70 F.Supp.3d 1298
Ct. Int'l Trade2015Background
- This is the first administrative review of the 2011 antidumping order on PRC aluminum extrusions covering 11/12/2010–4/30/2012.
- Commerce collapsed Zhongya, Guang Ya Group, and Xinya into a single entity based on ownership by the Kwong family.
- Commerce found the collapsed entity eligible for a separate rate and used AFA for the entity and PRC-wide, initially.
- The Final Results of Administrative Review (2014) again collapsed the three entities and assigned the 33.28% rate to the collapsed entity.
- Zhongya challenged the collapsing decision, arguing § 1677(28) and § 351.401(f) limitations and lack of evidence of coordination.
- This court denied Zhongya’s motion and affirmed Commerce’s Final Results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 351.401(f) governs collapsing analysis | Zhongya: statute controls collapsing | Commerce: § 351.401(f) governs collapsing | § 351.401(f) controls collapsing |
| Whether affiliation via family group warrants collapse | Zhongya: family grouping cannot be treated as a single “person” | Commerce treats family groupings as a single controlling “person” | Affiliation supported; family group treated as a single entity |
| Whether there is significant potential for manipulation to justify collapse | Zhongya: no significant manipulation potential | Commerce: potential exists due to ownership, board roles, intertwined operations | Significant potential for manipulation found |
| Whether intertwined operations/payments evidence supports collapse | Zhongya: limited intertwined operations; disputed payments | Evidence supports intertwined operations and payments; reasonable inference from noncooperation | Record supports reasonable finding of intertwined operations/manipulation potential |
| Whether collapsed entity gets PRC-wide rate; separate rate status | Zhongya: should get separate rate if not cooperative | Guang Ya/Xinya not eligible for separate rate; collapsed entity treated as PRC-wide | Collapsed entity treated as PRC-wide; no separate rate |
Key Cases Cited
- American Silicon Techs. v. United States, 261 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence review; record considered as a whole)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence standard requires more than a scintilla of evidence)
- AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (discussion of collapsing discretion and statutory context)
- Hontex Enterprises Inc. v. United States, 27 CIT 272 (2003) (collapsing reasonable interpretation of statute beyond explicit text)
- Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, 641 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (2009) (non-exhaustive factors for collapsing; family ownership as a positive indicator)
- Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (totality of circumstances; factors not dispositive individually)
- Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT 178 (1999) (interpretation of ‘person’ under § 1677(33) to include family groupings)