Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5024
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Wireking, a Chinese importer, was assessed both antidumping (95.99%) and countervailing (13.30%) duties following investigations of imports initiated in 2008. Wireking appealed, challenging the simultaneous duties as unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- In 2011 this court held in GPX I that countervailing duties did not apply to nonmarket economy (NME) countries; Congress enacted Pub. L. 112-99 (Mar. 13, 2012) to overrule GPX I and authorize CVDs for NMEs, including retroactive application to proceedings initiated on or after Nov. 20, 2006.
- The 2012 law includes a prospective-only provision requiring Commerce to reduce antidumping duties to the extent they were increased by the imposition of CVDs (a double-counting adjustment), but it does not provide that adjustment retroactively to proceedings initiated between Nov. 20, 2006 and Mar. 13, 2012.
- GPX II (reh’g) addressed the legislative change, held Congress altered the law and remanded the retroactivity/double-counting constitutional question to the Trade Court; Wireking’s case raised the same Ex Post Facto challenge.
- The Trade Court found the 2012 amendment remedial, not punitive, and that imposing both duties without a retrospective double-counting adjustment did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Federal Circuit affirmed, applying the Supreme Court’s civil/punitive framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 amendment is retroactive as applied to Wireking | Wireking: statute applies to proceedings initiated before enactment and thus is retroactive | Government: Congress merely clarified preexisting law; GPX I was wrong and the statute does not change legal consequences | Court: statute is retroactive — it changed the law and applied to proceedings initiated after Nov. 20, 2006 |
| Whether Congress could "nullify" GPX I or otherwise render it without effect | Wireking: Congress retroactively changed legal consequences; GPX I remains authoritative on pre-amendment law | Government: Congress intended to erase GPX I’s effect; GPX I was not final so has no force | Court: Congress may change law prospectively/retroactively but cannot "nullify" prior judicial interpretation; GPX I remains the baseline for assessing retroactivity |
| Whether retroactive application of both antidumping and countervailing duties (without a retrospective double-counting adjustment) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Wireking: simultaneous duties double-count subsidies and are punitive (increase punishment for past acts) | Government: duties are civil, remedial, and aimed at offsetting unfair subsidies; lack of retrospective adjustment reflects practical/WTO concerns, not punitive intent | Court: statute is civil and predominantly remedial; Wireking failed to meet the "clearest proof" standard that the law is punitive; no Ex Post Facto violation |
| Whether the absence of retrospective double-counting adjustment renders the law excessive/punitive | Wireking: lack of retroactive adjustment can produce disproportionate, punitive burdens | Government: double-counting calculations are complex; Congress provided prospective relief to meet WTO obligations; any imprecision is not punishment | Court: imperfections or potential retroactive double counting do not overcome remedial purpose; Smith/Mendoza-Martinez factors favor nonpunitive characterization |
Key Cases Cited
- GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (held CVDs do not apply to NME countries under pre-2012 law)
- GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 678 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reh’g) (concluded Congress changed the law and remanded constitutional question)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (limits on Congress prescribing rules of decision to courts; Congress may change law for pending cases)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (tests for retroactivity and when Ex Post Facto concerns arise)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (civil statute becomes punitive only under narrow Mendoza‑Martinez factors; requires clearest proof)