Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co. v. United States
34 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2132
Ct. Intl. Trade2012Background
- ITC reviews Commerce's antidumping determination on aluminum extrusions from China; three affiliated exporters Guang Ya, Zhongya, and Xinya were collapsed into a single entity for AD calculations.
- Commerce found the three are affiliated under a Kuang family ownership and control, facilitating a single unit for collapse.
- Xinya refused to cooperate in verification, leaving ownership uncertain; other record evidence implicated a Kuang family member as owner/control.
- Commerce relied on adverse facts available due to non-cooperation of the three companies when calculating the dumped margin for the collapsed entity; final rate was 33.28% for the collapsed entity.
- Institute standard of review: defer to Commerce if its finding is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law; court affirmed final determination.
- Final judgment: Commerce’s decision to collapse and use AFA was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Xinya's affiliation is established. | Zhao and Guang Ya assert ownership via family ties; affiliation supported by evidence. | Commerce reasonably found Xinya owned by Kuang family despite verification gaps. | Affiliation affirmed based on family ownership evidence and unrebutted record. |
| Whether collapsing Guang Ya, Zhongya, and Xinya shows potential price/production manipulation. | Record does not prove manipulation potential. | Totality of family ownership, overlapping management, and intertwined operations show potential manipulation. | Collapse sustained; substantial evidence supports potential manipulation. |
| Whether AFA rate properly applied to collapsed entity. | Respondents argue data omissions were inadvertent and corrected; AFA overreach. | Xinya's non-response and overall record justify AFA applying to entire collapsed entity. | AFA applied to the collapsed entity; rate upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence standard in agency review)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency actions upheld if reasonable and supported by record)
- Nihon Cement Co. v. United States, 17 CIT 400 (CIT 1993) (factors for manipulation assessment; totality of circumstances)
- Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT 178 (CIT 1999) (family ownership as basis for affiliation and treating as single entity)
- Catfish Farmers of America v. United States, 641 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (D. Conn. 2009) (family-owned units treated as a single entity for collapsing)