Qingdao Maycarrier Import & Export Corp., Ltd. v. United States
2013 WL 6511984
Ct. Intl. Trade2013Background
- Commerce rescinded Qingdao Maycarrier’s antidumping new shipper review (NSR) for fresh garlic from the PRC, concluding Maycarrier was essentially the same entity as Weifang Naike (an exporter with earlier sales) and that Maycarrier failed to report its earlier sale/date as required.
- Commerce’s rescission relied principally on: (1) overlapping contact/personnel information on numerous B2B websites and Maycarrier’s own site; (2) Maycarrier’s business registration form (enterprise status translation); and (3) absence of Maycarrier tax records from the Shandong online database despite Hengshun’s records being locatable.
- Commerce treated the defects as showing the NSR request was inaccurate/untimely under 19 C.F.R. § 351.214(b)(2)(iv) and (c), and therefore rescinded the NSR and left Maycarrier subject to the PRC-wide rate.
- Maycarrier sued, contending Commerce: lacked authority to rescind; misapplied the “affiliate” standard; relied unreasonably on web evidence and translations; improperly denied a separate-rate determination; and effectively imposed an AFA rate without required findings or corroboration.
- The Court reviewed whether Commerce’s rescission was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law and denied Maycarrier’s motion for judgment on the agency record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to rescind NSR | Maycarrier: rescission permitted only under §351.214(f) (withdrawal or no sale to unaffiliated customer) | Commerce: may rescind where NSR request is inaccurate/infirm (e.g., failure to report first sale/date) | Court: Commerce has authority to rescind when request provides inaccurate information; upheld rescission (Marvin precedent) |
| Proper standard — "affiliate" vs. reporting/timeliness | Maycarrier: Commerce must find "affiliation" to disqualify a new shipper | Commerce: rescission rested on failure to report first sale/timely request under §351.214(b)(2)(iv),(c), not on affiliation | Court: Maycarrier’s argument fails; Commerce permissibly relied on reporting/timeliness rules rather than affiliation statute |
| Reliability of record evidence (web listings, registration, tax records) | Maycarrier: web data error/fraud, mistranslation of registration, CAP makes tax records confidential so absence is explainable | Commerce: record contains numerous, consistent overlapping entries; registration more reasonably translated as indicating connection; CAP does not conceal existence of records online | Court: substantial evidence supports Commerce’s findings; alternative interpretations insufficient to overturn decision |
| Separate-rate and AFA claims | Maycarrier: Commerce should have assigned separate rate or transferred record to concurrent review; also argues Commerce effectively imposed AFA without findings/corroboration | Commerce: rescission ended review so no separate-rate determination; Maycarrier failed to seek transfer administratively; Commerce did not impose AFA in this NSR | Court: upheld Commerce — rescission precluded separate-rate finding; Maycarrier failed to exhaust transfer claim; Commerce did not make an AFA determination here |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (substantial-evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions does not defeat substantial-evidence support)
- Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926 (deference to agency construction of its regulations)
- Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (separate-rate framework and NME presumption)
- Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1345 (reviewing reasonableness of Commerce’s action given record as a whole)