Court Opinion

ID: 9959122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 19:01:10.029921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:28.447485
License: Public Domain

SlipȱOp.ȱ24Ȭ43ȱ

             UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ

 YAMAȱRIBBONSȱANDȱBOWSȱCO.,ȱLTD.,ȱ

                           Plaintiff,ȱ

                    v.ȱ

 UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ                                       Before:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ

                           Defendant,ȱ                 CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ

                   andȱ

 BERWICKȱOFFRAYȱLLC,ȱ

                           DefendantȬIntervenor.ȱ

                                OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ

     [Remandingȱaȱredeterminationȱinȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱproceedingȱonȱnarrowȱ
wovenȱribbonsȱwithȱwovenȱselvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina]ȱ

                                                                Dated:ȱAprilȱ10,ȱ2024ȱ

      BrittneyȱR.ȱPowell,ȱFoxȱRothschildȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffȱYamaȱ
RibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱwereȱLizbethȱR.ȱLevinsonȱandȱRonaldȱ
M. Wisla.

        KaraȱM.ȱWestercamp,ȱTrialȱAttorney,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ
Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱ
theȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱandȱ
PatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱRachelȱA.ȱBogdan,ȱAttorney,ȱ
OfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ
Commerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                           ȱ                                         Pageȱ2ȱ
ȱ
      DanielȱB.ȱPickard,ȱBuchananȱIngersollȱandȱRooneyȱPC,ȱofȱWashingtonȱD.C.,ȱforȱ
defendantȬintervenorȱBerwickȱOffrayȱLLC.ȱȱȱ
ȱ
      Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱPlaintiffȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBows,ȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱ(“Yama”)ȱcontestedȱaȱ

determinationȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ

Commerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱinȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ(“CVD”)ȱ

proceeding.ȱȱTheȱcontestedȱdecisionȱconcludedȱtheȱseventhȱperiodicȱadministrativeȱ

reviewȱ(“seventhȱreview”)ȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱnarrowȱwovenȱribbonsȱ

withȱwovenȱselvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(“China”ȱorȱtheȱ“PRC”).ȱ

       BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“RemandȱRedetermination,”ȱissuedȱinȱ

responseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ

46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1394ȱ(2022)ȱ(“YamaȱI”).ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ

PursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ15,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ48ȱ(“Remandȱ

Redetermination”).ȱȱYamaȱopposesȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱBecauseȱaȱfindingȱinȱ

theȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱ

ofȱtheȱseventhȱreview,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandsȱthisȱdecisionȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱreconsiderationȱ

andȱcorrectiveȱaction,ȱasȱappropriate.ȱ

                                     I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ

       Backgroundȱforȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionȱandȱisȱ

supplementedȱherein.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1396—98.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                          ȱ                                       Pageȱ3ȱ
ȱ
                            A.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱDeterminationȱ

       Commerceȱpublishedȱtheȱdeterminationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱ(theȱ“Finalȱ

Results”)ȱasȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱ

China:ȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2017ȱ85ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ10,653ȱ

(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ25,ȱ2020),ȱ(“FinalȱResults”).ȱȱCommerceȱincorporatedȱbyȱ

referenceȱanȱexplanatoryȱdocument,ȱtheȱ“FinalȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱ

IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱ2017ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ

AdministrativeȱReview:ȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ

RepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ19,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ171ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).1ȱȱ

Theȱseventhȱreviewȱofȱtheȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱpertainedȱtoȱentriesȱmadeȱduringȱaȱ

periodȱofȱreviewȱ(“POR”)ȱofȱJanuaryȱ1,ȱ2017ȱthroughȱDecemberȱ31,ȱ2017.2ȱ

                             ȱ
       1 ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Mar.ȱ26,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ38ȱ(conf.),ȱ39ȱ
(public)ȱareȱcitedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱrecordȱdocumentsȱareȱtoȱtheȱ
publicȱversions.ȱ
       ȱ
       2ȱTheȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱwasȱissuedȱinȱ2010.ȱȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱWithȱ

WovenȱSelvedgeȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ
75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ53,642ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱȱSubjectȱmerchandiseȱisȱdefinedȱ
generallyȱinȱtheȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱasȱwovenȱribbonsȱtwelveȱcentimetersȱorȱlessȱ
inȱwidth,ȱandȱofȱanyȱlength,ȱthatȱareȱcomposedȱinȱwholeȱorȱinȱpartȱofȱmanȬmadeȱfibersȱ
andȱthatȱhaveȱwovenȱselvedge;ȱsomeȱexclusionsȱapply.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ53,642–43.ȱȱTheȱtermȱ
“selvedge”ȱrefersȱtoȱ“theȱedgeȱonȱeitherȱsideȱofȱaȱwovenȱorȱflatȬknittedȱfabricȱsoȱfinishedȱ
asȱtoȱpreventȱraveling.”ȱȱSelvageȱorȱselvedge,ȱWEBSTER’SȱTHIRDȱNEWȱINTERNATIONALȱ
DICTIONARYȱUNABRIDGEDȱ(2002).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                              ȱ                                   Pageȱ4ȱ
ȱ
       InȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱthatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱ23ȱ

countervailableȱChineseȱgovernmentȱprogramsȱandȱassignedȱYamaȱaȱtotalȱ

countervailableȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ31.87%.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1397;ȱ

FinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ3–5.ȱ

                              B.ȱȱYama’sȱClaimsȱinȱthisȱLitigationȱ

       InȱaȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecordȱbroughtȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2,ȱ

YamaȱchallengedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionsȱtoȱcountervailȱthreeȱofȱtheȱ23ȱprogramsȱ

andȱtheȱassociatedȱcountervailingȱdutyȱsubsidyȱrates:ȱ“aȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱforȱtheȱExportȱ

Buyer’sȱCreditȱProgramȱ(“EBCP”ȱorȱ“EBCȱProgram”),ȱwhichȱisȱanȱexportȬpromotingȱ

loanȱprogramȱadministeredȱbyȱtheȱExportȱImportȱBankȱofȱChina;ȱaȱrateȱofȱ17.76%ȱforȱtheȱ

provisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱforȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱremunerationȱ(“LTAR”);ȱandȱaȱrateȱofȱ

0.17%ȱforȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱcausticȱsodaȱforȱLTAR.”ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ

atȱ1398.ȱȱForȱtheȱderivationȱofȱallȱthreeȱofȱthoseȱsubsidyȱrates,ȱCommerceȱinvokedȱitsȱ

authorityȱtoȱuseȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱunderȱsectionȱ776(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ

1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a),ȱandȱ“adverseȱinferences”ȱunderȱ

sectionȱ776(b)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b).3ȱȱWhenȱrelyingȱonȱbothȱtheȱ“factsȱ

otherwiseȱavailable”ȱandȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱprovisionsȱofȱtheȱstatute,ȱCommerceȱusesȱ

theȱtermȱ“adverseȱfactsȱavailable”ȱorȱ“AFA.”ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ

atȱ1399;ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ2.ȱ

                               ȱ
       3   ȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                          ȱ                                       Pageȱ5ȱ
ȱ
       InȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱbasedȱitsȱuseȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱonȱ

findingsȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱtheȱPRCȱwithheldȱrequestedȱinformation;ȱitȱfound,ȱ

further,ȱthatȱadverseȱinferencesȱwereȱwarrantedȱbecauseȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱfailedȱ

toȱcooperateȱbyȱnotȱactingȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ

informationȱrequests.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1399—1400,ȱ1404.ȱȱ

CommerceȱdidȱnotȱfindȱthatȱYamaȱitselfȱwithheldȱanyȱinformationȱorȱfailedȱtoȱcooperateȱ

toȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱquestionnaires.ȱ

                           C.ȱȱTheȱCourt’sȱOpinionȱinȱYamaȱIȱ

       InȱresponseȱtoȱYama’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotion,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱtoȱ

Commerceȱwithȱdirectionsȱtoȱreconsiderȱtheȱ10.54%ȱrateȱappliedȱasȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ

forȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱProgram.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1405.ȱȱ

TheȱcourtȱdeniedȱreliefȱonȱYama’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱinȱallȱotherȱrespects.ȱ

            D.ȱȱTheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱCommentȱSubmissionsȱ

       InȱresponseȱtoȱYamaȱI,ȱCommerceȱreconsideredȱtheȱ10.54%ȱrateȱitȱassignedȱforȱtheȱ

EBCP.ȱȱCommerceȱagainȱassignedȱthisȱrateȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱ

includedȱanȱexplanationȱofȱitsȱrevisedȱreasoning.ȱȱYamaȱopposedȱtheȱRemandȱ

Redeterminationȱinȱaȱcommentȱsubmissionȱtoȱtheȱcourt.ȱȱPl.’sȱCommentsȱinȱOppositionȱ

toȱtheȱResultsȱofȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Mar.ȱ17,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ50ȱ(“Yama’sȱ

Comments”).ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱdidȱnotȱcomment.ȱȱDefendantȱrepliedȱtoȱYama’sȱ

opposition,ȱadvocatingȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱsustainȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDef.’sȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                            ȱ                                      Pageȱ6ȱ
ȱ
ResponseȱtoȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Apr.ȱ1,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ51ȱ(“Def.’sȱ

Resp.”).ȱ

                                       II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ

                         A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ
ȱ
       Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱjurisdictionȱaccordingȱtoȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱCourtsȱ

Actȱofȱ1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱwhichȱgrantsȱthisȱCourtȱauthorityȱtoȱreviewȱactionsȱ

commencedȱunderȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a,ȱincludingȱactionsȱ

contestingȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱthatȱCommerceȱissuesȱtoȱconcludeȱanȱadministrativeȱ

reviewȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorder.ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii).ȱ

       Inȱreviewingȱaȱfinalȱdetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱ“shallȱholdȱunlawfulȱanyȱ

determination,ȱfinding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ

evidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(b)(1).ȱȱ

Substantialȱevidenceȱrefersȱtoȱ“suchȱrelevantȱevidenceȱasȱaȱreasonableȱmindȱmightȱ

acceptȱasȱadequateȱtoȱsupportȱaȱconclusion.”ȱȱSKFȱUSA,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ

1373,ȱ1378ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ(quotingȱConsol.ȱEdisonȱCo.ȱv.ȱNLRB,ȱ305ȱU.S.ȱ197,ȱ229ȱ(1938)).ȱ

                                   B.ȱȱPriorȱProceedingsȱ

       WithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱEBCP,ȱYamaȱclaimedȱinȱitsȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱthatȱ“Commerceȱ

shouldȱnotȱhaveȱimposedȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱuponȱYama’sȱexportsȱforȱtheȱEBCP”ȱasȱ

theȱrecordȱevidenceȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ“neitherȱYamaȱnorȱitsȱcustomersȱusedȱthisȱ

program.”ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1400ȱ(quotingȱMem.ȱofȱP.ȱ&ȱA.ȱinȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                             ȱ                                        Pageȱ7ȱ
ȱ
Supp.ȱofȱPl.’sȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ24–25ȱ(Oct.ȱ28,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ29Ȭ2ȱ

(“Pl.’sȱBr.”)).ȱȱ“Inȱtheȱalternative,ȱYamaȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱ10.54%ȱsubsidyȱrateȱthatȱ

Commerceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱattributedȱtoȱtheȱprogramȱwasȱ‘extremelyȱadverse,ȱpunitiveȱandȱnotȱ

relatedȱtoȱexportsȱorȱthisȱindustry,ȱorȱconnectedȱtoȱtheȱEBC.’”ȱȱId.ȱ

       ConcerningȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱforȱLTAR,ȱYamaȱ

arguedȱthatȱCommerceȱimproperlyȱdetermined,ȱthroughȱtheȱuseȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱ

availableȱandȱadverseȱinferences,ȱthatȱ“eachȱofȱtheȱprivateȱcompaniesȱwhichȱsuppliedȱ

Yamaȱwithȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱisȱanȱ‘authority,’”ȱi.e.,ȱaȱgovernmentȱorȱ

publicȱentityȱfromȱwhichȱaȱcountervailableȱsubsidyȱmayȱoriginate,ȱasȱprovidedȱinȱ

19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)(B).ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1404ȱ(quotingȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ9).ȱ

       InȱYamaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeterminedȱthatȱ“Commerceȱactedȱlawfullyȱinȱdecidingȱthatȱ

theȱrecordȱbeforeȱit,ȱbasedȱonȱactualȱevidenceȱandȱpermissibleȱadverseȱinferences,ȱ

allowedȱYamaȱtoȱbenefitȱfromȱ‘programs’ȱallowingȱitȱtoȱobtainȱtheȱinputsȱ[syntheticȱ

yarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda]ȱforȱLTAR.”ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1405ȱ(citationȱ

omitted).ȱȱȱ

       OnȱtheȱEBCP,ȱYamaȱIȱheldȱthatȱ“Commerceȱwasȱwithinȱitsȱauthorityȱinȱusingȱanȱ

adverseȱinferenceȱthatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱtheȱEBCP”ȱduringȱtheȱPOR.ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱ

atȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1401.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱbasedȱitsȱconclusionȱonȱtheȱfailureȱofȱtheȱ

ChineseȱgovernmentȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱaȱrequestȱfromȱCommerceȱthatȱwasȱspecificȱtoȱtheȱ

POR,ȱi.e.,ȱcalendarȱyearȱ2017,ȱandȱwasȱwordedȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Ifȱyouȱclaimȱthatȱnoȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                              ȱ                                  Pageȱ8ȱ
ȱ
customerȱofȱtheȱrespondentȱcompaniesȱusedȱbuyerȱcredits,ȱpleaseȱexplainȱinȱdetailȱtheȱ

stepsȱtheȱgovernmentȱtookȱtoȱdetermineȱthatȱnoȱcustomerȱusedȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCredits.”ȱȱ

Id.ȱ(quotingȱ2017ȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱtheȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱNarrowȱWovenȱ

RibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ

QuestionnaireȱatȱIIȬ13ȱ(Nov.ȱ26,ȱ2018),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ4).ȱȱCommerceȱusedȱadverseȱinferencesȱ

regardingȱtheȱEBCPȱbecauseȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱ(theȱ“GOC”),ȱmakingȱnoȱ

meaningfulȱattemptȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinformationȱrequest,ȱdidȱnotȱ

provideȱanyȱanswersȱspecificȱtoȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreviewȱandȱprovidedȱtheȱsameȱ

questionnaireȱresponseȱitȱhadȱprovidedȱCommerceȱinȱtheȱpriorȱreview.ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱ

NarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱGOCȱ

Responseȱ(Feb.ȱ19,ȱ2019),ȱP.R.ȱDocs.ȱ21,ȱ23).ȱ

       TheȱcourtȱconcludedȱinȱYamaȱIȱthatȱ“Commerceȱmustȱbeȱaffordedȱdiscretionȱtoȱ

determineȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱinquiryȱinȱconductingȱreviewsȱofȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorders,ȱ

soȱlongȱasȱitȱdoesȱsoȱreasonably”ȱandȱthatȱ“[h]ere,ȱitȱwasȱreasonableȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱ

requestȱinformationȱfromȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱtoȱsupplementȱandȱcorroborateȱtheȱ

informationȱYamaȱprovidedȱtoȱshowȱthatȱneitherȱYamaȱnorȱitsȱU.S.ȱcustomersȱusedȱtheȱ

EBCP.”ȱȱId.ȱȱ“ButȱbecauseȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱmadeȱnoȱeffortȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱ

requestedȱinformationȱasȱitȱrelatedȱspecificallyȱtoȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreview,ȱCommerceȱwasȱ

withinȱitsȱauthorityȱinȱusingȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱthatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱtheȱEBCPȱ

duringȱthatȱperiod.”ȱȱId.ȱȱTheȱPORȬspecificȱinformationȱCommerceȱrequestedȱfromȱtheȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                            ȱ                                        Pageȱ9ȱ
ȱ
Chineseȱgovernmentȱ“wasȱmissingȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱdueȱtoȱtheȱfailureȱofȱtheȱChineseȱ

governmentȱtoȱmakeȱevenȱaȱminimalȱeffortȱtoȱassistȱCommerceȱinȱconfirmingȱthatȱYamaȱ

receivedȱnoȱbenefitȱfromȱtheȱEBCPȱduringȱthatȱyear.”ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ

atȱ1402.ȱȱUponȱprovidingȱCommerceȱonlyȱitsȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱquestionnaireȱ

inȱtheȱpriorȱreview,ȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱinformedȱCommerceȱthatȱitȱwouldȱnotȱ

submitȱanyȱfurtherȱresponsesȱinȱtheȱproceeding.ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ

atȱ1400.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱrecognizedȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱcontainedȱinformationȱtoȱsupportȱaȱ

findingȱthatȱneitherȱYamaȱnorȱitsȱcustomersȱusedȱtheȱEBCPȱduringȱtheȱPORȱbutȱ

reasonedȱthatȱ“Commerceȱwasȱnotȱrequiredȱtoȱconsiderȱthatȱinformationȱdeterminativeȱ

inȱtheȱparticularȱsituationȱthisȱcaseȱpresents.”4ȱȱId.ȱȱ“Itȱwasȱreasonableȱinȱthatȱsituationȱ

forȱCommerceȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱPORȬspecificȱinformationȱitȱsoughtȱfromȱtheȱGOC—noneȱ

ofȱwhichȱitȱobtained—toȱbeȱessentialȱtoȱitsȱinquiry.”ȱȱId.ȱ

       AlthoughȱconcludingȱthatȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱcouldȱuseȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ

thatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱtheȱEBCP,ȱtheȱcourtȱinȱYamaȱIȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱtoȱ

CommerceȱuponȱconcludingȱthatȱCommerce,ȱinȱselectingȱtheȱ10.54%ȱsubsidyȱrateȱforȱtheȱ

EBCPȱasȱthatȱadverseȱinference,ȱhadȱreliedȱuponȱaȱfindingȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ

evidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱTheȱfindingȱatȱissueȱwasȱthatȱaȱChineseȱgovernmentȱprogramȱ

                           ȱ
       4ȱYamaȱtoldȱtheȱagencyȱthatȱitȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱExportȱBuyersȱCreditȱProgramȱ

duringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreviewȱandȱwasȱinformedȱbyȱitsȱcustomersȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱnotȱusedȱ
theȱprogramȱeither.ȱȱYamaȱprovidedȱcertificationsȱofȱnonȬuseȱfromȱonlyȱsomeȱofȱitsȱ
customers.ȱȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1394,ȱ
1401ȱ(2022).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                            ȱ                                    Pageȱ10ȱ
ȱ
forȱpreferentialȱlendingȱtoȱtheȱcoatedȱpaperȱindustry,ȱforȱwhichȱCommerceȱhadȱ

determinedȱaȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱinȱanotherȱcountervailingȱdutyȱproceeding,ȱwasȱ

availableȱtoȱtheȱwovenȱribbonsȱindustry,ȱofȱwhichȱYamaȱwasȱaȱpart.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdirectedȱ

asȱfollows:ȱ

               Onȱremand,ȱCommerceȱmustȱreconsider,ȱinȱtheȱentirety,ȱitsȱuseȱofȱ
       theȱ10.54%ȱrateȱasȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱandȱexplainȱwhyȱwhateverȱrateȱitȱ
       decidesȱtoȱuseȱisȱappropriateȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b)ȱandȱisȱconsistentȱ
       withȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱthatȱstatute,ȱwhich,ȱratherȱthanȱtoȱimposeȱaȱrateȱthatȱisȱ
       “punitive,”ȱisȱtoȱencourageȱinterestedȱpartiesȱtoȱactȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱtheirȱ
       abilityȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱtheȱagency’sȱinformationȱrequests.ȱȱCommerceȱ
       mustȱexplain,ȱspecifically,ȱwhyȱitȱconsidersȱtheȱrateȱitȱchoosesȱtoȱbeȱ
       appropriateȱforȱthatȱpurposeȱinȱtheȱspecialȱcaseȱpresentedȱhere,ȱinȱwhichȱ
       anȱunreasonablyȱhighȱrateȱcouldȱundulyȱprejudiceȱYama,ȱasȱtheȱ
       “interestedȱparty”ȱthatȱwasȱfullyȱcooperativeȱduringȱtheȱreview.ȱ
ȱ
Id.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403.ȱ

                             C.ȱȱTheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
ȱ
       TheȱissueȱremainingȱtoȱbeȱdecidedȱisȱwhetherȱCommerceȱactedȱlawfullyȱinȱagainȱ

assigningȱYama,ȱusingȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinference,ȱaȱ

countervailableȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱforȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱThisȱrequiresȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱ

determineȱwhetherȱtheȱassignmentȱofȱthisȱrateȱcompliesȱwithȱtheȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱ

provisionsȱinȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱand,ȱspecifically,ȱwhetherȱtheȱfindingsȱ

Commerceȱmadeȱtoȱsupportȱitsȱconclusionȱunderȱthoseȱprovisionsȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱ

substantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱofȱtheȱseventhȱreview.ȱ

       InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱdescribedȱaȱmethodologyȱforȱ

choosingȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱrateȱthatȱdifferedȱfromȱtheȱoneȱitȱappliedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                          ȱ                                     Pageȱ11ȱ
ȱ
Results.ȱȱForȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱexplainedȱthatȱ“[c]onsistentȱwithȱsectionȱ

776(d)ȱofȱtheȱActȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)]ȱandȱourȱestablishedȱpractice,ȱweȱselectȱtheȱ

highestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱtheȱsameȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱasȱAFA”ȱandȱdescribedȱaȱ

“threeȬstep”ȱmethodologyȱforȱselectingȱthatȱrate.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ

atȱ1402—03ȱ(citationsȱandȱfootnotesȱomitted).ȱ

       Asȱtheȱfirstȱstepȱinȱitsȱmethodology,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱ“[w]henȱselectingȱ

ratesȱinȱanȱadministrativeȱreview,ȱweȱfirstȱdetermineȱifȱthereȱisȱanȱidenticalȱprogramȱ

fromȱanyȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱproceedingȱandȱuseȱtheȱhighestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱtheȱidenticalȱ

programȱ(excludingȱdeȱminimisȱrates).”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1402.ȱȱWhere,ȱasȱhere,ȱthereȱwasȱnoȱsuchȱ

identicalȱprogram,ȱCommerceȱdescribedȱasȱitsȱsecondȱstepȱthatȱitȱwouldȱ“determineȱifȱ

thereȱisȱaȱsimilar/comparableȱprogramȱ(basedȱonȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱbenefit)ȱwithinȱtheȱ

sameȱproceedingȱandȱapplyȱtheȱhighestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱtheȱsimilar/comparableȱ

program,ȱexcludingȱdeȱminimisȱrates.”ȱȱId.ȱȱThereȱhavingȱbeenȱnoȱsimilarȱorȱcomparableȱ

programȱ“withinȱtheȱsameȱproceeding,”ȱCommerceȱproceededȱtoȱitsȱthirdȱstep,ȱstatingȱ

thatȱ“weȱapplyȱtheȱhighestȱcalculatedȱrateȱfromȱanyȱnonȬcompanyȱspecificȱprogramȱinȱ

anyȱCVDȱcaseȱinvolvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry,ȱbutȱweȱdoȱnotȱuseȱaȱrateȱfromȱaȱprogramȱifȱtheȱ

industryȱinȱtheȱproceedingȱcannotȱuseȱthatȱprogram.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1402—1403ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱ

Commerceȱexplainedȱthatȱtheȱ10.54%ȱrateȱitȱchoseȱwasȱdeterminedȱinȱ“CoatedȱPaperȱfromȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                           ȱ                                      Pageȱ12ȱ
ȱ
China”ȱforȱtheȱ“PreferentialȱLendingȱtoȱtheȱCoatedȱPaperȱIndustryȱprogram.”5ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ

46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403ȱ(citingȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱ

ofȱ2017ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱ

SelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱatȱ11ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱAug.ȱ5,ȱ2019),ȱP.R.ȱ

Doc.ȱ110).ȱ

       BasedȱonȱtheȱDepartment’sȱownȱdescriptionȱofȱitsȱAFAȱrateȱselectionȱ

methodology,ȱYamaȱarguedȱinȱitsȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱthatȱCommerceȱfailedȱtoȱ

demonstrateȱthatȱaȱloanȱprogramȱforȱtheȱcoatedȱpaperȱindustryȱwasȱavailableȱtoȱtheȱ

wovenȱribbonsȱindustry,ȱandȱtheȱcourtȱagreedȱwithȱthisȱargument.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ

611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403.ȱ

       InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱitȱ“reconsideredȱourȱ

selectionȱofȱtheȱ10.54ȱpercentȱsubsidyȱrate,”ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ3,ȱandȱconcludedȱ

againȱ“thatȱtheȱ10.54ȱpercentȱAFAȱrateȱisȱappropriate.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱȱCommerceȱexplainedȱ

thatȱitȱhadȱ“incorrectlyȱdescribedȱtheȱstepsȱofȱCommerce’sȱCVDȱAFAȱhierarchy”ȱinȱtheȱ

FinalȱResultsȱ“asȱhavingȱthreeȱsteps.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱ“However,ȱ

                             ȱ
       5 ȱ“CoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChina”ȱisȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱseparate,ȱpriorȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ
proceeding.ȱȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1394,ȱ
1403ȱ(2022)ȱ(citingȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱforȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱ
SheetȬFedȱPressesȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAmendedȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱ
CountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ70,201ȱ
(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ17,ȱ2010)ȱ(amendingȱanȱearlierȱdeterminationȱforȱministerialȱ
errors,ȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱforȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheetȬFedȱPressesȱ
FromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFinalȱCountervailingȱDutyȱDetermination,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ
59,212ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ27,ȱ2010)).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                           ȱ                                      Pageȱ13ȱ
ȱ
Commerce’sȱCVDȱAFAȱhierarchyȱisȱmoreȱaccuratelyȱdescribedȱasȱhavingȱfourȱsteps.”ȱȱ

Id.ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱTheȱfourȬstepȱ“hierarchy”ȱitȱdescribedȱwasȱasȱfollows:ȱ

               UnderȱtheȱfirstȱstepȱofȱCommerce’sȱCVDȱAFAȱhierarchyȱforȱ
       administrativeȱreviews,ȱCommerceȱappliesȱtheȱhighestȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱ
       rateȱcalculatedȱforȱtheȱidenticalȱprogramȱinȱanyȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱsameȱ
       proceeding.ȱȱIfȱthereȱisȱnoȱidenticalȱprogramȱmatchȱwithinȱtheȱsameȱ
       proceeding,ȱorȱifȱtheȱrateȱisȱdeȱminimis,ȱunderȱstepȱtwoȱofȱtheȱhierarchy,ȱ
       CommerceȱappliesȱtheȱhighestȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱcalculatedȱforȱaȱsimilarȱ
       programȱwithinȱanyȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱsameȱproceeding.ȱȱIfȱthereȱisȱnoȱnonȬdeȱ
       minimisȱrateȱcalculatedȱforȱaȱsimilarȱprogramȱwithinȱtheȱsameȱproceeding,ȱunderȱ
       stepȱthreeȱofȱtheȱhierarchy,ȱCommerceȱappliesȱtheȱhighestȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱ
       calculatedȱforȱanȱidenticalȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱinȱanotherȱCVDȱproceedingȱ
       involvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry.ȱȱFinally,ȱifȱthereȱisȱnoȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱ
       calculatedȱforȱanȱidenticalȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱinȱanotherȱCVDȱproceedingȱ
       involvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry,ȱunderȱstepȱfour,ȱCommerceȱappliesȱtheȱ
       highestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱanyȱprogramȱfromȱtheȱsameȱcountryȱthatȱtheȱ
       industryȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱreviewȱcouldȱhaveȱused.ȱ
ȱ
Id.ȱatȱ3—4ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱȱCommerceȱexplained,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱasȱ“weȱhadȱnotȱ

previouslyȱcalculatedȱanȱaboveȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱforȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱprogramȱinȱ

thisȱproceeding,”ȱitȱcouldȱnotȱuseȱstepȱoneȱofȱitsȱmethodology,ȱandȱasȱ“weȱfoundȱnoȱ

similar/comparableȱprogramȱwithinȱthisȱproceedingȱwithoutȱaȱdeȱminimisȱrate,”ȱitȱ

couldȱnotȱuseȱstepȱtwo.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱCommerceȱinsteadȱreliedȱonȱstepȱthreeȱofȱitsȱrestatedȱ

hierarchyȱtoȱdetermineȱanȱAFAȱrateȱforȱtheȱEBCPȱbasedȱonȱitsȱfindingsȱinȱtheȱpriorȱCVDȱ

proceedingȱpertainingȱtoȱaȱprogramȱforȱpreferentialȱlendingȱtoȱtheȱChineseȱcoatedȱpaperȱ

industry.ȱȱId.ȱ

       InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱreasonedȱthatȱ“onlyȱtheȱfourthȱstep”ȱ

ofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱAFAȱmethodologyȱ“requiresȱthatȱCommerceȱuseȱaȱprogramȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                          ȱ                                     Pageȱ14ȱ
ȱ
availableȱtoȱtheȱindustryȱinȱtheȱproceeding.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱȱBecauseȱCommerceȱreliedȱonȱtheȱ

thirdȱstepȱofȱtheȱmethodologyȱitȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱitȱ“hasȱnotȱ

consideredȱwhetherȱthisȱprogramȱisȱavailableȱtoȱtheȱnarrowȱwovenȱribbonsȱwithȱwovenȱ

selvedgeȱ(narrowȱwovenȱribbons)ȱindustryȱinȱChina.”ȱȱId.ȱȱThus,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱitȱ

sufficient,ȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱdeterminingȱanȱAFAȱrateȱforȱtheȱEBCP,ȱthatȱaȱ“preferentialȱ

policyȱlendingȱprogramȱinȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱ

Creditȱprogram.”ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ28).ȱȱCommerce,ȱtherefore,ȱ“continue[d]ȱ

toȱapplyȱtheȱ10.54ȱpercentȱsubsidyȱrateȱasȱAFAȱforȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱProgram”ȱ

andȱ“madeȱnoȱchangesȱtoȱYama’sȱoverallȱsubsidyȱrateȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱ(i.e.,ȱ

31.87ȱpercent).”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ9.ȱ

                  D.ȱȱYama’sȱObjectionsȱtoȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
ȱ
       YamaȱraisesȱtwoȱobjectionsȱtoȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱItȱargues,ȱfirst,ȱthatȱ

Commerceȱ“hasȱnotȱsupportedȱwithȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱthisȱrecordȱitsȱfindingȱthatȱ

theȱpreferentialȱpolicyȱlendingȱprogramȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCP.”ȱȱYama’sȱCommentsȱ2.ȱȱ

Yamaȱargues,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱ“Commerceȱappliedȱessentiallyȱtheȱsameȱunsupportedȱ

rationaleȱasȱbeforeȱtoȱjustifyȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱpunitiveȱAFAȱrateȱtoȱYamaȱRibbons,ȱaȱfullyȱ

cooperativeȱrespondent.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3.ȱ

     1.ȱȱEvidenceȱIsȱNotȱonȱtheȱRecordȱtoȱSupportȱtheȱFindingȱthatȱtheȱPreferentialȱ
      LendingȱProgramȱCitedȱinȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱisȱSimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCPȱ
ȱ
       Withȱrespectȱtoȱitsȱfirstȱobjection,ȱYamaȱarguesȱthatȱ“inȱtheȱissuesȱandȱdecisionȱ

memorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱonlyȱapparentȱsupportȱforȱitsȱRemandȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                           ȱ                                        Pageȱ15ȱ
ȱ
Results,ȱCommerceȱdoesȱnotȱciteȱtoȱanyȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱofȱthisȱproceedingȱ

demonstratingȱthatȱtheȱpreferentialȱpolicyȱlendingȱprogramȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCP,”ȱid.ȱ

atȱ2—3,ȱandȱthatȱ“[s]uchȱaȱfailureȱignoresȱtheȱCourt’sȱexplicitȱinstructionsȱinȱtheȱ

RemandȱOpinion.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3.ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱisȱinsufficientȱtoȱsupportȱ

aȱcomparativeȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱEBCPȱwithȱtheȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogramȱCommerceȱ

cites,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱpersuadedȱbyȱYama’sȱfirstȱobjection.ȱ

       TheȱTariffȱAct,ȱinȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d),ȱprovidesȱthatȱwhenȱCommerceȱ“usesȱanȱ

inferenceȱthatȱisȱadverseȱtoȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱaȱpartyȱunderȱsubsectionȱ(b)(1)(A)ȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ

§ȱ1677e(b)(1)(A)]ȱinȱselectingȱamongȱtheȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailable,”ȱCommerceȱmayȱ“useȱ

aȱcountervailableȱsubsidyȱrateȱappliedȱforȱtheȱsameȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱinȱaȱ

countervailingȱdutyȱproceedingȱinvolvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i)ȱ

(emphasisȱadded),ȱorȱ“ifȱthereȱisȱnoȱsameȱorȱsimilarȱprogram,ȱuseȱaȱcountervailableȱ

subsidyȱrateȱforȱaȱsubsidyȱprogramȱfromȱaȱproceedingȱthatȱtheȱadministeringȱauthorityȱ

considersȱreasonableȱtoȱuse.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(ii).ȱȱInȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱ

Commerceȱinvokedȱonlyȱtheȱfirstȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱsubsections,ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i).ȱ

       InȱbothȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱandȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱ

thatȱtheȱpreferentialȱlendingȱprogramȱidentifiedȱinȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱwasȱsimilarȱ

toȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱInȱboth,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingȱofȱsimilarityȱwasȱ“basedȱonȱtheȱ

treatmentȱofȱtheȱbenefitȱbecauseȱtheȱcreditsȱfunctionȱasȱshortȬtermȱorȱmediumȬtermȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                            ȱ                                         Pageȱ16ȱ
ȱ
loans.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ28ȱ(footnoteȱomitted);ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ5ȱ(footnoteȱ

omitted).ȱ

       Oneȱproblemȱinȱthisȱcaseȱarisesȱbecauseȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱ

supportȱaȱfindingȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogramȱinvolvingȱgovernmentȬ

conferredȱcreditsȱthatȱ“functionȱasȱshortȬtermȱorȱmediumȬtermȱloans”ȱandȱinȱthatȱ

respectȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱYamaȱdoesȱnotȱcontestȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱisȱsufficientȱtoȱ

showȱthatȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱaȱgovernmentȱprogramȱtoȱpromoteȱChineseȱindustriesȱthroughȱ

theȱprovisionȱofȱloansȱwithȱpreferentialȱinterestȱrates.ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ9—12ȱ(detailingȱaȱ

“statementȱofȱfactsȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱEBCȱProgram,”ȱincludingȱthatȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱ“anȱexportȱ

promotingȱloanȱprogramȱadministeredȱbyȱtheȱExportȬImportȱBankȱofȱChina”);ȱYamaȱI,ȱ

46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1398—1400ȱ(explainingȱthatȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱ“anȱ

exportȬpromotingȱloanȱprogram”ȱthatȱisȱ“administeredȱbyȱtheȱExportȱImportȱBankȱofȱ

China”);ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ15ȱ(describingȱtheȱEBCPȱcreditsȱasȱ“mediumȬȱandȱlongȬtermȱ

loans”ȱwithȱ“preferential,ȱlowȱinterestȱrates”)ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱȱYamaȱobjectsȱtoȱtheȱ

insufficiencyȱofȱtheȱrecordȱofȱtheȱseventhȱreviewȱtoȱestablishȱfactsȱaboutȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱ

lendingȱprogramȱthatȱwouldȱbeȱneededȱtoȱdemonstrateȱsimilarityȱwithȱtheȱEBCP.ȱ

       InȱreferencingȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱinȱbothȱitsȱFinalȱResults,ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ

atȱ28ȱn.133,ȱandȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ4ȱn.8,ȱ

Commerceȱcitedȱtheȱfinalȱdeterminationȱandȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱpublishedȱinȱtheȱ

FederalȱRegister.ȱȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱforȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                            ȱ                                      Pageȱ17ȱ
ȱ
SheetȬFedȱPressesȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAmendedȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱ

CountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ70,201ȱ

(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ17,ȱ2010).ȱȱNeitherȱcontainsȱaȱmeaningfulȱdescriptionȱofȱaȱ

coatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogram.ȱ

       Aȱterseȱdescriptionȱofȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogramȱmayȱbeȱgleanedȱfromȱtheȱ

issuesȱandȱdecisionȱmemorandumȱCommerceȱincorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱintoȱtheȱfinalȱ

determinationȱforȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChina.ȱȱSeeȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱ

FinalȱDeterminationȱinȱtheȱCountervailingȱDutyȱInvestigationȱofȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱ

forȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheetȬFedȱPressesȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ

atȱ11ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ20,ȱ2010).ȱȱThisȱpublicȱdocument,ȱofȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱmayȱ

takeȱjudicialȱnotice,ȱdescribesȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱasȱinvolvingȱ“PolicyȱLoansȱtoȱ

CoatedȱPaperȱProducersȱandȱRelatedȱPulpȱProducersȱfromȱStateȬOwnedȱCommercialȱ

BanksȱandȱGovernmentȱPolicyȱBanks,”ȱid.ȱatȱ11,ȱbutȱtheȱevidentiaryȱbasisȱforȱthatȱfactualȱ

findingȱisȱnotȱpresentȱonȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱofȱtheȱreviewȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱ

litigation.ȱȱMoreover,ȱtheȱissuesȱandȱdecisionȱmemorandumȱforȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱ

doesȱnotȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱtermsȱofȱtheȱcreditsȱprovidedȱunderȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱ

necessarilyȱwereȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱshortȬtermȱorȱmediumȬtermȱloans,ȱasȱCommerceȱfound.ȱȱ

Evenȱwereȱtheȱissuesȱandȱdecisionȱmemorandumȱtoȱhaveȱsoȱstated,ȱtheȱsupportingȱ

recordȱevidenceȱisȱnotȱavailableȱforȱtheȱcourt’sȱreview.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                           ȱ                                      Pageȱ18ȱ
ȱ
       Aȱsecondȱproblemȱinȱthisȱcaseȱarisesȱbecause,ȱinȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱanyȱmeaningfulȱ

recordȱevidenceȱaboutȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogram,ȱtheȱcourtȱcannotȱpresumeȱthat,ȱ

hadȱsuchȱevidenceȱbeenȱplacedȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱitȱnecessarilyȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱincludedȱ

evidenceȱofȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheseȱtwoȱ“programs”ȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱdissimilar.ȱȱThus,ȱanyȱ

presumptionȱofȱsimilarityȱsoȱasȱtoȱsatisfyȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i)ȱ

wouldȱrestȱalmostȱentirelyȱonȱspeculation.ȱ

       DefendantȱdoesȱnotȱofferȱaȱconvincingȱresponseȱtoȱYama’sȱargument,ȱYama’sȱ

Commentsȱ2—3,ȱthatȱrecordȱevidenceȱisȱlackingȱtoȱdemonstrateȱtheȱclaimedȱsimilarity.ȱȱ

Defendantȱarguesȱthatȱ“theȱfinalȱresultsȱofȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChina”ȱdescribeȱtheȱ

preferentialȱlendingȱprogramȱasȱ“aȱloanȱprogramȱfromȱpolicyȱbanks,ȱasȱtheȱtitleȱofȱtheȱ

programȱalsoȱreasonablyȱsuggests.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ8—9ȱ(citingȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱ

SuitableȱForȱHigh–QualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheet–FedȱPressesȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱ

ofȱChina:ȱPreliminaryȱAffirmativeȱCountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱAlignmentȱofȱFinalȱ

CountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱwithȱFinalȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱ75ȱFed.ȱ

Reg.ȱ10,774ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMar.ȱ9,ȱ2010).ȱȱTheȱEnglishȬlanguageȱtitleȱofȱtheȱcitedȱ

coatedȱpaperȱprogramȱisȱstatedȱinȱtheȱFederalȱRegisterȱdocumentsȱasȱ“Preferentialȱ

LendingȱtoȱtheȱCoatedȱPaperȱIndustryȱprogram”;ȱsee,ȱe.g.,ȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱ

forȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheetȬFedȱPressesȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱ

AmendedȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱCountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ

Order,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ70,201ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ17,ȱ2010),ȱbutȱtheȱcourtȱhasȱnoȱwayȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                            ȱ                                       Pageȱ19ȱ
ȱ
ofȱreviewingȱevenȱsoȱmuchȱasȱaȱfindingȱthatȱthisȱwasȱtheȱofficialȱtitleȱandȱalsoȱlacksȱ

essentialȱinformationȱonȱhowȱanyȱsuchȱprogramȱoperated.ȱ

       Inȱsummary,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingȱofȱsimilarityȱbetweenȱtheȱcitedȱcoatedȱ

paperȱprogramȱandȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱnotȱbasedȱonȱevidenceȱpresentȱonȱtheȱadministrativeȱ

recordȱofȱtheȱseventhȱreview.ȱȱUnderȱtheȱ“substantialȱevidence”ȱelementȱofȱtheȱstandardȱ

ofȱreview,ȱtheȱcourtȱis,ȱtherefore,ȱunableȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱultimateȱ

determinationȱofȱsimilarityȱwouldȱsatisfyȱtheȱrequirementȱofȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ

§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i).ȱȱSeeȱCampȱv.ȱPitts,ȱ411ȱU.S.ȱ138,ȱ142ȱ(1973)ȱ(statingȱthatȱ“theȱfocalȱ

pointȱforȱjudicialȱreviewȱshouldȱbeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱalreadyȱinȱexistence,ȱnotȱ

someȱnewȱrecordȱmadeȱinitiallyȱinȱtheȱreviewingȱcourt”).ȱȱCommerce,ȱtherefore,ȱmustȱ

reconsiderȱitsȱdecisionȱtoȱuseȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱ

anȱadverseȱinferenceȱsubsidyȱrate.ȱ

            2.ȱȱTheȱCourtȱDefersȱConsiderationȱofȱYama’sȱSecondȱObjectionȱ
ȱ
       Forȱitsȱsecondȱobjection,ȱYamaȱarguesȱthatȱCommerceȱfailedȱinȱitsȱobligationȱtoȱ

“justifyȱtheȱ10.54%ȱAFAȱrateȱasȱappropriateȱinȱtheȱ‘specialȱcaseȱpresentedȱhere,ȱinȱwhichȱ

anȱunreasonablyȱhighȱrateȱcouldȱundulyȱprejudice’ȱYamaȱRibbons.”ȱȱYama’sȱ

Commentsȱ3ȱ(quotingȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403).ȱȱBecauseȱCommerceȱ

mustȱreconsiderȱitsȱchoiceȱtoȱuseȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱwithȱtheȱ

associatedȱsubsidyȱrate,ȱtheȱcourtȱdefersȱconsiderationȱofȱYama’sȱsecondȱobjectionȱ

pendingȱaȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱremandȱorderȱtheȱcourtȱisȱissuing.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ                            ȱ                                  Pageȱ20ȱ
ȱ
                                       III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱ

      Forȱtheȱreasonsȱsetȱforthȱinȱtheȱforegoing,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandsȱtheȱRemandȱ

RedeterminationȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱreconsiderationȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱ

Order.ȱ

      Therefore,ȱuponȱconsiderationȱofȱallȱpapersȱandȱproceedingsȱhadȱherein,ȱandȱ

uponȱdueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱherebyȱ

          ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱsubmitȱaȱnewȱdeterminationȱuponȱremandȱ
 (theȱ“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”)ȱthatȱcompliesȱwithȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder;ȱitȱ
 isȱfurtherȱ
          ȱ
          ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱsubmitȱitsȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ
 withinȱ60ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
          ȱ
          ORDEREDȱthatȱanyȱcommentsȱbyȱplaintiffȱorȱdefendantȬintervenorȱonȱtheȱ
 SecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱmustȱbeȱfiledȱwithȱtheȱcourtȱnoȱlaterȱthanȱ30ȱdaysȱ
 afterȱtheȱfilingȱofȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination;ȱandȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
          ȱ
          ORDEREDȱthatȱdefendantȱmayȱfileȱaȱresponseȱtoȱcommentsȱwithinȱ15ȱdaysȱ
 afterȱtheȱfilingȱofȱtheȱlastȱcommentȱsubmissionȱonȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ
 Redetermination.ȱ
        ȱ
        ȱ       ȱ      ȱ       ȱ   ȱ      ȱ     ȱ      /s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ
        ȱ       ȱ      ȱ       ȱ   ȱ      ȱ     ȱ      TimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ
                                                       Judgeȱ
ȱ
Dated:ȱAprilȱ10,ȱ2024ȱ
ȱ     ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ