938 F. Supp. 2d 1342
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Case concerns Second Remand Redetermination (RR2) in antidumping duty investigation of PRC diamond sawblades and parts; ITC sustains RR2.
- AT&M entity (AT&M, BGY, Gang Yan) deemed part of PRC-wide entity; Commerce found lack of autonomous management control.
- RR2 concluded CISRI’s board involvement and four CISRI officials on AT&M’s board undermined AT&M’s management autonomy.
- Surrogate valuation of 30CrMo steel inputs became moot due to AT&M’s de facto control finding.
- Parties argued re: de jure/de facto tests, ownership, and SASAC Interim Regulations; court emphasized remand scope and avoided substituting its own judgment.
- Final judgment: sustain Final Results of Redetermination (May 6, 2013) and deny further remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AT&M is entitled to a separate rate | DSMC: sustain RR2; AT&M lacks autonomy from PRC state. | Commerce found AT&M did not rebut presumption of state control. | AT&M not eligible for separate rate; PRC-wide rate sustained. |
| Whether Commerce properly analyzed de facto control via management selection | AT&M argues evidence insufficient to show lack of autonomy. | Commerce correctly deemed CISRI-connected management selection as controlling. | Commerce’s de facto control finding sustained. |
| Whether the Second Remand Redetermination altered Commerce’s practice improperly | AT&M asserts alteration of longstanding practice without adequate explanation. | Commerce maintained its framework under remand; no improper change. | Remand analysis upheld; no improper practice found. |
| Whether the PRC-wide rate is an adverse rate under AFA | AT&M contends there was cooperation and no AFA should apply. | PRC-wide rate arises from presumption of state control, not cooperative failure. | PRC-wide rate proper; no AFA applied to AT&M. |
| Presumption of state control and consistency with CVD practice | AT&M attacks the presumption as inconsistent with CVD findings on China’s market reforms. | Court defers to § consistent ITA framework; cites Sigma and related authority. | Presumption maintained; ITA practice remains valid for AD. |
Key Cases Cited
- Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (discusses de facto control and related evidentiary standards in EA/AD contexts)
- Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. v. United States, 884 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (D. Nev. 2012) (discusses cooperation and AFA/PRC-wide rate application logic)
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirms ITA presumption framework for PRC/NME analyses)
- Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (discusses standard for de jure control and government influence)
- Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 343 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see above)