Opinion ID: 3007030
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fourth Administrative Review

Text: On March 26, 2009, Commerce initiated the Fourth Administrative Review covering entries of subject merchandise made between February 1, 2008 and January 31, 2009. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China, 74 Fed. Reg. 13,178 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 26, 2009) (initiation of administrative review). Hilltop was selected as one of two mandatory respondents in the review. At the beginning of the review, Hilltop filed a separate rate certification, representing that neither the company nor its affiliates were controlled by the Chinese government, and requested separate rate status, which Supp. 2d 1315, and sustained the calculation of the country-wide rate in the Fourth Review in Ad Hoc Shrimp II, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1285. Because Commerce’s determinations in both reviews are substantially the same, and because the parties raise identical arguments, this court addresses both appeals in this opinion. 2 The Fourth and Fifth Reviews involved nearly identical facts except that in the Fourth Review, Commerce determined Hilltop had made sales of subject merchandise allegedly sourced from Cambodia. AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMM. v. UNITED STATES 5 means it would receive a company-specific antidumping duty rate instead of the country-wide rate calculated for the China-wide entity. As part of the review, Hilltop responded to a number of questionnaires 3 from Commerce. In its Section A response, Hilltop informed Commerce that its sales and administrative facility is located in Hong Kong and it is affiliated with several Chinese shrimp producers and processors, as well as various companies in other third countries. The company also listed all of the shareholders and directors for each disclosed third-country affiliate. In response to Commerce’s request for a list of third parties in which Hilltop or its owners, either collectively or individually, owned five percent or more in stock, Hilltop stated that “[n]one of the Hilltop Group companies or their individual owners own 5 percent or more in stock in any third parties.” J.A.-1647, at 98f. 4 In a supplemental questionnaire response, Hilltop also stated “[n]one of the princip[als] of the Chinese companies, Hilltop (HK) or the Taiwanese companies held any other business licenses 3 During its administrative reviews, Commerce issues detailed nonmarket economy questionnaires to foreign respondents in the proceedings to gather information from which to calculate dumping margins. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 351.221, 351.301(c)(1) (2009). These questionnaires are divided into sections: Section A covers general corporate information, including corporate and business structure, affiliations with other companies, and ownership details; Section C covers U.S. sales data; and Section D covers production data. Commerce may issue supplemental questionnaires if additional information is required. 4 The suffix -1514 denotes the record materials in Appeal No. 2014-1514, while the suffix -1647 denotes those in Appeal No. 2014-1647. 6 AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMM. v. UNITED STATES during the [period of review] other than the ones provided in [Hilltop’s Section A questionnaire response].” J.A.- 1647, at 151i. The separate rate certification and questionnaire responses were certified by Hilltop’s general manager and part-owner To Kam Keung (“Mr. To”). J.A.- 1647, at 80, 86–87. On March 12, 2010, Commerce published the Preliminary Results for the Fourth Administrative Review. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China, 75 Fed. Reg. 11,855 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 12, 2010) (preliminary results, preliminary partial rescission of antidumping duty administrative review, and intent not to revoke, in part). In the Preliminary Results, Commerce found Hilltop was eligible for separate rate status. Id. at 11,859. In addition, Commerce calculated a de minimis dumping margin based on Hilltop’s reported sales and production data. Id. at 11,861. These determinations were left unchanged in Commerce’s Final Results for the Fourth Review, published on August 13, 2010. Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China, 75 Fed. Reg. 49,460, 49,463 (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 13, 2010) (final results and partial rescission of antidumping duty administrative review). On September 10, 2010, the Shrimp Trade Committee appealed these Final Results to the CIT, challenging Commerce’s selection of mandatory respondents and certain valuations. After a remand regarding the selection of mandatory respondents, the CIT affirmed Commerce’s determinations. Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 828 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012), appeal docketed, No. 2012-1416 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2012). The CIT’s decision was appealed to this court. While the appeal was pending before this court, however, the Government moved for a voluntary remand to reconsider the Final Results in light of certain information that surfaced in the recently-concluded Sixth AD HOC SHRIMP TRADE ACTION COMM. v. UNITED STATES 7 Administrative Review. This information indicated Hilltop might have provided false or incomplete information regarding its affiliates in the Fourth Review. On May 24, 2013, this court granted the Government’s motion for voluntary remand and issued its mandate. On July 19, 2013, the CIT issued an order remanding the Fourth Review proceedings to Commerce pursuant to this court’s mandate.