Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. v. United States
34 Ct. Int'l Trade 1435
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2010Background
- Taifa II remanded Commerce's final results and instructed a link-and-evidence analysis to determine whether Taifa is independent of PRC government control.
- On remand, Commerce concluded Taifa failed verification for separate-rate status and applied a presumption of town-government ownership, yielding a 383.60% PRC-wide rate.
- The court noted Commerce's second remand shifted to a presumption-based approach, including a reliance on a now-outdated rationale about state-control.
- The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence tying Taifa to central PRC government control and questioned the adequacy of the record supporting a country-wide rate.
- The court ultimately remanded again to Commerce to explain the link to the PRC-wide rate or to grant Taifa its own rate grounded in the record, and questioned the adequacy of the 227.73% rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taifa is entitled to a separate rate | Taifa claims independence via an independent board. | Commerce presumes state-control due to town ownership. | Remanded for explanation; not resolved on the merits. |
| Whether Commerce's presumption of state-control and 383.60% rate is supported by substantial evidence | Evidence shows equipoise and lacks clear central-government link. | Presumption remains valid based on ownership and records. | Remanded for further explanation of link and record support. |
| Whether the 227.73% AFA rate from the first remand is adequately supported | Rate is not grounded in verifiable production data for Taifa. | Rate reflects investigation data and AFA principles. | Remanded; court demands a rate grounded in reality. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AFA rates must reasonably reflect actual dumping margins)
- Gallant Ocean (Thai.) Co., Ltd. v. United States, 602 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (AFA rate must be linked to reality, not punitive)
- KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Corroboration and linkage required for AFA rates)
- PAM S.p.A. v. United States, 582 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Corroboration and evidentiary standards for secondary information)
- Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Rates corroborated by small data sets require careful scrutiny)