Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v. United States
2011 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 81
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2011Background
- Taifa challenged the Final Results of 2005-06 administrative review of hand trucks from PRC, which assigned a PRC-wide rate based on AFA.
- Court previously remanded to Commerce to analyze nonmarket control and potential link to the PRC-wide rate.
- Commerce on remand found Taifa had no central government control; issued a Third Remand Results with a separate rate of 145.90%.
- Taifa challenges the 145.90% rate as uncorroborated, punitive, aberrational, and a departure from ordinary practice.
- Intervenors Gleason and Precision join in requesting reconsideration or affirmance of the Third Remand Results.
- Court reviews Commerce’s Third Remand Results for substantial evidence and legality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce showed Taifa lacked central government control | Taifa contends there is record evidence of central control. | Commerce found no substantial evidence of central government control linking Taifa to a PRC-wide rate. | Commerce's finding of no central government control sustained |
| Whether Taifa's separate rate is proper | Taifa argues it should receive its own rate due to lack of state control. | Commerce correctly calculated a separate AFA rate where no link to central control exists. | Separate rate sustained |
| Whether the 145.90% AFA rate is corroborated | Taifa asserts the rate lacks corroboration and is based on outdated data. | Commerce corroborated using 36% of Taifa’s verified sales from 2003 and other margins. | AFA rate corroborated |
| Whether the AFA rate is punitive | Rate is punitive because it exceeds other company-specific rates and is not grounded in current facts. | Courts treat corroborated rates as non-punitive; size of margin does not alone show punishment. | Rate not punitive |
| Whether the AFA rate is aberrational | High rate is aberrational relative to other segments. | Helps show Taifa’s behavior is not aberrational given corroboration and context. | Rate not aberrational |
Key Cases Cited
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (corroboration of secondary information requires grounding in commercial reality)
- Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (corroboration requires reliable facts with commercial grounding)
- F.lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AFA margins must not be punitive or uncorroborated)
- PAM S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (limits on agency discretion in calculating AFA margins)
- PSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corp. v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2011) (agency discretion in selecting AFA rates must be fair and reasonable)
- Lifestyle Enterprise v. United States, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT 2011) (connected with corroboration and reliability considerations in AFA context)