Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 2017 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 47

Background

Commerce conducted a 2012–2013 new shipper review (NSR) and a concurrent second periodic administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the PRC.
Linyi Bonn participated in an NSR and received a zero dumping margin based on one sale/entry within the NSR POR; two other NSR participants (Huade, Fuerjia) also received zero margins.
Commerce initiated the administrative review covering a one-year POR that overlapped the NSR POR; the Initiation Notice required a 60‑day “no shipment” certification only for firms with no exports/sales/entries during the one‑year POR.
In the administrative review’s Final Results Commerce placed Linyi Bonn in the PRC‑wide entity and assigned the adverse rate 58.84%, but allowed Huade and Fuerjia to retain their zero NSR margins after they filed certifications stating their only POR shipments were reviewed in their NSRs.
Linyi Bonn attempted to file a “partial no shipment certification” after the preliminary results; Commerce rejected it as untimely and assigned the PRC‑wide rate. Linyi Bonn sued; the Court found Commerce failed to give notice of the special ‘‘partial no shipment’’ procedure and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commerce lawfully assigned Linyi Bonn the PRC‑wide rate in the administrative review	Linyi Bonn argued Commerce unlawfully applied 58.84% because it had obtained a zero margin in the NSR and Commerce failed to notify it of the procedure to retain that NSR result in the administrative review	The Government argued Commerce permissibly rejected Linyi Bonn’s late submission and that Linyi Bonn failed to rebut the PRC‑control presumption (no separate rate application)	Court held assignment was unlawful: Commerce failed to provide notice of a partial no‑shipment procedure that would have allowed Linyi Bonn to retain its NSR zero rate; remand required
Whether Commerce properly rejected Linyi Bonn’s January 22, 2015 submission as untimely	Linyi Bonn argued the late filing should have been accepted (or excused) because Commerce never disclosed the applicable procedure and the submission simply confirmed CBP data already on record	Government argued regulations required timeliness and Commerce permissibly exercised discretion to reject untimely factual information	Court held that rejection, viewed under the circumstances, was prejudicial because Commerce had not announced the special procedure; untimeliness alone did not justify imposing the PRC‑wide rate
Whether failure to file a separate rate application justified PRC‑wide treatment	Government emphasized Initiation Notice required separate rate applications and Linyi Bonn did not file one during the administrative review	Linyi Bonn said it provided required evidence in the concurrent NSR and should not have been forced to file a separate rate application if Commerce had disclosed the alternative certification route	Court held that absence of a separate rate application does not excuse Commerce’s failure to notify of the partial‑certification procedure; Commerce had treated Huade and Fuerjia differently and Linyi Bonn was prejudiced
Appropriate remedy	Linyi Bonn sought reinstatement of its zero margin/cash‑deposit rate and corrective action	Government supported upholding agency practice and deadlines	Court ordered remand: Commerce must reconsider, afford Linyi Bonn opportunity to retain NSR result (admit certification or equivalent), file remand redetermination within 45 days, and address effectuating instructions to CBP

Key Cases Cited

Gen. Elec. Co. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agency may not impose adverse consequences after failing to provide notice of a procedure)
Intercargo Ins. Co. v. United States, 83 F.3d 391 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (harmless‑error/prejudice standard for procedural errors)
Transcom Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (burden of rebutting NME government‑control presumption lies with respondent)