Opinion ID: 6495737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Administrative Review

Text: On December 28, 1994, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from China. Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China, 59 Fed. Reg. 66,909 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 28, 1994) (“Cased Pencils Order”). Commerce notified interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative review of the order on December 1, 2016. Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 Fed. Reg. 86,694 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 1, 2016). Prime Time filed a timely request for administrative review of the order. J.A. 47–82 (Prime Time Commerce, LLC’s Request for Administrative Review (Jan. 3, 2017)). On February 13, 2017, Commerce initiated an administrative review covering the period from December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Case: 21-1783 Document: 57 Page: 3 Filed: 06/28/2022 PRIME TIME COMMERCE, LLC v. US 3 Reviews, 82 Fed. Reg. 10,457, 10,459 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 13, 2017) (“Initiation Notice”). In antidumping investigations of countries with nonmarket economies (“NMEs”), such as China, Commerce applies a rebuttable presumption that all exporters are subject to government control. China Mfrs. Alliance, LLC v. United States, 1 F.4th 1028, 1030–31, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Commerce uses a single antidumping rate for all companies that fail to demonstrate independence from government control. Id. at 1030–31. Here, Commerce preliminarily assigned a 114.90% antidumping duty rate—the highest rate available—to all China-wide entities. Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China, 82 Fed. Reg. 43,329, 43,331 (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 15, 2017); see also Prime Time II, 495 F. Supp. 3d at 1312. One of these entities was Ningbo Homey Union Co., Ltd. (“Ningbo Homey”), Prime Time’s supplier and exporter. Id. at 1311–12. Commerce had calculated the 114.90% rate from facts available with an adverse inference (“adverse facts available” or “AFA”). Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,613 (Dep’t of Commerce July 25, 2002), Dec. Mem. at cmt. 9 (citing 67 Fed. Reg. 2402, 2406–07 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 17, 2002)) (“[W]e are relying on adverse facts available to determine the margins for the PRC-wide entity.”). Commerce invited companies seeking a separate rate to submit a separate rate application (“SRA”) demonstrating their independence from the Chinese government. Initiation Notice, at 10,458. B. Ningbo Homey’s Separate Rate Application and Prime Time’s Submission Ningbo Homey timely filed an SRA. J.A. 90–203 (Separate Rate Application of Ningbo Homey Union Co., Ltd., Case: 21-1783 Document: 57 Page: 4 Filed: 06/28/2022 4 PRIME TIME COMMERCE, LLC v. US PR21/CR7-9 (Mar. 15, 2017)). Commerce selected Ningbo Homey as the sole mandatory respondent. 1 J.A. 207–09 (Department of Commerce’s Respondent Selection Memo (March 30, 2017)). Commerce then sent Ningbo Homey an antidumping questionnaire instructing it to “wholly and fully participate” in the administrative review, J.A. 216, “not selectively choose which requests to respond to,” id., and respond to questions on its separate rate status. J.A. 210–307 (Department of Commerce’s Questionnaire to Ningbo Homey Union Co., Ltd. (Apr. 3, 2017)). Ningbo Homey declined to participate further in the review, however, due to its low export volume and value along with the expense and time commitment of participation. Appellant’s Br. 6. Believing Ningbo Homey’s rate to be significantly lower than the 114.90% China-wide rate, Prime Time sought to obtain an individual rate by providing additional information to Commerce. Id. Prime Time submitted information relevant to section C (U.S. sales) and section D (factors of production) of the questionnaire sent to Ningbo Homey. J.A. 313, 334 (Prime Time Commerce, LLC’s Section C&D Questionnaire Response (Rejection Notice) (May 10, 2017)). Commerce rejected Prime Time’s submission. J.A. 334–36 (Department of Commerce’s Rejection Letter to Prime Time Commerce, LLC (June 9, 2017)). Commerce reasoned that Prime Time’s submissions contained unsolicited new information because Commerce’s questionnaire 1 Generally, Commerce must determine an individ- ual dumping margin for each exporter. 19 U.S.C. § 1677f– 1(c)(1). But, where that is “not practicable,” Commerce may limit its examination to a “reasonable number of exporters.” § 1677f–1(c)(2). Commerce refers to those selected for individual investigation as “mandatory respondents.” Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Case: 21-1783 Document: 57 Page: 5 Filed: 06/28/2022 PRIME TIME COMMERCE, LLC v. US 5 was directed at Ningbo Homey, not Prime Time, and failed to “include a detailed narrative explaining why it should be considered.” Id. at 334–35. Prime Time requested reconsideration, but Commerce did not change its decision. J.A. 351–56 (Prime Time Commerce, LLC’s Request for Reconsideration (Aug. 3, 2017)). C. Commerce’s Decision In its Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that Ningbo Homey failed to respond to all parts of the questionnaire, denied the separate rate, and assigned Ningbo Homey the China-wide rate of 114.90%. Certain Cased Pencils from People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments, and Rescission of Review, in Part; 2015-2016, 82 Fed. Reg. 43,329, 43,330–31 (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 15, 2017) (“Prelim. Dec. Mem.”). Commerce invited interested parties to comment on its preliminary results. Id. at 43,331. Prime Time renewed its request for reconsideration, arguing that Commerce should not have rejected its submission because Commerce had an obligation to use that information under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(e). J.A. 383–84, 389, 394–95 (Prime Time Commerce, LLC’s Case Brief (Oct. 16, 2017)). Prime Time also argued that Commerce’s use of AFA was not warranted because Commerce should have considered neutral facts available to calculate the rate for Prime Time even if Commerce applied AFA to other Ningbo Homey shipments. J.A. 388. Prime Time lastly argued that the highest, most adverse rate determined was not proportional to Prime Time’s diligence and efforts to cooperate by providing information to Commerce to calculate a rate for Ningbo Homey. J.A. 391–94. Nonetheless, Commerce made no changes in its final results. Certain Cased Pencils from People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 83 Fed. Reg. 3,112 (Dep’t of Commerce Case: 21-1783 Document: 57 Page: 6 Filed: 06/28/2022 6 PRIME TIME COMMERCE, LLC v. US Jan. 23, 2018) (“Final Results”). In its Final Results, Commerce reasoned that Ningbo Homey failed to establish eligibility for a separate rate because it did not provide information supporting reconsideration of its preliminary decision. Id. at 3,113. Commerce concluded that Prime Time’s questionnaire response was properly rejected because it was incomplete, unsolicited, and did not come from the mandatory respondent, Ningbo Homey. J.A. 399. D. Prime Time’s Appeal Prime Time appealed to the Trade Court. The Trade Court found that Commerce erred in rejecting and removing Prime Time’s submission from the record. Prime Time Com. LLC v. United States, 396 F. Supp. 3d 1319, 1326–34 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019) (“Prime Time I”). It further determined that “Commerce’s decision not to consider Prime Time’s efforts to comply with Commerce’s requests for information is in accordance with law.” Id. at 1333–34. The Trade Court remanded Commerce’s final results, directing Commerce to accept into the record and consider Prime Time’s submission “in the context of calculating an importer-specific assessment rate for Prime Time’s entries,” or, if Commerce did not calculate an importer-specific rate, explain why not doing so was reasonable. Id. at 1323. On remand, Prime Time resubmitted its information. J.A. 604–1348 (Prime Time Commerce LLC’s Resubmission of Section C&D Questionnaire Response Information for Ningbo Homey Co., Ltd. (Aug. 6, 2019)). It explained that it “had difficulty obtaining all the information necessary to calculate a separate margin for Prime Time, and thus [sought] guidance from Commerce for any further request for Ningbo Homey information.” J.A. 611–12. Prime Time suggested that the information in other parties’ confidential prior-review submissions “be representative of Ningbo Homey to the extent applicable and missing from the submission herein (e.g., labor, energy, and other [factors of production]).” J.A. 612. In its submission, Prime Case: 21-1783 Document: 57 Page: 7 Filed: 06/28/2022 PRIME TIME COMMERCE, LLC v. US 7 Time included the public versions of other parties’ priorreview submissions, which did not contain any confidential gap-filling information. J.A. 756–1331. Only Commerce had access to the confidential versions. J.A. 402. In its draft remand redetermination, Commerce again declined to calculate an importer-specific rate on the grounds that Prime Time’s submitted information was “incomplete,” “unreliab[le],” and “unduly difficult” to piece together. J.A. 1358–59, 1364 (Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand Order (Sept. 17, 2019)). Commerce again invited interested parties to comment on this draft redetermination. J.A. 1364. Prime Time chose not to comment. Accordingly, Commerce issued its final remand redetermination without calculating an importer-specific assessment rate for Prime Time. J.A. 1367– 82 (Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand Order (Oct. 7, 2019)). Once more, Prime Time challenged Commerce’s refusal to calculate an importer-specific assessment rate before the Trade Court. J.A. 1383–96 (Prime Time Commerce LLC’s Comments on Remand Redetermination (Nov. 6, 2019)). The Trade Court sustained Commerce’s remand redetermination as supported by substantial evidence. Prime Time II, 495 F. Supp. 3d at 1318. The Trade Court held that Prime Time’s arguments that Commerce failed to comply with the remand order and failed to place gap-filling information on the record were barred because Prime Time failed to raise them before Commerce in the first instance. Id. at 1313–14. Additionally, the Trade Court held that Commerce’s practice of not calculating an importer-specific assessment rate where an importer’s corresponding exporter failed to fully comply with Commerce’s inquiries was reasonable because the burden was on “interested parties to populate the record; a burden which was not met in this case.” Id. at 1317. Case: 21-1783 Document: 57 Page: 8 Filed: 06/28/2022 8 PRIME TIME COMMERCE, LLC v. US On appeal, Prime Time contests both the Trade Court’s initial remand decision and its final decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).