415 F.Supp.3d 1319
Ct. Intl. Trade2019Background
- This case concerns whether Shandong Rongxin (Rongxin), an exporter from the PRC (an NME), rebutted Commerce's presumption of government control to obtain a separate antidumping rate.
- During the period of review (POR), Rongxin was majority-owned by Shandong International Trade Group (SITG), itself state-owned; Rongxin adopted "New Articles" (one-share/one-vote) two months into the POR but had previously operated under "Old Articles."
- In the administrative Final Results Commerce treated Rongxin as de facto government-controlled (applying the countrywide rate), largely because of SITG's majority ownership and the Old Articles; the court remanded, finding Commerce had not adequately analyzed the New Articles.
- On remand Commerce evaluated the New Articles and the record and concluded SITG retained actual or potential control (board continuity, timing of Articles, SITG majority) over board composition and thus selection of management; Commerce again denied a separate rate.
- Rongxin also became privately owned in the last month of the POR but made no U.S. sales in that month; Commerce therefore declined to calculate a separate cash-deposit rate based on that month.
- The Court sustained Commerce's Remand Results, holding them supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce complied with the remand and whether its de facto control finding (selection of management) is supported by substantial evidence | Rongxin: Commerce effectively ignored or improperly discounted the New Articles; record evidence does not support inferences of continued government control | Gov't/Commerce: Commerce analyzed the New Articles, reasonably inferred SITG retained actual/potential control given majority ownership, board continuity, and suspicious timing | Court: Sustained Commerce. Substantial evidence supports de facto control finding based on SITG majority, continuity of Board, and timing of the New Articles |
| Whether Rongxin is entitled to a separate cash-deposit rate because it became privately owned in the final month of the POR | Rongxin: Should receive a separate rate going forward because it was privately owned at end of POR | Commerce: No sales during that month, so cannot compute an "estimated weighted average dumping margin" to set a cash-deposit rate under the statute | Court: Sustained Commerce. Statute requires an estimated margin based on sales; no sales means no separate cash-deposit rate can be calculated |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 866 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (presumption of government control in NME proceedings and requirement to rebut both de jure and de facto control)
- Zhejiang Quzhou Lianzhou Refrigerants Co. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (CIT 2018) (majority government ownership creates strong indication of de facto control over board/management)
- Advanced Tech. & Materials Co. v. United States, 35 C.I.T. 1380 (CIT 2011) (clarifying de facto control analysis for entities with government-majority ownership)
- Beijing Tianhi Indus. Co. v. United States, 106 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (CIT 2015) (court reviews remand redeterminations for compliance with remand order)
- Suramerica de Aleaciones Laminadas, C.A. v. United States, 44 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (substantial-evidence standard may encompass record evidence that supports conflicting inferences)