Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. v. United States
2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 35
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- GWK and the Bureau challenged Commerce's Final Determination in the CVD investigation of Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the PRC and related issues.
- Commerce found a countervailable subsidy to GWK via wire rod from GOC/SOEs, using a world-average benchmark due to market distortion.
- Pub. L. No. 112-99 was enacted, addressing the GPX II ruling and altering CVD/AD interactions, including section 1 and section 2.
- GPX II/III/IV history and CAFC remand proceedings framed the constitutional and retroactivity questions.
- The court upheld the new law as constitutional and sustained Commerce’s Final Determination as supported by substantial evidence and law.
- The court dismissed the action and affirmed the Commerce determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application of section 1 | GWK contends section 1 retroactively changes CVD law against NME goods. | Commerce contends section 1 clarifies law as applied pre-GPX II. | Constitutional retroactive application sustained. |
| Ex Post Facto and due process | Section 1 imposes punitive retroactive duties violating Ex Post Facto and due process. | Section 1 is remedial/economic regulation with rational basis; notice exists. | No Ex Post Facto or due process violation. |
| Equal protection | Section 1 vs Section 2 creates arbitrary treatment of importers. | Differences serve administrative efficiency and WTO-related implementation. | Rational basis; no equal protection violation. |
| Authority status of GOC-majority wire rod suppliers | Majority ownership does not entail government control; five-factor test is proper. | Majority ownership creates rebuttable presumption of control; five-factor test otherwise. | Commerce's majority-owned suppliers treated as authorities sustained. |
| Authority status of GOC-minority wire rod suppliers | Minority ownership should negate authority status absent elements of control. | Five-factor test validates control; substantial evidence supports authority status. | Commerce's minority-owned authorities determination sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaparral Steel Co. v. United States, 901 F.2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (trade duties remedial, not punitive; purpose to offset foreign subsidies)
- Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States, 801 F.2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Georgetown Steel upheld reasonable interpretation of CVD law in context of economy)
- GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (CAFC held CVDs cannot be applied to NME goods under pre-existing law)
- GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 37 CIT __ (2013) (remand addressing new law's constitutionality (GPX IV) under retroactivity)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (Chevron deference and agency interpretation framework)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (test for retroactive legislation and ex post facto concerns)
- N Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 446 U.S. 359 (1980) (reliance considerations in retroactivity and due process analysis)
- Carlton v. United States, 512 U.S. 26 (1994) (retrospective tax-like changes and their legislative purposes)
- Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Dalton, 119 F.3d 972 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (three-prong Huaiyin test for penal nature of laws)
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Huaiyin test for penal vs remedial nature of conduct)