AMS Associates, Inc. v. United States
719 F.3d 1376
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on laminated woven sacks from the PRC; Aifudi (a PRC exporter) initially received a company-specific (separate) rate after demonstrating lack of government control.
- Commerce initiated an administrative review for Jan 31, 2008–July 31, 2009; Aifudi submitted Section A responses (with public and confidential versions) and supplemental materials, which Commerce had not yet verified.
- Commerce preliminarily found Aifudi eligible for a separate rate; seven days later Aifudi withdrew from the review and asked Commerce to remove/destroy its confidential submissions; Commerce complied.
- After withdrawal, Commerce concluded it lacked verifiable record evidence to determine lack of PRC government control and applied the PRC-wide (country-wide) rate using facts available and an adverse inference under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677e(a),(b).
- The Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s final results; Shapiro Packaging (U.S. affiliate) appealed, arguing Commerce erred in applying the PRC-wide rate and in disregarding Aifudi’s remaining public information.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding Commerce’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and lawful given the lack of verifiable information after Aifudi’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly applied the PRC‑wide rate to Aifudi after Aifudi withdrew and removed confidential records | Shapiro: Commerce erred; Aifudi had demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate in the review and Commerce should not impose the PRC‑wide rate | U.S./Commerce: Aifudi’s withdrawal prevented verification and left no verifiable record evidence; Commerce may use facts available and an adverse inference | Affirmed: Commerce reasonably concluded Aifudi failed to carry its burden and lawfully applied the PRC‑wide rate |
| Whether Commerce lawfully disregarded remaining Aifudi‑submitted public information on the record | Shapiro: Commerce improperly disregarded still‑available public information that could support a separate rate | U.S./Commerce: Remaining public information lacked necessary verifiability and did not cure the missing core evidence; disregarding it was reasonable here | Affirmed: Substantial evidence supports Commerce’s decision to disregard unverifiable/materially missing submissions |
Key Cases Cited
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (presumption of state control in NME cases and separate‑rate framework)
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (standard of review for Commerce findings)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency decisions must show a discernible path of reasoning)
- Hontex Enters., Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (refusal of verification justifies denying separate‑rate proof)
- Qingdao Taifa Grp. Co. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2009) (withholding/altering documents permits disregarding submission)
- Shandong Huarong Mach. Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (upholding country‑wide rate where record evidence was incomplete/unverifiable)
- Shanghai Taoen Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (upholding non‑reliance on submissions missing core information)
- Advanced Tech. & Materials Co. v. United States, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (examples of de jure/de facto control factors for separate‑rate analysis)