Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. v. United States
2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 159
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2012Background
- Changbao challenged Commerce's decision to assign the China-wide antidumping rate to Changbao rather than a separate rate.
- Commerce found Changbao's separate rate application unreliable due to Changbao’s deceptive verification conduct and dual record-keeping.
- Verification uncovered that Changbao lied about mill test certificates and maintained two contradictory records, undermining credibility.
- Customs data revealed discrepancies between certificates Changbao provided and those accompanying subject merchandise, undermining verifiable data.
- Commerce exercised its FA authorities under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677e(a)(2), 1677m(d), and 1677m(e), and applied the China-wide rate with an adverse inference based on government-control presumption.
- Final Determination sustained: Changbao treated as part of PRC-wide entity; antidumping margin 99.14% applied to Changbao.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly disregarded Changbao's separate rate | Changbao argues it submitted credible data for a separate rate. | Commerce reasonably found Changbao unreliable and deceptive, justifying disregard of its separate rate. | Sustained; Commerce's disregard of Changbao's separate rate upheld. |
| Whether Changbao withheld information in violation of 1677e(a)(2)(A) | Changbao contends no withholding occurred. | Commerce found willful deception and undisclosed dual records. | Sustained; information withheld supported FA usage. |
| Whether the deficiency implicated the totality of Changbao’s submissions under 1677m(d) | Changbao argues deficiencies were isolated and remedied. | Deception compromised credibility of all submissions and records. | Sustained; deficiency implicated totality of submissions. |
| Whether none of Changbao’s submissions could be verified or used without undue difficulties under 1677m(e) | Changbao asserts some submissions were verifiable and usable. | Verification could not be completed given concealed information and late admissions. | Sustained; verifiability criterion not met. |
| Whether Commerce reasonably applied the presumption of government control and the PRC-wide rate | Changbao disputes reliance on presumption without reliable rebuttal evidence. | Lack of credible rebuttal evidence and unreliability of Changbao's data justified the presumption and China-wide rate. | Sustained; presumption applied and China-wide rate upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (presumption of government control and burden on exporters to show independence)
- Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (NME presumption framework and country-wide rate rationale)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence standard for agency antidumping determinations)
- Shanghai Taoen Int’l Trading Co. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 133 (CIT 2005) (interpretation of FA and verification standards under 1677m/e)
- Gerber Food (Yunan) Co. v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (CIT 2005) (reliability of evidence and use of FA vs. contested information)
- Shandong Huarong Gen. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 1594-1595 (CIT 2003) (reliability of submissions and verification challenges in NME cases)
- Peer Bearing Co. – Changshan v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (CIT 2008) (NME rate corroboration and use of country-wide rate when independence is not shown)
- Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. (30) v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (affirmation of presumption framework for NME exporters)