Max Fortune Industrial Ltd. v. United States
2012 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 86
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2012Background
- This case involves Max Fortune challenging Commerce's Final Results in the 2008–2009 anti dumping admin. rev. of Certain Tissue Paper Products from PRC; Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.2 motion is denied and Commerce’s Final Results are affirmed.
- The fourth administrative review covers March 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009; Max Fortune disputed the use of total adverse facts available (AFA) to set a 112.64% duty margin.
- Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts–Petitioner (Seaman MA) financed a private market researcher (FMR) to investigate Max Fortune; FMR documents and allegations were placed on the record.
- Commerce conducted verifications of both Max Fortune and the Chinese Informant; the Chinese Informant’s documents were corroborated with source documentation during verification.
- Commerce concluded Max Fortune withheld critical information, justifying total AFA under 19 U.S.C. § 1677e; the APO protected the Chinese Informant’s confidential information; Max Fortune was afforded notice and an opportunity to respond; Court affirms Commerce’s Final Results and finds the process fair.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce’s use of total AFA is supported by substantial evidence and law. | Max Fortune contends verification was flawed and reliance on third-party documents invalid. | Commerce corroborated third-party data with primary source documents and conducted thorough verifications. | Yes; total AFA supported by substantial evidence and law. |
| Whether Commerce’s confidential treatment of the Chinese Informant’s documents compromised a fair proceeding. | Max Fortune argues lack of access to accuser undermines fairness. | APO and double-bracketing protect proprietary information; Max Fortune had access to substantial public and internal information. | Yes; confidential treatment upheld and proceeding fair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (agency factfinding deference; substantial evidence standard applies to AFA determinations)
- PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (broad discretion to apply adverse facts where respondent not cooperative)
- Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (adverse-inference authority and verification considerations in anti-dumping)
- American Silicon Techs. v. United States, 261 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence supports agency weighting of competing data sets)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court 1978) (standard of review for agency interpretations under substantial evidence)