Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 74
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2013Background
- Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd., and Global Paper Solutions challenge DOC’s Final AD Order on Certain Coated Paper from China.
- Court reviews DOC’s Final AD Order under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) and the substantial-evidence/Arbitrary-and-capricious standards, applying Chevron deference for interpretations.
- DOC used a 33% market-economy (ME) input-purchase threshold to value inputs; 32.9% ME purchases were at issue, leading to a weighted-average/ surrogate-value approach for the remaining portion.
- Commerce refused to recognize Thailand and Korea raw materials as bona fide ME purchases, citing possible subsidies; Fuyao Glass and Sichuan Changhong precedents govern remand findings.
- Commerce applied non-market economy (NME) methodology; plaintiffs press MOE treatment as alternative ME methodology, which the court finds premature but reasonable to consider on remand.
- Targeted-dumping findings and related regulatory framework (including the Limiting Rule withdrawal) are challenged, with remand ordered to reassess the targeted-dumping remedy and testing program; issues also include EP/CEP classification disputes and a disputed surrogate-wage methodology.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ME input threshold ruling | APP-China contends 32.9% ME inputs warrant ME pricing for those inputs. | Commerce treats below 33% as surrogate-valued; 33% serves as an objective benchmark. | Remand to recalculate using ME input prices for the 32.9% threshold. |
| Recognition of ME purchases from Korea/Thailand | APP-China urged use of Korea/Thailand inputs if non-subsidized. | Prices may be subsidized; need evidence under Fuyao/Sichuan Changhong criteria. | Remand to make Fuyao Glass criteria-specific findings or recompute margin accordingly. |
| MOE treatment and NME methodology | Gold East should receive MOE/ME treatment rather than NME method. | Agency did not adopt MOE treatment; methodology reasonable and non-preclusive. | Reasonable; remand not necessary to adopt MOE treatment at this stage. |
| Targeted dumping regulation withdrawal and testing | Limiting Rule withdrawal violated APA notice and comment; testing flawed. | Withdrawal justified by good-cause rationale; testing and application were appropriate. | Withdrawal APA defect; remand to limit targeted-dumping remedy and reassess Nails-based testing and program. |
| Export Price vs Constructed Export Price classification | Some U.S. sales may be CEP rather than EP due to affiliate structure and pre-import invoicing. | Record supports EP classification; GEHK as seller outside the U.S. with sale terms pre-import. | Remand to reassess EP/CEP classification with fuller record analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shakeproof Assembly Components Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (best-information approach when meaningful quantities exist for ME data)
- Fuyao Glass Indus. Group Co. v. United States, 29 CIT 109 (CIT 2005) (three-factor test for subsidy concerns in surrogate pricing evidence)
- Sichuan Changhong Electric Co. v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (CIT 2006) (remand findings on subsidized inputs in alternative supplier countries)
- AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (affiliate-seller distinctions affect EP/CEP treatment)
- Corus Staal BV v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (pre-importation sale analysis and CEP/EP classification under statute)
- Nucor Corp. v. United States, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (CIT 2009) (offshore sale considerations and location of sale for EP/CEP)
- Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (methodologies for selecting surrogate data and wage-rate calculation in NME cases)