1

Defendant-intervenors have not submitted any comments to the

Remand Results.

Slip. Op. 02-135

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________

:

JIANGSU HILONG INTERNATIONAL TRADING :

CO., LTD., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: 

v. : Court No. 02-00311

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

CRAWFISH PROCESSORS ALLIANCE, :

THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF :

AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY and :

BOB ODOM, COMMISSIONER, :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

________________________________________:

Coudert Brothers LLP (John M. Gurley and Matthew J. McConkey)

for Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Co., Ltd., plaintiff.

Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; David M.

Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,

United States Department of Justice (Lucius B. Lau, Assistant

Director, Mark L. Josephs and Ada E. Bosque); Bernard T. Carreau,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, and Arthur D.

Sidney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration,

United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for the United

States, defendant. 

Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P. (Will E. Leonard, John

C. Steinberger and Mark R. Leventhal) for Crawfish Processors

Alliance, The Lousiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry and Bob

Odom, Commissioner, defendant-intervenors.1

Dated: November 4, 2002
Court No. 02-00311 Page 2

2

In the June 26 Order the Court further stated that in

addressing this issue, Commerce shall also provide the Court with

factual data explaining why the affiliation of Jiangsu and Ningbo

was granted the dumping margin of 2.75 percent if Jiangsu’s

entries, that is, the entries of what is assumed to be an indelible

member of the affiliation, were allegedly subject to 91.5 percent.

JUDGMENT

This Court received and reviewed the United States Department

of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”)

Response to Ct. Remand (“Remand Results”) (July 26, 2002), which

were issued pursuant to the Court’s order of June 26, 2002 (“June

26 Order”) remanding to Commerce to provide the Court with: 

(1) an explanation of whether the dumping margin assigned to

Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Co., Ltd.

(“Jiangsu”) during Jiangsu or its predecessor’s last

period of importation, that is 2.75 percent dumping

margin, was assigned to Jiangsu:

(a) solely on the grounds of Commerce’s finding of

Jiangsu’s affiliation with Ningbo Nanlian’s Frozen

Foods Company, Ltd. (“Ningbo”); and

(b) as a member of the Jiangsu-Ningbo affiliation and

not assigned separately to Jiangsu and separately

to Ningbo upon the finding of such affiliation; and

(2) a specific figure of a dumping margin, if such figure (a)

can be determined, and (b) is different from 2.75

percent, that would have been assigned to Jiangsu (solely

on the basis of Jiangsu’s actual dumping activities

during the last period when Jiangsu or its predecessor’s

performance was reviewed and not on the basis of cash

deposits that were or could have been applicable to

Jiangsu or its predecessor’s last entries) had Jiangsu

not been found to be affiliated with Ningbo during the

last period when Jiangsu’s performance was reviewed;2 and

(3) an explanation of legal and factual logic of Commerce’s
Court No. 02-00311 Page 3

3

“Huaiyin 5 changed its name to Jiangsu subsequent to the

September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000 period of review.” Remand

Results at 1 n.1 (citing Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

(continued...)

decision to disregard Jiangsu’s performance during the

period when Jiangsu actually imported the merchandise at

issue and was deemed to be an affiliate of Ningbo

(“actual performance”) and to bind Jiangsu to either the

conduct that was effectively superseded by the actual

performance or to a later conduct by an affiliate in

which Jiangsu had not participated in any way.

Subsequently, on July 22, 2002, this Court issued an order

(“July 22 Order”) stating that the June 26 Order stands as issued

and that Commerce is either to admit that Jiangsu’s entries are

subject to 2.75 percent deposit rate or to seek this Court’s

approval for imposition of a deposit rate different from 2.75

percent upon the entries of Jiangsu, if and only if Commerce shows

the Court that Commerce’s record of the last review during which

Jiangsu actually performed provides Commerce and this Court with

sufficient evidence to support a finding that Jiangsu’s own

performance (without accounting for the record associated with

Ningbo’s) calls for the imposition of a deposit rate different from

2.75 percent. (Emphasis supplied).

Upon consideration of the Remand Results, Jiangsu’s comments

and Commerce’s response, the Court holds that Commerce duly

complied with the Court’s June 26 and July 22 Orders when Commerce:

(1) explained that Jiangsu3 was assigned the rate of 2.75 percent
Court No. 02-00311 Page 4

3

(...continued)

Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China (“Final Results”),

67 Fed. Reg. 19,546, 19,547 (Apr. 22, 2002)).

for the period of review covering September 1, 1998, through August

31, 1999, because Commerce treated Jiangsu and Ningbo as a single

entity, see Remand Results at 6-7; (2) calculated a rate of 62.77

percent for Jiangsu for the period of review covering September 1,

1998, through August 31, 1999, “had [Jiangsu] not been treated as

a single entity with Ningbo . . . during that period[,]” id. at 8

and see Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Comments on Commerce’s Remand Resp. of

July 26, 2002 (“Def.’s Resp.”) at 6-25; (3) adequately provided the

Court with a factual explanation of why the affiliation of Jiangsu

and Ningbo was granted the dumping margin of 2.75 percent if

Jiangsu’s entries, that is, the entries of what is assumed to be an

indelible member of the affiliation, were allegedly subject to 91.5

percent, see Remand Results at 8-10; and (4) adequately provided

the Court with Commerce’s legal and factual logic of Commerce’s

decision to determine a rate of 91.5 percent for Jiangsu pursuant

to this Court’s June 4, 2002 order. See id. at 10-13. It is

hereby 

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on July 26,

2002, are affirmed in their entirety and Commerce is to impose a
Court No. 02-00311 Page 5

4

The Court is satisfied with Commerce’s determination that a

cash deposit rate of 62.77 percent should be imposed on Jiangsu

because Commerce has adequately demonstrated that Commerce’s record

of the last review during which Jiangsu’s predecessor actually

performed provides Commerce and this Court with sufficient evidence

to support a finding that Jiangsu’s own performance (without

accounting for the record associated with Ningbo’s) calls for the

imposition of a deposit rate different from 2.75 percent. 

cash deposit rate of 62.77 percent for Jiangsu;4 and it is further

ORDERED that the preliminary injunction (enjoining Commerce

from the imposition of the cash deposit rate determined by Commerce

in Final Results, 67 Fed. Reg. 19,546, with regard to Jiangsu)

granted by the Court in favor of plaintiff under the Court’s order

of June 4, 2002, is dissolved; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is dismissed. 

______________________________

NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: November 4, 2002

 New York, New York