Slip O p. 12-87 UNITED STA TES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Court No. 10-00306

[ Plaintiffs’Mot ion for Judgmen t on the Agency Record is de nied, Plain tiffs’ Motion for Oral Argumen t is denied, and C ommerce’s Fin al Resul ts are affirmed. ] Franci s J. Sailer, Andrew Thomas Schu tz, Ela ine F ang Wang, Ma rk E. Pa rdo, and Ned Herm an Marsha k, Grunfeld, D esi derio, Lebowi tz, S i lver man & Klestadt, LLP, of New York, NY, for Plai nti ffs

. Loren Misha Preheim , Tri al Att or ney, Commercial L i tigati on Branch, Ci vil D i vis i on, Uni ted S tate s Department of Justi ce, of Washingto n, DC, for Defendan t. On t he bri efs were Tony West, Assi stant Att or ney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Di recto r, Regin ald T. Blades, Jr. , Assi stant Di recto r, United Stat es Department of Justi ce, and Scott D. McBride, Senior Att or ney, Inte rnational Trade, Uni ted S tate s Department of Commerce, of Washingto n, DC. Adam Henry Gordon and Robert Edwa rd DeFr ancesco, III , Wi ley Rein, LLP, of Washingto n, DC, for Defendant-Interv enor. MAX FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL LTD., AND MAX FORTUNE (FZ) PAPE R PRO DUCTS COMPANY LTD.,

Plaint iffs,

v. UNITED STA TES,

Defendant, and SEAMAN PAPE R CO MPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS,

Defendant- Intervenor.Court No. 10-00306 Page 2 Dated: June 18, 2012 O P I N I O N C A R M A N , J U D G E : Plainti ffs Max F or tune Industri al Ltd. and Max F or tune (FZ) Paper Products Company, Ltd. (collecti vely refer red t o as “Max F or tune” or “Plainti ffs ”) have broughtthi s cas e to challen ge t he U.S. Depart ment of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) final results in the fourth admi ni strat i ve r eview of Certain Tissu e Paper Products from the People’s Repu blic of Chin a: Final Res ults of the 2008-2009 Antidumpin g Duty Admin . Rev. , 75 Fed. Reg . 63,806 (Oct. 18, 2010) (“ Fin al Resul ts ”). Max F or tune, a respondent in the underlyin g r eview, h as moved for j udgment on the ag ency recor d pursuan t to Rule 56.2 of the Rules of the U.S . Court of Inter nati onal Trade. The Uni ted S tate s—Defendant i n thi s cas e—and Seaman Paper Company of Massachu setts–Peti tioner in the underlyin g

rev i ew and D efendant-Interv enor in thi s cas e (“Seaman MA,” “Petiti oner,” o r “Defendan t-Inter venor ”)—oppose Plainti ffs ’ motion. Thi s Court has jur i sdi cti on pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1581(c) (2006). For the re asons s et for th below, thi s Court ho lds that Commerce’s appli cati on of tot al adver se fac ts availab le (“AFA”) i s su pport ed by sub stanti al evidenc e on the r ecord and other wi se in acc or dance w i th law and that Plainti ffs were afforded a fai r proceeding.Court No. 10-00306 Page 3 I. B A C K G R O U N D A. Procedural Hi story of A ntidu mping Case On Mar ch 30, 2005, Commerce i ssu ed an anti dumping duty o rder on certain tis sue paper products from the People’s Republi c of China (“P RC”). Notice of Amended Fin al Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Valu e and Antidumpi ng Du ty Order: Certain Tissue Paper Products fr om the People’s Republic of China , 70 Fed. Reg . 16,223 (Mar. 30, 2005) (“Anti dumping Duty Or der”). Max For tune was a respondent i n the or i gin al 1 i nvestigati on. All respondents re cei ved a 112.64% duty margin, whi ch w as als o the country wide rate. Id . at 16,224. S ubs equently, four admin i strat i ve r eviews and an expedited su nset rev i ew were conduc ted. Because of the unu sual fluctuati on of Max For tune’s dum ping margin througho ut the case hi stor y, a summ ary of Max For tune’s duty marg i ns f or the corr esponding periods of review ( “POR”) i s set forth below:

Whi le not a mandator y r espondent i n the or i gin al investigati on, Max For tune 1 was one of the twelve compani es that re quested a separate r ate, collectively refer red t o as “Secti on A Respondents” by Commerce. Notice of Fin al Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: C ertain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China , 70 Fed. Reg. 7,475 (Fe b. 14, 2005).Court No. 10-00306 Page 4

P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y o f A n t i d u m p i n g C a s e M a x F o r t u n e ’ s D u t y M a r g i n A n t i d u m p i n g D u t y O r d e r P O R : 7 / 3 1 / 0 3

– 1 2 / 3 1 / 0 3 N o t i c e o f A m e n d e d F i n a l D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f S a l e s a t L e s s t h a n F a i r V a l u e a n d A n t i d u m p i n g D u t y O r d e r : C e r t a i n T i s s u e P a p e r P r o d u c t s f r o m t h e P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a , 7 0 F e d

. R e g . 1 6 , 2 2 3 ( M a r . 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) 1 1 2

. 6 4 %

1 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e v i e w st P O R : 9 / 2 1 / 0 4

– 2 / 2 8 / 0 6 C e r t a i n T i s s u e P a p e r P r o d u c t s f r o m t h e P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a : F i n a l R e s u l t s a n d F i n a l R e s c i s s i o n , I n P a r t , o f A n t i d u m p i n g D u t y A d m i n . R e v . , 7 2 F e d

. R e g . 5 8 , 6 4 2 ( O c t . 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 ) 0

. 0 7 %

2 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e v i e w nd P O R : 3 / 1 / 0 6

– 2 / 2 8 / 0 7 C e r t a i n T i s s u e P a p e r P r o d u c t s f r o m t h e P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a : F i n a l R e s u l t s a n d F i n a l R e s c i s s i o n , i n P a r t , o f A n t i d u m p i n g D u t y A d m i n . R e v . , 7 3 F e d

. R e g . 5 8 , 1 1 3 ( O c t . 6 , 2 0 0 8 ) 0

. 0 %

3 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e v i e w rd P O R : 3 / 1 / 0 7

– 2 / 2 9 / 0 8 C e r t a i n T i s s u e P a p e r P r o d u c t s F r o m t h e P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a : F i n a l R e s u l t s a n d P a r t i a l R e s c i s s i o n o f t h e 2 0 0 7

– 2 0 0 8 A n t i d u m p i n g D u t y A d m i n . R e v . a n d D e t e r m i n a t i o n N o t T o R e v o k e i n P a r t , 7 4 F e d

. R e g . 5 2 , 1 7 6 ( O c t . 9 , 2 0 0 9 ) 1 4

. 2 5 %

4 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e R e v i e w th P O R : 3 / 1 / 0 8

- 2 / 2 8 / 0 9 C e r t a i n T i s s u e P a p e r P r o d u c t s f r o m t h e P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a : F i n a l R e s u l t s o

f t h e 2 0 0 8

– 2 0 0 9 A n t i d u m p i n g D u t y A d m i n . R e v . , 7 5 F e d

. R e g . 6 3 , 8 0 6 ( O c t . 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 2

. 6 4 %

E x p e d i t e d S u n s e t R e v i e w C e r t a i n T i s s u e P a p e r P r o d u c t s f r o m t h e P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a : F i n a l R e s u l t s o

f E x p e d i t e d S u n s e t R e v . , 7 5 F e d

. R e g . 3 2 , 9 1 0 ( J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) 1 1 2

. 6 4 %

The fourth admini strat i ve r eview i s at i ssu e i n thi s appeal. The POR i s March 1, 2008 to Februar y 28, 2009.Court No. 10-00306 Page 5

B. Statement

of Facts On Mar ch 2, 2009, Commerce pub li shed a noti ce of oppor tuni ty t o r equest an admini strat i ve r eview of the Anti dumping Duty Or der. Antidumpi ng or Countervaili ng Duty Order, F indin g, or Suspen ded Investigation; Opportunity to Request Admin. Rev. , 74 Fed. Reg . 9,077 (Mar. 2, 2009). Petiti oner S eaman MA clai ms that “ove r t he course of each of these reviews, rumors concerni ng Max For tune’s producti on oper ations persi sted.” Resp. Br. of Se aman P aper Co mpany of Massachus ett s, Inc. ( “Def.- Int. Br .”) at 7. Accordingly, Seaman MA hired a private company, a foreign marketresearcher (“FMR”), to investi gate Max F or tune’s producti on oper ations

.

2 On Mar ch 31, 2009, Commerce recei ved a t i mely request fro m Seaman MA to

rev i ew Max F or tune. Certain Tissu e Paper Products from the People’s Republi c of Chin a: Prelimi nary Resu lts of the 2008–2009 Admin. Rev. , 75 Fed. Reg . 18,812 (Apr. 13, 2010) (“ Prelimi nary Resu lts ”). Consequently, on April 29, 2009, Commerce i ssu ed an anti dumping questi onnai re t o Max For tune. Id

. On Sept ember 15, 2009, the Petiti oner alleg ed that M ax Fo rt une li ed to Commerce about its u se of thi rd part y suppli ers and packers and plac ed on the ag ency

recor d a large number of documents detai ling Max For tune’s sales tr ansac tions and

The i denti ty o f the FMRi s confi denti al under an Admini strat i ve Pro tective 2 Or der (“APO”) pursuant to 19 U.S .C. § 1677f(b) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.105.Court No. 10-00306 Page 6

supp or tin g the alleg ations that M ax Fo rt une di d not r epor t multi ple affi li ates and unaffi li ated suppli ers of raw mater i als and c onver tin g serv i ces involv ed i n thei r production of the subject mer chand i se expor ted to the United Stat es during the POR. Lette r fro m Peti tioner to Commerce, Re: S ubm i ssi on of Factual Infor mati on and Analysi s Regarding Max F or tune, dated Se ptember 15, 2009 (C.R. 20) (“P etiti oner S ept. 3 15 Submi ssi on”). Thes e vo luminous docu ments di rectly tied to speci fi c Uni ted S tate s t h sales report ed by Max For tune. The FMR o btai ned these docum ents from a Chi nese Informant. 4 On Octo ber 19, 2009, Max For tune, repr esented by Shanghai Yuet Fai Commerci al Consulting Company, Ltd., deni ed both allegat i ons, ass ert i ng that no ne of 5 the affi li ates, suppl i ers or services li sted by the Petiti oner wer e i nvolv ed i n the production or sale of i ts subject mer chand i se. Letter from Max For tune to C ommerce, Re: Response to Pet i tioner’s Factual Info Submi ssi on, dated O ct. 19, 2009 (C.R. 22). Max For tune explain ed that it was contracted t o pack paper for a Chinese tradin g company 6

“C.R.” re fers to t he Confi denti al Record. 3 The i denti ty o f the Chinese Informant i s confi denti al under the APO. 4 Thi s Chinese company r epresented M ax Fo rt une un til the publi cati on of the 5 Preli minary R esults, when Max F or tune ret ai ned U.S.-based c ounsel Grunfeld, Desi derio, Lebowi tz, S i lver man & Klestadt LLP (“Grunfeld”). The i denti ty o f the Chinese tradin g company i s confi denti al under the APO. 6DRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 7 and deci ded to o utsource thi s servic e to a Chinese processing and packing company. 7 Max F or tune stated its involv ement wi th these ot her two compani es were “merely commi ssi on tr ansac tions,” and therefor e, Max For tune deci ded not t o lis t these tr ansac tions or compani es in i ts factors of pro ducti on (“FOP”) to C ommerce. Br. in Supp. of Pls.’ R. 56.2 Mot. fo r J. upon the Ag ency Record (“Pls.’ Mot.”) at6. Max For tune reasserte d that it “di d not o utsource i ts packing serv i ces f or i ts production of subject mer chand i se sh i pped to t he Uni ted S tate s to any packer s or pr ocessors during the POR” and “questi oned the v eraci ty o f the i nformation prov i ded by” the FM R. Pls.’ Mot . at 7. On Octo ber 26, 2009, Commerce met with the Peti tioner to getclari fi cati on of the documents an d allegations that i t had placed on the recor d. Def.’s Opp. to Pls .’ Mo t. for J. upon the Agency Recor d (“Def .’s Opp.”) at 4. Shor tly t hereafter , there was an i nci dent that affected the Chin ese Informant, whi ch Max Fo rt une cl ai ms c ompro mi sed

8 the authentic i ty and r eli abi li ty o f the documents p laced on the recor d. Pls .’ Mo t. at 7–8. On Decemb er 16, 2009, Co mmerce condu cted a telephonici nterv i ew wi th the FMRto confirm i ts credentials and procedures becau se i t not ed that t he Peti tioner’s “sub mi ssi on had been gathere d and analyzed by a foreign market r esearcher. ” Def.’s

The i denti ty o f the Chinese processing and packing company i s confi denti al 7 under the APO. The ci rcums tances s urro unding the “inc i dent” are confid entialunder the APO. 8DRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 8 Opp. at 4. On Decemb er 20, 2009, Co mmerce i ssu ed ver i fi cati on agendas to M ax Fo rt une and the Chinese Informant. Id . On January 8, 2010, the Chines e Informant appear ed as an intere sted party i n the pro ceeding for t he purposes of the ver i fi cati on. Def.-Int. Br. at 13. Fr om January 11 to 18, 2010, Commerce conducted verifi cati on at M ax Fo rt une. Pls .’ Mo t. at 10. C ommerce also conduc ted v erifi cati on at t he Chinese Informant’s faci li ties

. Def.’s Opp. at 4. Des pi te t he above-re ferenced inci dent that affected the

9 Chinese Informant, Commerce state d that it was able to v erify wi th “source documentati on i n the [Chinese Informant’s] posses si on” the infor mati on that was placed on the recor d from the Petiti oner. Def.’s Opp. at 20. Comparing the i nformation from Max F or tune and the Chinese Informant durin g

ver i fi cati on, Commerce deci ded that “the Chinese Informant suppli ed much more detailed . . . d ocuments on the recor d wi th reg ard to a numb er M ax Fo rt une’s Uni ted St ates tr ansac tionsthan those suppli ed by Max For tune” and the Chinese Informant’s documents w ere “o f a hi gher quality and a larger quanti ty.” Def.’s Opp. at 20 (emphas i s in original). On April 13, 2010, Commerce i ssu ed i ts prelim i nary r esults, app lyin g to tal AF A and ass i gni ng a 112.64% duty marg i n to M ax Fo rt une. Prelimi nary Resu lts at 18,814–815. The dates of the ver i fi cati on at t he Chinese Informant’s faci li tiesare confi denti al 9 under the APO.DRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 9 On May 5, 2010, Max F or tune ret ai ned U.S.-based c ounsel who appeared in the proceeding and als o r epresents Max For tune i n the current liti gation. Pls .’ Mo t. at 14. Pursu ant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677f(c)(1) and 19 C.F.R. § § 351.304–305, Max For tune’s new

couns el was p ermitted to r eview the proprietary sub mi ssi ons and data. On June 1, 2010, Max F or tune’s couns el asserted that t he Peti tioner’s sub mi ssi ons were abus i vely “ov er-bracket ed.” Lette r fro m Grunfeld to Co mmerce, Re: Obj. t o Petiti oner’ s Doub le Bracket s and Clai ms of P ro prietary Tr eatment, date d Jun e 1, 2010 (P.R. 134; C.R. 55). 1 0 Commerce declined to r eveal t he name of the FMR, whi ch w as double-bracketed, t o Max F or tune or i ts couns el. Def.’s Opp. at 33–34. On Octo ber 18, 2010, Commerce is sued i ts final results, affi rming both its prelim i nary applic ation of total A FA and the r esultant ass i gnment of a 112.64% duty margin to Max For tune. Fin al Resul ts . II. S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W For admini strat i ve r eviews of antid umping duty o rder s, thi s Court sustai ns deter minati ons, findings or conclusi ons of Commerce unless they ar e “unsu pport ed by sub stanti al evidenc e on the r ecord, o r o therwis e not in ac cordance wi th law.” 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b) (1)( B)(i ). Thi s Court must defer to Commerce's reasonable i nterpr etat i on of a statute ev en i f i t mi ght hav e adopted ano ther interpr etat i on had the questi on fi rst ar i sen

“P.R.” refers to the Publi c Record. 1 0DRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 10 i n a judi ci al proceedin g. Zeni th Radio Corp. v. United States , 437 U.S. 443, 450 (1978). III. D I S C U S S I O N Max F or tune challen ges Commerce’s appli cati on of to tal AF A and deci si on to keep confi denti al the documents u nder the APO as unsup port ed by sub stanti al evidenc e on the r ecord o r o therwis e not accordance wi th law. The two i ssu es are di scu ssed b elow. A. Total Adverse Facts Availabl e The fi rst is sue presented i s wh ether Commerce’s appli cati on of to tal AF A i s supp or ted by subs tantial evi dence on the recor d or o therwis e in acc or dance w i th law. Max F or tune contends Commerce’s appli cati on of to tal AF A was i mproper for t wo reasons. First, Max F or tune asserts that Co mmerce’s “rudi mentary . . . ver i fi cati on” of the Chi nese Informant was c ontr ary to e stabli shed practi ce of ver i fyi ng i nformation wi th or i gin al source docum ents. Pls .’ Mo t. at 20. M ax Fo rt une contends that Commerce was u nable to ve rif y the Chines e Informant’ s “information us i ng actual bus i ness documents an d recor ds maintai ned by [the Chinese Informant] in i ts normal course of bus iness ” during ver i fi cati on. Id . Commerce counters thati t was able to

ver i fy and corro borat e the in formation on the agency r ecord wi th primary “source documentati on” at t he Chinese Informant’s faci li ties during ver i fi cati on. Second, Max For tune arg ues that the Chi nese Informant’s documents c ontainedDRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 11 numerous i rr egulariti es and anomali es, and therefor e Commerce should not have r eli ed on these documents. P ls.’ Mot . at 26. Co mmerce ass ert s that a few date and ti me i nconsi stenci es in the enor mous am ount of electr oni c docum entation “do not impu gn the authentic i ty and integrity of the inf or mati on contain ed wi thin all, or ev en some, of the electr oni c submi ssi ons.” Issues & D ecisi ons Mem. for the Final Re sults of the 2008–2009 Admin. R ev. of Certain Tissu e Paper Prods. from the Peo ple’s R epublic of China , at 8 (Oct. 12, 2010) (“ I&D Memo ”). Commerce advis es that it corro borat ed the in formation on the agency re cord wi th or i gin al source docum ents, not wi th electro ni c docum ents that allegedly contained the i rr egulariti es. Def .’s Opp. at 15. Co mmerce fu rt her not es that the Petiti oner S eaman MA also pro vided reasonable explanati ons for the irreg ulari ties and anomali es. I&D Memo at 8. Seaman MA support s Commerce’s posi tion that i t “r eviewed the original source fi les” of the Chinese Informant’s “financi al statements, sales l edger s, trial b alances, and charts of accoun ts,” Def.- Int.’s Br. at 15 (emphas i s in origi nal), and that t he minor 1 1 di screpanc i es or irreg ulari ties i n the Chi nese Informant’s i nformation could be explain ed or were in consequen tial, id . at 30. Fur ther, S eaman MA asserts that

Seaman MA assert s that Commerce “carefully tested” t he Chinese Informant’s 1 1 i nformation, us ing techni ques that tr aced and reconci led the or ders received from Max For tune thro ugh the Chi nese Informant’s labor, payr oll and financi al recor ds. D ef.- Int.’s Br. at 15.DRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 12 placemen t of t he Chinese Informant’s documents on the record demonstr ates that M ax For tune “alter ed documents an d deliberately sub mi tte d incorre ct data.” Id . at 37–38. When presented wi th two sets of facts and the “tot ali ty o f the evidenc e does not i lluminate a black-and- whi te answer to a di sputed i ssu e, i t is the ro le of the ex pert factfinder . . . to deci de whi ch s i de’s eviden ce to beli eve.” Nippon Steel Corp. et al. v. United S tat es , 458 F.3d 1345, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In an anti dumping admini strat i ve

rev i ew, Commerce i s the exper t factfinder, and “so long as ther e i s adequate bas i s in supp or t of [Commerce’s] choi ce of eviden tiary wei ght,” t hi s Court must defer to Commerce. Id . at 1358. Under the subs tantial evi dence s tandard o f review, “[ e]ven i f i t i s poss ible to dr aw two i nconsi stent conclus i ons from evidenc e i n the recor d, such a possi bi li ty do es not prev ent [Commerce’s] determin ation from being supported by sub stanti al evidenc e.” Nippon Steel , 458 F.3d at 1358 ( quoting Am. Sili con Techs. v. U nited States , 261 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). In the in stant case, Commerce was presented wi th two sets of contr adi ctor y evidenc e on the r ecord. Respondent M ax Fo rt une cl ai med that it has a fully integr ated production operation and prov i ded sup port i ng documents. Letter fr om Max For tune to Commerce, Re: M ax Fo rt une Response to Questionnai re S ecti on A, dated June 8, 2009 (C.R. 1); Letter from Max For tune to C ommerce, Re: Max For tune Response to Questi onnai re S ecti ons C &D, dated July 6, 2009 (C.R. 5). P etiti oner S eaman MADRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 13 countered t hat Max For tune deli berately mi sled Commerce and plac ed on the r ecord a multi tude of supporting docum ents. Peti tioner Sept15 Submi ssi on. t h Becaus e two competing sets of data were placed on the recor d, Commerce deci ded to conduct ver i fi cati ons on both sets of documents. Mem. to the F i le by Commerce, Re: Ver i fi cati on of Data Submi tte d by Chinese Informant, dated Apr . 7, 2010 (C.R. 49); Mem. to t he Fil e by Commerce, Re: Ver i fi cati on of Data Submi tte d by Max For tune, dated Apr . 7, 2010 (C.R. 51). Whi le rev i ewing the Chin ese Informant’s or i gin al source documen ts duri ng an on-si te v erifi cati on, Commerce not ed that t he Chinese Informant “k ept detailed invento ry recor ds for accountabi li ty r easons” s o that Commerce was ab le to v erify “detai led books and recor ds” and to di rectly “tie the Chinese Informant’s” i nformation to a subs tantial am ount of “Max For tune’s Uni ted St ates tr ansac tions .” Def.’s Opp. at 12–13. After i t “criti cally rev i ewed” both sets of data, Commerce deter mined that the Chinese Informant’s documentati on was au thentic

. I&D Memo at 6. Co mmerce conclu ded: Max For tune wi thh e l d c riti cal i nformation (i .e., the i denti ties of

addi tional tis sue paper supp li ers and/or processors associ ated wi th the tis sue pa p e r i t sold to the Uni ted St ates duri ng the POR, and t he ir respecti ve factors of production (FOP) data, and i n so doin g, si gn ificantly i mpeded thi s proceeding and p re c l u d ed [Commerce] from being able to calc ulate an a c cu ra te dumping margin for Max For tune i n thi s rev i ew based on i t s repo rt ed data. Furt her, we stated that we di d not beli eve thatDRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 14

the documentati on supp li ed by Max For tune was the actual documentati on used i n the tr ansac tions Max For tune repo rt ed i n i ts questi onnai re response when compared again st the documentati on supp li ed by the other company whi ch we also exami ned at ver i fi cati on. Id. at 3; Me m. to the Fil e by Commerce, Re: Whet her to Assi gn [Max F or tune] a Marg i n Based on Adver se Facts Availab le in the Preli minary R esults, dated Apr. 7, 2010, at 10 (C.R. 48) (“AFA Memo”); M em. to t he Fil e by Commerce, Re: A nalysi s of Data-Speci fi c Items Rais ed i n the Case Brief Submi tte d by [Max F or tune], dated Oct. 12, 2010 (C.R. 61) (“Analysi s Memo”). Max F or tune’s hypothesi s—that i f the Chinese Informant’s documents “h ad not been placed on the recor d” then Commerce “would have conclu ded that t he information submi tte d by Max F or tune was c omplete and

accu rat e”—i s inapposi te. Pls.’ Mot . at 15. Upon re viewof the r ecord and consi derat i on of the pleadin gs, thi s Court fin ds that t here is sub stanti al evidenc e on the ag ency recor d that Co mmerce condu cted thor ough analyses and detai led ver i fi cati ons of the sets of documents fro m both Max For tune and the Chinese Informant. Commerce’s conclus i on that t he Chinese Informant’s in formation was corr obor ated and ver i fi ed i s su pport ed by sub stanti al evidenc e on the r ecord. Co ntrar y to Max F or tune’s ass ert i ons, i t is the ro le of the agency as the factfinder, notof this Court, to det ermin e authentic i ty bet ween contradic tor y sets of documents where bot h are supporte d by sub stanti al evidenc e onDRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 15 the re cord. Nippon Steel , 458 F.3d at 1359. Thus, thi s Court decli nes Max Fo rt une’s i nvitati on to sub sti tute its judgment for t hat of Commerce. Based on a review of “the enti re admi ni strat i ve r ecord,” Co mmerce found that Max F or tune “di d not act t o the best o f i ts abi li ty in providing i nformation” to Commerce so that applic ation of total A FA was “appropr i ate wi th respect to Max For tune.” I&D Memo at 5. In its c apaci ty as ex pertfactfinder, Commerce analyzed t he agency re cord, and conduc ted in ter view s and verifi cati ons. Commerce deter mined that “Max F or tune wi thheld cri tic al information (i .e., the iden titi es of addi tional ti ssu e paper supp li ers and/or pr ocessors ass oci ated wi th the t i ssu e paper it sold to the U ni ted S tate s duri ng the POR, and their respective fac tor s of producti on (FOP) data),” whi ch “si gni fi cantly i mpeded the proceedin g.” I&D Memo at 3, 5. Pursu ant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677e , Commerce i s allowed to apply AF A, to tal or partial, to a part y thatdoes not act t o the best o f i ts abi li ty t o comply wi th a request for i nformation. It is well-es tabli shed that Commerce enjo ys broad dis cretion “wh en a respondent is unc ooper ative by fai ling to prov i de or wi thholdi ng information.” PAM, S.p.A. v. Uni ted States , 582 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Th e Feder al Ci rcui t r ecently reiterat ed that “Co mmerce’s abi li ty t o apply adv erse facts i s an i mport ant one.” Essar Steel L td. v. United States , 2012 WL 1450024 at *7 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ( quoting Rhone Poulen c, Inc. v. Un ited States , 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Bec ause Commerce found thatDRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 16 Max F or tune wi thheld information, wh i ch i s evi denced on the agency recor d, i t was wi thi n Commerce’s authority to apply to tal AF A to Max F or tune. AFA M emo, I&D Memo

. The only poin t thatPlainti ffs and Defendant agr ee upon, techni cally, at least, i s that t hi s i s a cas e of fi rst im pressi on i n that the do cum ents relied u pon by Commerce were pro vided b y a third party source, the Chi nese Informant. I&D Memo at 9. Thi s Court notes thatwhi le the Chi nese Informant was a thi rd part y when i ts documents were placed on the recor d by the Petiti oner, t he Chinese Informant enter ed an appearance thro ugh U.S.-based coun sel on Janu ary 8, 2010 for t he purposes of partici patin g inthe ve rifi cati on and thus b ecame an intere sted party i n the rev i ew pursuant to 19 U.S .C. § 1677(9)(A) . The Peti tioner pro perly placed the t hi rd part y’s i nformation on the recor d, and Commerce amply demonstrated t hat i t analyzed and

ver i fi ed the third party i nformation througho ut the r ecord. Accordingly, Court finds that t he tim i ng of the inf or mati on bei ng placed on the recor d—when the Chinese Informant was a thi rd part y and before it becam e an intere sted party —does not i nvali date Co mmerce’s verifi cati on of and relianc e on the do cum ents. For the for ego i ng reasons, this Court holds that Commerce’s deci si on to apply tot al AFA t o Max For tune i s su pport ed by sub stanti al evidenc e on the r ecord and other wi se in acc or dance w i th law.DRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 17 B. Busi ness Proprietary Treatment The sec ond i ssu e presented is whether Commerce’s deci si on to gr ant confi denti al propr i etar y tr eatment t o the Chines e Informant’ s bu siness documents d eprived Plainti ffs of the r i ght t o defend themselves and to a fai r pr oceedi ng. Max For tune contends that i t “was found gui lty o f submi tting fraudulent docum ents” to Co mmerce “wi thout being aff or ded the oppor tuni ty t o confronti ts accu ser . . . or to ins pect any of the ev i dence” presented by the Chi nese Informant. Pls.’ Mot. at 32–33. Commerce counters that it “may restr i ct acces s to lim i ted in formation for part i es subject to an admini strat i ve pr ote cti ve o rder i f there is ‘clear and compelling need to wi thhold’ that i nformation ‘from di scl osure’” (ci tin g 19 U.S .C. § 1677f(c )(1) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.304(b) (2)( i )). D ef.’s Opp. at 33. Pursu ant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.304(b)(2)( i ), parties may request t hat certain i nformation be doub le-bracketed, whi ch m eans that only Co mmerce i s permi tte d acc ess to t he information. Th e recor d indi cates that the Petiti oner r equested that t he name of the FM R be double bracketed becaus e “to rev eal that inf or mati on could prov e a danger to t he researcher and the r esearcher’s methods of obtaining i nformation in the future.” Def.’s Opp. at 33. Commerce found thi s explanati on compelling and agre ed to g rant confi denti al tre atment. Id

. First, thi s Court po i nts out thatthi s i s a ci vil, n ot cr i minal, cas e, notwiths tandi ngDRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 18 the noir -style fashi oni ng of the facts and arguments by the part i es. Max F or tune ci tes to no statuto ry or reg ulator y author i ty t o support its propositi on that it has a “ri ght t o confront its ac cus er,” Pls.’ Mot . at 32, and this Court declines Max Fo rt une’s plea to read

such a right into an admi ni strat i ve pr oceedi ng. Next, t hi s Court r ecognizesthat 1 2 prot ecting the business name and trade secrets of an i nformation source, s uppli er, o r other thi rd part y is a necess ary too l for Co mmerce to faci li tate fort hcoming and frank i nformation gathering duri ng an i nvestigati on. Finall y, this Courttake s seri ously any allegation that a part y to a proceeding di d not r ecei ve fair treat ment. In the in stant case, the Peti tioner requested t hat the infor mati on i denti fi ed i n single bracket s be released to part i es approv ed by Commerce ( i.e. , couns el, consu ltants) under the APO, whi le i nformation i denti fi ed i n double brackets be released solely to Commerce. Def.-Int. Br. at 10. O nly the iden tif yin g in formation of the FM R was double-b racket ed, whi le all the sub stanti ve do cum ents were single-bracketed and thus availab le to M ax Fo rt une’s c ounsel . Id. at 10–11. Defendant-Interv enor str esses, and thi s Court ag rees, thatthe in formation that Max For tune wants released un der t he APO i s bu siness propr i etar y in formation whi ch b elongs to the Chi nese Informant, eve n i f the Plainti ff c ouches i ts contention in Sixth Amendmen t te rmi nolog y but does not 1 2 actually invok e i t. The Sixth Amendment i s only appli cable to cri minal prosecuti ons. See U.S. Co nst. amend. V I. See also Pasco Terminals, Inc. v. U nited States , 83 Cust. Ct. 65, 477 F. S upp. 201, 213 (1979) (“When . . . agenci es are conducting nonadjudic ative, factfinding i nvestigati ons, rights s uchas . . . confro ntation, and c ro ss- exami nati on gener ally do notobtain.”)

.DRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 19 documents c ontain information about Max F or tune. Def.- Int. Br . at 36. Max For tune admi ts that Co mmerce “normally does notallow parties ( as di sti nct from their couns el)

acces s to business propr i etar y in formation,” but argues that because Max Fo rt une’s ci rcums tances are “ext rao rdin ary ,” Commerce should have made an excepti on for M ax For tune. Pls .’ Mo t. at 33. C ommerce explain ed why i t declined Max F or tune’s request:

It i s Commerce’s poli cy t o a l l ow a respondent acces s to p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t a t i o n w h e n d o c u m e n t a t i o n i s unques tionabl y the respondent ’ s own documentati on. However , Commerce does not allow such access i n cases like thi s case, when the i ssu e concerns the tr uthfuln ess of the respondent’s questi onna i re responses and the authenti ci ty of the documents thems elves. Def.’s Opp. at 30. Commerce’s deci si on not t o make an ex cepti on for M ax Fo rt une i s reasoned, conforms wi th i ts past practic e, and i s su pport ed by evidenc e on the r ecord. Therefore , thi s Court wil l not r equi re Co mmerce to depar t fro m i ts past practic e of gr anti ng pro prietary t reat ment to businessi nformation. Thi s Court nex t not es that Max For tune’s couns el had acc ess to all of the sub stanti ve pr oprietary documents p ert ai ning to Max F or tune and also that “Max For tune was p ro vided w i th suffi ci ent publi c information to have no tic e of, and to respond to , the allegat i ons made against i t.” Def.’s Opp. at 32. Commerce dete rmi ned that t he publ i c su mmari es were suffi ci ent to prov i de a meaningful opport uni ty fo r M ax For tune to r espond. Id. Max F or tune contends that i t has the right to exami ne theDRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 20 Chinese Informant’s documents an d to det ermin e their authenti ci ty, but t hat i s actuall y the ro le of Commerce inan anti dumping admini strat i ve pr oceedi ng. Througho ut the admini strat i ve r eview, Max For tune had abu ndant notic e of the Petiti oner’ s allegations that M ax Fo rt une di d not r epor t all of the factor s of producti on. Def.’s Opp. at 32. Max For tune’s awareness of the Petiti oner’ s allegationsi s evi denced b y its ownsub mi ssi ons denyi ng these allegat i ons. Max F or tune Response to S eaman’s Sept. 15, 2009 Submi ssi on, dated O ct. 19, 2009 (C.R. 22). Acc or dingly, M ax Fo rt une’s c ontent i on that it di d not r ecei ve a fair proceedi ng i s not supported by ev i dence on the recor d. Upon a thor ough re viewof the r ecord, t hi s Court fin ds that Max For tune was afforded a complete and fai r pr oceedi ng. For the for ego i ng reasons, this Court holds that Commerce’s deci si on to tr eat certain information as p ro prietary is s upporte d by sub stanti al evidenc e on the r ecord and other wi se in acc or dance w i th law. IV. C O N C L U S I O N For the re asons di scu ssed ab ov e, Plainti ffs ’ Mo tion for Judgment on the Ag ency Record pursuant to Rule 56.2 of the Rules of the U.S . Court of Inter nati onal Trade isDRAFT

Court No. 10-00306 Page 21 DENIED, Plainti ffs ’ Mo tion for Or al Arg ument i s DENIED , and Commerce’s Fin al Resu lts in the fourth admi ni strat i ve r eview are AFFIRMED

. /s/ Gregor y W. Car man Grego ry W. Carman, Judge Dated: June 18, 2012

New York, NY