. Supp. 3d at
1372; J.A. 879–92. In September 2020, Chandan
responded by including the requested window period data,
but omitted data regarding flanges with a nominal pipe
size below 1.5 inches. See Decision, 665 F. Supp. 3d at
1372.
Commerce then issued a third questionnaire to
Chandan in November 2020, asking Chandan to correct the
omission of flanges with a nominal pipe size below 1.5
inches. Decision, 665 F. Supp. 3d at 1372; J.A. 1645–47.
Chandan responded in December 2020 but, as in its first
response, omitted the window period sales. Decision,
665 F. Supp. 3d at 1372. Chandan thus never submitted
window period sales for smaller-size flanges over the
course of the three questionnaires. See id. at 1376.
In February 2021, Commerce issued its preliminary
results. Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Preliminary
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 3 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 4
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2018–2019, 86 Fed. Reg. 11,233 (Feb. 24, 2021), J.A. 83–
100. There, Commerce determined that use of adverse
facts available (“AFA”)––i.e., inferences adverse to
Chandan’s interests when selecting from facts outside the
record––was appropriate because Chandan “ha[d] failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability” where it, inter alia,
provided information “so inaccurate as to be unusable” due
to its failure to submit complete window period data. Id.
at 88–89, 95–96. It then assigned to Chandan a
preliminary dumping margin of 145.25%. Id. at 99.
In August 2021, Commerce published its final results.
Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 2018–2019, 86
Fed. Reg. 47,619 (Aug. 26, 2021) (“Final Results”), J.A.
106–53. There, Commerce confirmed both the use of AFA,
id. at 116, and the preliminary dumping margin, id. at 137.
Commerce also applied total, rather than partial, AFA
against Chandan because because it found that Chandan
did not cooperate to the best of its ability and that “the
current record information [was] incomplete and [could
not] be used without undue difficulties.” Id. at 116.
Chandan then challenged Commerce’s Final Results at
the Trade Court, which reviewed Commerce’s determina-
tions1 for substantial evidence. See Decision, 665 F. Supp.
1 Commerce’s decision to apply AFA also rested on
its additional determinations that Chandan did not cor-
rectly report (1) production costs for the foreign like prod-
uct at a defined control number (“CONNUM”) level, thus
preventing Commerce from properly conducting its margin
analysis, and (2) gross unit price, quantity discounts, other
discounts, and duty refunds. See Decision, 665 F. Supp. 3d
at 1375–76. The Trade Court reasoned that it “need not
resolve the disagreements between the parties” on those is-
sues, and focused its analysis on the “omission of sales of
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 4 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 5
3d at 1368–78. The Trade Court first concluded that sub-
stantial evidence supported Commerce’s use of total AFA
because Chandan did not submit the requested and neces-
sary window period data, even after multiple opportunities
for correction. Id. at 1374. The Trade Court then con-
cluded that substantial evidence supported Commerce’s
145.25% margin selection because Commerce assigned the
same rate to the Bebitz/Viraj single entity, another unco-
operative respondent in the same underlying investigation.
Id. at 1377.
Chandan timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review decisions of the Trade Court de novo and
apply anew the same standard used by the Trade Court.”
Mukand, Ltd. v. United States, 767 F.3d 1300, 1305–06
(Fed. Cir. 2014). Because “Commerce’s special expertise in
administering the anti-dumping law entitles its decisions
to deference from the courts,” “[w]e will uphold Commerce’s
determination unless it is ‘unsupported by substantial
evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.’” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i)). We also give “great weight” to the
Trade Court’s “informed opinion[s]”. See SeAH Steel VINA
Corp. v. United States, 950 F.3d 833, 840 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(citation omitted). Substantial evidence is “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Nat’l
Lab. Rels. Bd., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938) (citations omitted).
smaller-size flanges occurring in window periods.” Id. at
1376. Because we resolve the appeal on Chandan’s omis-
sion of window period data and small-size sales, we do not
address these additional determinations.
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 5 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 5 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 6
D ISCUSSION
Chandan appeals Commerce’s decision to use total
AFA and its assignment of a 145.25% margin. Chandan
Open. Br. 1. We address each in turn.
I
We first address Commerce’s decision to use AFA
generally, and then address the decision to use total, rather
than partial, AFA.
A
Commerce’s authority to consider AFA is the product
of two subsections of 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. Subsection (a)
requires Commerce to use facts otherwise available when,
e.g., an “interested party” either “fails to provide . . .
information” requested by Commerce, id. § 1677e(a)(2)(B),
or “significantly impedes a proceeding” by Commerce, id.
§ 1677e(a)(2)(C). Subsection (b) allows Commerce to “use
an inference that is adverse to the interests of” a party that
“has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information” “in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” Id. §
1677e(b)(1)(A). As we have previously explained, “[t]he
focus of subsection (a) is [the] respondent’s failure to
provide information,” while “[t]he focus of subsection (b) is
[the] respondent’s failure to cooperate to the best of its
ability, not its failure to provide requested information.”
Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1381 (emphases omitted).
Accordingly, we first address Commerce’s decision to
use facts otherwise available under § 1677e(a). Commerce
concluded that use of facts otherwise available was
required because Chandan both failed to provide the
information requested under § 1677e(a)(2)(B) and impeded
the proceeding under § 1677e(a)(2)(C) when it, over the
course of three different questionnaires, did not submit
complete window period sales. Final Results, J.A. 113, 116.
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 6 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 6 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 7
We conclude that Commerce’s decision was supported
by substantial evidence. Chandan both failed to provide
the information Commerce requested, see 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677e(a)(2)(B), and “significantly impede[d]” Commerce’s
proceeding, see id. § 1677e(a)(2)(C). Indeed, Chandan’s
failure to provide the requested window period data, over
the course of three questionnaires, is an unambiguous
failure to provide requested information under
§ 1677e(a)(2)(B). See Mukand, 767 F.3d at 1306 (use of
facts otherwise available justified where antidumping
respondent “repeated[ly] fail[ed] to provide the
requested . . . data”). Furthermore, Commerce specifically
noted that the missing information was “significant,” as
Chandan’s U.S. sales in the period of review months were
“potentially missing the best comparison market match.”
Final Results, J.A. 113. That missing data was “so
essential to the analysis that they render[ed] the reported
data unusable.” Id. The missing comparison information
was thus also a significant impediment to Commerce’s
investigation under § 1677e(a)(2)(C).
We next address Commerce’s decision to use adverse
inferences when selecting from the facts otherwise
available under § 1677e(b). Commerce concluded that,
despite its repeated requests for window sales data, which
were in Chandan’s possession, Chandan “fail[ed] to correct
the deficiencies in that data.” Final Results, J.A. 131.
Commerce reasoned that Chandan did not put forth its
“maximum effort to provide Commerce with full and
complete answers to all inquiries” because the reporting
was inattentive and the record unreliable, e.g., for failure
to include all flange sizes. Id. at 131–32 (emphasis in
original) (citing Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382).
Commerce’s decision was again supported by
substantial evidence. That is, substantial evidence shows
that Chandan failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in
providing Commerce with the requested information.
Chandan’s report was “inattentive and unreliable”––
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 7 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 7 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 8
despite multiple opportunities to revise and multiple
extensions of time, Chandan omitted relevant data
requested by Commerce. Final Results, J.A. 132–33.
Commerce specifically noted the significance that Chandan
was “a large exporter, with prior experience in Commerce
proceedings,” but still “provided incomplete and unreliable
information.” Id. at 133. Chandan’s failure to provide
relevant information, especially in light of its familiarity
with Commerce proceedings, constitutes substantial
evidence which supports the conclusion that Chandan did
not “put forth its maximum effort to provide Commerce
with full and complete answers to all inquiries in an
investigation.” See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382.
Chandan’s counterarguments are unpersuasive.
Chandan argues that Commerce only speculated that the
window period data were necessary, and in fact the data
submitted were sufficient such that Commerce did not need
to use facts otherwise available. See Chandan Open.
Br. 11–16. But Chandan in essence asks us to substitute
our own views for Commerce’s views and decide that its
submissions, although admittedly deficient, were
adequately sufficient. See id. We cannot do so. Commerce
explained that the requested missing information was
“critical” to its inquiry, as without it, it could not “calculate
an accurate overall dumping margin” because the “best
comparison market match” could have been in the missing
data. Final Results, J.A. 113.2 Commerce did not
speculate that the window period data were necessary;
2 Indeed, it is Commerce’s standard practice to re-
quest window period sales so it can fully evaluate the rele-
vant product sales. See J.A. 3925 (standardized
questionnaire requesting “all sales of the foreign like prod-
uct during the three months preceding the earliest month
of U.S. sales . . . and the two months after the latest month
of U.S. sales”).
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 8 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 8 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 9
rather, it told Chandan that the sales information was
incomplete and necessary by issuing multiple
questionnaires requesting that Chandan provide complete
information. J.A. 879–92; J.A. 1645–47. And, as the Trade
Court noted, “Commerce must be able to obtain from
cooperative respondents, on a timely basis, a reliable
comparison market database in order to calculate a
weighted average dumping margin.” Decision, 665 F.
Supp. 3d at 1375; see Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States,
899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[T]he basic purpose
of [§ 1677e] . . . [is to] determine[e] current margins as
accurately as possible.”). Accordingly, given the
substantial evidence noted above and Commerce’s “special
expertise” in the area, we do not second-guess Commerce’s
decision to use facts otherwise available and adverse
inferences in the case at hand. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d
at 1379.
B
We next address Commerce’s decision to use total,
rather than partial, AFA. “Commerce applies total AFA
when none of the reported data is reliable or usable
because, for example, the data contains pervasive and
persistent deficiencies that cut across the entire record.”
Mukand, 767 F.3d at 1305. “[P]artial AFA may be
appropriate to fill gaps in a record that otherwise contains
usable data and is incomplete with respect to only a
discrete category of information.” Id.
Commerce concluded that total AFA was appropriate
because “the deficiencies in Chandan’s sales and costs data
[were] . . . fundamental and pervasive.” Final Results,
J.A. 130; see id. at 116 (rejecting partial AFA because “the
current record information [was] incomplete and [could
not] be used without undue difficulties”).
Chandan argues that Commerce erred in applying
total AFA because the missing information was a very
small percentage of all U.S. sales. Chandan Open. Br. 18–
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 9 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 9 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 10
19. But even if that missing information was a small
percentage of sales, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports Commerce’s decision to use total, rather than
partial, AFA. There is no dispute that the window period
data for flanges under 1.5 inch nominal pipe diameter were
missing. See id. at 18. And Commerce explained that such
information was “critical to [its] price-to-price margin
calculation.” Final Results, J.A. 113. Furthermore, we
have already agreed that Chandan failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability despite multiple opportunities, as it
submitted “inattentive and unreliable” reporting omitting
relevant data requested by Commerce. Id. at 132–33. And
we have upheld total AFA as “reasonable when a
respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability
despite a number of opportunities to do so.” See Xi’an
Metals & Mins. Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 50 F.4th
98, 109 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). We continue to
do so here in light of “the importance of the information
requested, [such that] Commerce was entirely reasonable
to expect ‘more accurate and responsive answers to [its]
questionnaire[s].” See id. (quoting Mukand, 767 F.3d at
1307).
II
Lastly, we address Commerce’s dumping margin
selection. When use of an adverse inference in selecting
among the facts otherwise available is appropriate,
Commerce may “use any dumping margin from any
segment of the proceeding under the applicable
antidumping order.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d)(1)(B). In
selecting from those dumping margins, Commerce has
discretion to apply the highest margin available. Id.
§ 1677e(d)(2). Commerce is “not . . . required to
corroborate any dumping margin . . . applied in a separate
segment of the same proceeding.” Id. § 1677e(c)(2).
After applying total AFA, Commerce selected a margin
of 145.25% for Chandan. Final Results, J.A. 136. It
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 10 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 10 of 11 --

CHANDAN STEEL LTD. v. US 11
selected that margin by relying on the underlying
investigation against Chandan itself, where Commerce
assigned the same margin against an uncooperative
respondent, the Bebitz/Viraj single entity. Id. at 137–138.
Furthermore, that margin was “corroborated with
Chandan’s own product-specific margins.” Id. at 137
(emphasis omitted).
Chandan argues that Commerce abused its discretion
in selecting a “punitive margin.” Chandan Open. Br. 20–
21. We disagree. While the margin of 145.25% is certainly
much higher than the initial margin of 19.16%, Commerce
acted within its discretion by assigning to Chandan a
dumping margin also given to an uncooperative respondent
from the same underlying proceeding. See 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677e(d)(1)(B); id. § 1677e(d)(2). There is no abuse of
discretion because Commerce acted within its statutory
authority by selecting a margin that was (1) applied in the
same underlying investigation; and (2) corroborated
against Chandan’s own product-specific margins.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Chandan’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the
judgment of the Trade Court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1291 Document: 56 Page: 11 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 11 of 11 --