Court Opinion

ID: 9394987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 19:01:34.972413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.475166
License: Public Domain

SlipȱOp.ȱ23Ȭ75ȱ

              UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ

CHINAȱMANUFACTURERSȱ
ALLIANCE,ȱLLCȱandȱDOUBLEȱCOINȱ
HOLDINGSȱLTD.,ȱetȱal.,ȱ

                     Plaintiffs,ȱ             Before:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ

              v.ȱ                             Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ

UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ

                     Defendant.ȱ

                                    OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ

       [EffectuatingȱtheȱmandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱandȱ
adjudicatingȱtheȱremainingȱclaimȱinȱthisȱlitigation,ȱinȱwhichȱpartiesȱcontestedȱanȱagencyȱ
determinationȱconcludingȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱ
offȬtheȬroadȱtiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina]ȱ

                                                               Dated:ȱMayȱ16,ȱ2023ȱ

       DanielȱL.ȱPorter,ȱCurtis,ȱMalletȬPrevost,ȱColtȱ&ȱMosleȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ
forȱplaintiffsȱChinaȱManufacturersȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱCoinȱHoldingsȱLtd.ȱȱWithȱ
himȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱwereȱJamesȱP.ȱDurling,ȱMatthewȱP.ȱMcCullough,ȱandȱTungȱA.ȱNguyen.ȱ

      NedȱH.ȱMarshak,ȱGrunfeld,ȱDesiderio,ȱLebowitz,ȱSilvermanȱ&ȱKlestadtȱLLP,ȱofȱ
Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffsȱGuizhouȱTyreȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱandȱGuizhouȱTyreȱImportȱandȱ
ExportȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱwereȱBrandonȱM.ȱPetelin,ȱDharmendraȱN.ȱ
Choudhary,ȱAndrewȱT.ȱSchutz,ȱandȱJordanȱC.ȱKahn.ȱ

      JohnȱJ.ȱTodor,ȱSeniorȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱDivision,ȱ
U.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱ
wereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱ
McCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱFranklinȱE.ȱWhite,ȱJr.,ȱAssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱwasȱPaulȱK.ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ       ȱ     ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ2ȱ
ȱ
Keith,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱ
DepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ

       Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱInȱthisȱconsolidatedȱcase,ȱplaintiffsȱcontestedȱaȱfinalȱ

determinationȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ

(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱissuedȱuponȱtheȱconclusionȱofȱtheȱfifthȱperiodicȱ

administrativeȱreviewȱ(“FifthȱReview”)ȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱcertainȱoffȬ

theȬroadȱpneumaticȱtiresȱ(theȱ“subjectȱmerchandise”)ȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱ

Chinaȱ(“China”ȱorȱtheȱ“PRC”).ȱ

       ThisȱOpinionȱandȱOrderȱisȱissuedȱtoȱeffectuateȱtheȱmandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱ

AppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱ(“CourtȱofȱAppeals”),ȱCAFCȱMandateȱinȱAppealȱ

#ȱ20Ȭ1159ȱ(Aug.ȱ2,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ253,ȱinȱChinaȱMfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ

1ȱF.4thȱ1028ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2021)ȱ(“CMAȱIV”)ȱandȱtoȱadjudicateȱtheȱsoleȱclaimȱthatȱremainsȱatȱ

issueȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ

                                        I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ

       BackgroundȱonȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱpriorȱopinionsȱofȱthisȱCourtȱandȱtheȱ

CourtȱofȱAppealsȱandȱisȱsupplementedȱherein.ȱȱSeeȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.4thȱatȱ1030–35;ȱChinaȱ

Mfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ115,ȱ2019ȱWLȱ4165274,ȱatȱ*1–3ȱ(Ct.ȱInt’lȱTradeȱ

Sept.ȱ3,ȱ2019)ȱ(“CMAȱIII”);ȱChinaȱMfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ43ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ357ȱ

F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1364,ȱ1365–68ȱ(2019)ȱ(“CMAȱII”);ȱChinaȱMfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ

41ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ205ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1325,ȱ1329–32ȱ(2017)ȱ(“CMAȱI”).ȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ       ȱ      ȱ       ȱ     ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ3ȱ
ȱ
       Theȱadministrativeȱdeterminationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱreferredȱtoȱhereinȱasȱtheȱ

“FinalȱResults,”ȱappearedȱinȱtwoȱFederalȱRegisterȱpublications.ȱȱCertainȱNewȱPneumaticȱ

OffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAmendedȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱ

AntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2012Ȭ2013,ȱ80ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ26,230ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ

Admin.ȱMayȱ7,ȱ2015)ȱ(correctingȱaȱministerialȱerrorȱinȱanȱearlierȱpublishedȱdecision,ȱ

CertainȱNewȱPneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFinalȱResultsȱ

ofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2012Ȭ2013,ȱ80ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ20,197ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ

Admin.ȱApr.ȱ15,ȱ2015)).ȱ

       TheȱplaintiffsȱinȱthisȱcaseȱareȱChinaȱManufacturersȱAllianceȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱ

CoinȱHoldingsȱLtd.ȱ(collectively,ȱ“DoubleȱCoin”),ȱandȱGuizhouȱTyreȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱandȱ

GuizhouȱTyreȱExportȱandȱImportȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱ(collectively,ȱ“GTC”).ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱandȱGTCȱ

wereȱtheȱexporters/producersȱthatȱCommerceȱselectedȱasȱtheȱmandatoryȱrespondentsȱinȱ

theȱFifthȱReview.ȱȱDefendantȱisȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱ

                                        II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ

       AllȱissuesȱpertainingȱtoȱtheȱclaimsȱbroughtȱbyȱGTCȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱhaveȱbeenȱ

resolved.ȱȱAsȱtoȱDoubleȱCoin,ȱtheȱcourtȱfirstȱmustȱinterpretȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱmandateȱofȱ

theȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱCMAȱIV,ȱonȱwhichȱDoubleȱCoinȱandȱdefendantȱUnitedȱStatesȱ

disagree,ȱasȱshownȱbyȱsubmissionsȱtheyȱmadeȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱfollowingȱtheȱissuanceȱofȱthatȱ

mandate.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱthenȱmustȱdecideȱwhatȱissues,ȱifȱany,ȱremainȱtoȱbeȱlitigatedȱasȱtoȱ

theȱclaimsȱofȱDoubleȱCoin.ȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ        ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ4ȱ
ȱ
A.ȱȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱClaimȱConcerningȱControlȱbyȱtheȱGovernmentȱofȱtheȱPRCȱHasȱNotȱ
                                 BeenȱAdjudicatedȱ
ȱ
      DoubleȱCoinȱarguesȱthatȱremainingȱtoȱbeȱadjudicatedȱisȱitsȱclaimȱthatȱCommerceȱ

erredȱinȱfindingȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpresumptionȱthatȱ

DoubleȱCoinȱisȱcontrolledȱbyȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱtheȱPRC.ȱȱJointȱStatusȱReportȱandȱ

ProposedȱBriefingȱScheduleȱ1–3ȱ(Sept.ȱ17,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ255.ȱȱDisagreeing,ȱdefendantȱ

arguesȱthatȱthisȱclaimȱalreadyȱhasȱbeenȱadjudicatedȱinȱitsȱfavor.ȱ

       Accordingȱtoȱdefendant,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱheldȱinȱCMAȱIVȱthatȱ“Commerce’sȱ

applicationȱofȱtheȱ105.31%ȱPRCȬwideȱentityȱrateȱtoȱDoubleȱCoinȱwasȱnotȱcontraryȱtoȱlawȱ

andȱwasȱreasonableȱonȱtheȱfactsȱofȱthisȱcase.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4ȱ(quotingȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.4thȱatȱ1040).ȱȱ

DefendantȱinterpretsȱthisȱstatementȱinȱtheȱCMAȱIVȱopinionȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱofȱ

AppealsȱhasȱadjudicatedȱtheȱclaimȱatȱissueȱonȱtheȱmeritsȱandȱthatȱCommerce,ȱonȱ

remand,ȱmustȱassignȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱ105.31%ȱrateȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱforȱtheȱPRCȬ

wideȱentityȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱwhichȱrateȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals,ȱreversingȱthisȱCourt’sȱ

decisionȱandȱjudgmentȱinȱCMAȱIII,ȱruledȱwasȱaccordingȱtoȱlawȱasȱappliedȱtoȱthatȱentity.ȱȱ

Ifȱdefendantȱisȱcorrect,ȱnoȱissuesȱremainȱtoȱbeȱdecidedȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱIfȱDoubleȱCoinȱ

isȱcorrect,ȱthenȱtheȱcourtȱnowȱmustȱadjudicateȱitsȱclaimȱcontestingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ

determinationȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱcontrolȱbyȱtheȱPRCȱ

governmentȱandȱtheȱDepartment’sȱresultingȱdecisionȱtoȱincludeȱDoubleȱCoinȱwithinȱtheȱ

PRCȬwideȱentity.ȱȱWereȱDoubleȱCoinȱtoȱprevailȱonȱthatȱclaim,ȱCommerceȱwouldȱbeȱ

requiredȱonȱremandȱtoȱassignȱtoȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱrateȱCommerceȱcalculatedȱforȱDoubleȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ5ȱ
ȱ
CoinȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱwhichȱwasȱaȱdeȱminimisȱrateȱofȱ0.14%.ȱȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱ

MemorandumȱforȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱNewȱ

PneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina;ȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱatȱ12ȱ(Int’lȱ

TradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ8,ȱ2015),ȱP.R.ȱ293ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).1ȱ

       TheȱcourtȱconcludesȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱisȱcorrectȱasȱtoȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ

mandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals.ȱȱCMAȱIVȱheldȱthatȱitȱisȱpermissibleȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱ

determineȱaȱ“countryȬwideȱNMEȱ[nonmarketȱeconomy]ȱentityȱrate”ȱandȱtoȱ“assignȱsuchȱ

aȱrateȱtoȱtheȱunitaryȱgroupȱofȱexportersȱinȱanȱNMEȱcountryȱthatȱhaveȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱ

presumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol.”ȱȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.ȱ4thȱatȱ1039.ȱȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱ

thatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱandȱthusȱwasȱamongȱtheȱunitaryȱ

groupȱofȱexporters,ȱbutȱthatȱdetermination,ȱwhichȱDoubleȱCoinȱcontestedȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱ

claimsȱitȱassertedȱinȱthisȱaction,ȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱadjudicatedȱbyȱthisȱCourt.ȱȱAsȱdefendantȱ

acknowledges,ȱthisȱCourtȱ“didȱnotȱmakeȱanyȱfindingsȱinȱCMAȱIȱregardingȱDoubleȱ

Coin’sȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱchallengeȱtoȱCommerce’sȱconclusionȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱ

failedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱdeȱfactoȱChineseȱgovernmentȱcontrol.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱtoȱ

Pls.’ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ5ȱ(Feb.ȱ4,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ264;ȱseeȱCMAȱI,ȱ41ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ

205ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1344.ȱȱTheȱissueȱofȱwhetherȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱsupportedȱthatȱ

agencyȱdecisionȱwasȱnotȱbeforeȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱCMAȱIV,ȱthisȱCourtȱnotȱhavingȱ

                             ȱ
       1ȱReferencesȱtoȱpublicȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Mar.ȱ11,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ

266ȱ(Public),ȱ267ȱ(Conf.)ȱareȱcitedȱasȱ“P.R.ȱ__.”ȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ6ȱ
ȱ
adjudicatedȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱclaimȱcontestingȱit.ȱȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱthisȱCourtȱ

setȱasideȱbyȱCMAȱIVȱwasȱnotȱaȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱmeritsȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱclaimȱ

contestingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱ

presumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol.ȱȱJudgmentȱ(Sept.ȱ3,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ243.ȱȱTheȱcourt,ȱ

therefore,ȱproceedsȱtoȱadjudicateȱthatȱclaimȱasȱassertedȱinȱsupportȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱ

motionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecord.ȱ

         TheȱpartiesȱhaveȱsubmittedȱupdatedȱbriefingȱonȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱmotion.ȱȱOpeningȱ

Br.ȱofȱPls.ȱChinaȱManufacturingȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱCoinȱHoldings,ȱLtd.ȱ(Dec.ȱ6,ȱ

2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ260ȱ(Conf.),ȱ261ȱ(Public)ȱ(“DoubleȱCoin’sȱBr.”);ȱPls.’ȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱ

onȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ(Dec.ȱ6,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ260ȱ(Conf.),ȱ261ȱ(Public).ȱȱDefendantȱhasȱ

respondedȱinȱoppositionȱtoȱthisȱmotion,ȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱtoȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ

(Feb.ȱ4,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ264,ȱandȱplaintiffsȱhaveȱreplied,ȱReplyȱBr.ȱofȱPls.ȱChinaȱ

ManufacturersȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱCoinȱHoldings,ȱLtd.ȱ(Feb.ȱ25,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ

265.ȱ

        B.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱDeterminationȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱFailedȱtoȱRebutȱtheȱ
        PresumptionȱofȱGovernmentȱControlȱIsȱSupportedȱbyȱSubstantialȱEvidenceȱ
ȱ
         InȱdeterminingȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱdeȱfactoȱ

controlȱoverȱitsȱexportȱfunctionsȱbyȱtheȱChineseȱgovernment,ȱCommerceȱreliedȱ

principallyȱonȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱcorporateȱownershipȱstructure.ȱȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱ

DoubleȱCoin’sȱmajorityȱshareholderȱwasȱtheȱHuayiȱGroupȱ(“Huayi”),ȱwhichȱheldȱaȱ

65.66%ȱownershipȱshare.ȱȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ           ȱ    ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ7ȱ
ȱ
DutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱPneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȬTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱ

ofȱChina,ȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱatȱ10ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ30,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ259ȱ(“Prelim.ȱDecisionȱ

Mem.”);ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ16ȱ(incorporatingȱfindingsȱfromȱPrelim.ȱDecisionȱMem.).ȱ

CommerceȱalsoȱfoundȱthatȱHuayiȱisȱ100%ȱownedȱbyȱtheȱShanghaiȱStateȬownedȱAssetsȱ

SupervisionȱandȱAdministrationȱCommissionȱofȱtheȱStateȱCouncilȱ(“SASAC”)ȱandȱthatȱ

SASACȱ“isȱaȱcentralȱgovernmentalȱbodyȱthatȱoverseesȱimportantȱstateȱassets.”ȱȱPrelim.ȱ

DecisionȱMem.ȱatȱ10.ȱȱTheȱrecordȱalsoȱcontainsȱevidenceȱthatȱnoȱotherȱshareholderȱheldȱ

moreȱthanȱaȱoneȱpercentȱownershipȱshare.ȱȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱtheȱ

AntidumpingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱCertainȱNewȱPneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ

RepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱMarginȱCalculationȱforȱDoubleȱCoinȱatȱ

11ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ30,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ264ȱ(citingȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱSectionȱAȱResponseȱatȱ

2–3ȱ(Jan.ȱ22,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ48,ȱ55).ȱ

       Commerceȱalsoȱreachedȱfindingsȱaddressingȱwhatȱitȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱtheȱeffectȱofȱ

theȱlevelȱofȱgovernmentȱownershipȱinȱDoubleȱCoin.ȱȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱ“asȱHuayiȱisȱ

theȱcontrollingȱshareholder,ȱitȱisȱtheȱentityȱcontrollingȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱboardȱandȱ

management.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ15.ȱȱItȱalsoȱfoundȱthatȱ“DoubleȱCoin’sȱArticlesȱofȱ

Associationȱdemonstrateȱthatȱaȱmajorityȱshareholder—andȱparticularlyȱoneȱwithȱaȱ65.66ȱ

percentȱownership—hasȱnearȱcompleteȱcontrolȱoverȱanyȱshareholderȱdecisions,ȱ

includingȱdecisionsȱwhichȱmayȱaffectȱtheȱmanagementȱandȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱcompany.”ȱȱ

Id.ȱatȱ16.ȱȱCommerceȱfound,ȱinȱsummary,ȱthatȱ“thereȱisȱundeniableȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ          ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ8ȱ
ȱ
100ȱpercentȱSASACȬownedȱmajorityȬownerȱofȱDoubleȱCoinȱexertsȱconsiderableȱ

influenceȱoverȱtheȱboardȱofȱdirectorsȱ(and,ȱthus,ȱtheȱmanagementȱandȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱ

company),ȱandȱthatȱtheȱfactualȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱprovideȱsufficientȱinformationȱtoȱrebutȱ

theȱpresumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ18.ȱ

       Inȱsupportȱofȱitsȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecord,ȱDoubleȱCoinȱ

acknowledgesȱthatȱHuayiȱ“hasȱsignificantȱinfluenceȱinȱtheȱconstitutionȱofȱtheȱboard,ȱandȱ

evenȱinȱtheȱselectionȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱmanagement”ȱbutȱarguesȱthatȱ“suchȱrightȱdoesȱ

notȱautomaticallyȱresultȱinȱcontrolȱbyȱHuayiȱoverȱtheȱboardȱandȱmanagement.”ȱȱDoubleȱ

Coin’sȱBr.ȱ36.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱarguesȱthatȱdespiteȱtheȱmajorityȱgovernmentȱownership,ȱitȱ

retainedȱcontrolȱoverȱitsȱownȱbusinessȱactivities,ȱand,ȱinȱparticular,ȱitsȱexportȱactivities.ȱȱ

Id.ȱatȱ10,ȱ39–50.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱitsȱU.S.ȱsubsidiary,ȱChinaȱManufacturersȱ

Alliance,ȱsetȱpricesȱdirectlyȱwithȱU.S.ȱcustomers.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ44.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱalsoȱarguesȱthatȱ

Commerce,ȱalthoughȱsayingȱitȱappliedȱaȱfourȬfactorȱtestȱtoȱmakeȱitsȱdetermination,ȱ

departedȱfromȱitsȱestablishedȱpolicyȱbyȱregardingȱitsȱdecisionȱonȱtheȱthirdȱfactorȱasȱtheȱ

controllingȱfactor,ȱwhichȱwasȱwhetherȱaȱrespondentȱhasȱautonomyȱfromȱtheȱ

governmentȱinȱmakingȱdecisionsȱregardingȱtheȱselectionȱofȱmanagement.2ȱȱId.ȱatȱ13–15.ȱ

                               ȱ
       2   ȱConcerningȱitsȱfourȬfactorȱtest,ȱCommerceȱexplained:ȱ
       ȱ
       Typically,ȱtheȱDepartmentȱconsidersȱfourȱfactorsȱinȱevaluatingȱwhetherȱ
       eachȱrespondentȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱdeȱfactoȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱitsȱexportȱ
       functions:ȱ(1)ȱwhetherȱtheȱexportȱpricesȱareȱsetȱbyȱorȱareȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱ
       approvalȱofȱaȱgovernmentȱagency;ȱ(2)ȱwhetherȱtheȱrespondentȱhasȱ
(continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ9ȱ
ȱ
       DoubleȱCoin’sȱremainingȱclaimȱturnsȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱtheȱlevelȱofȱdiscretionȱ

CommerceȱmayȱexerciseȱinȱdeterminingȱwhetherȱaȱmajorityȬgovernmentȬownedȱ

respondentȱhasȱrebuttedȱitsȱpresumptionȱofȱdeȱfactoȱgovernmentȱcontrol.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱ

concludesȱthatȱthisȱdiscretionȱisȱconsiderablyȱbroad.ȱ

       TheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱrepeatedlyȱhasȱaffirmedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱauthorityȱtoȱ

applyȱaȱrebuttableȱpresumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol,ȱevenȱtoȱaȱcooperativeȱ

mandatoryȱrespondent,ȱandȱtoȱapplyȱtoȱthatȱrespondentȱaȱrateȱselectedȱforȱtheȱ

PRCȬwideȱentityȱifȱtheȱpresumptionȱisȱnotȱrebutted.ȱȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.4thȱatȱ1039;ȱDiamondȱ

SawbladesȱMfrs.ȱCoal.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ866ȱF.3dȱ1304ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2017).ȱȱCommerceȱhasȱnotȱ

groundedȱitsȱexerciseȱofȱthatȱauthorityȱinȱaȱspecificȱprovisionȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱorȱ

implementingȱregulations.ȱȱSeeȱJilinȱForestȱIndus.ȱJinqiaoȱFlooringȱGrp.ȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ

No.ȱ23Ȭ14,ȱ2023ȱWLȱ1867677,ȱatȱ*9ȱ(Ct.ȱInt’lȱTradeȱFeb.ȱ9,ȱ2023).ȱȱThus,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ

statutoryȱlanguage,ȱlegislativeȱhistory,ȱorȱregulatoryȱlanguageȱorȱpreambleȱtoȱguideȱaȱ

courtȱwhenȱrulingȱonȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱtoȱapplyȱitsȱmethodology.ȱȱAccordingȱ

                             ȱ
                                                                               (.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcontinued)ȱ
       authorityȱtoȱnegotiateȱandȱsignȱcontractsȱandȱotherȱagreements;ȱ
       (3)ȱwhetherȱtheȱrespondentȱhasȱautonomyȱfromȱtheȱgovernmentȱinȱmakingȱ
       decisionsȱregardingȱtheȱselectionȱofȱmanagement;ȱandȱ(4)ȱwhetherȱtheȱ
       respondentȱretainsȱtheȱproceedsȱofȱitsȱexportȱsalesȱandȱmakesȱindependentȱ
       decisionsȱregardingȱdispositionȱofȱprofitsȱorȱfinancingȱofȱlosses.ȱ
ȱ
DecisionȱMem.ȱforȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱ
PneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȬTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱatȱ8ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ
Admin.ȱSept.ȱ30,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ259ȱ(citingȱtwoȱpreviousȱadministrativeȱdeterminations).ȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ10ȱ
ȱ
toȱthatȱmethodologyȱasȱappliedȱinȱtheȱFifthȱReview,ȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱ

controlȱoverȱexportȱfunctions,ȱasȱaȱgeneralȱmatter,ȱisȱnotȱrebuttedȱifȱaȱboardȱofȱdirectorsȱ

underȱtheȱcontrolȱofȱaȱmajorityȱgovernmentȱshareholderȱhadȱtheȱauthorityȱandȱpotentialȱ

toȱselectȱandȱoverseeȱcompanyȱmanagement.ȱ

       Untetheredȱbyȱstatutoryȱorȱregulatoryȱstandards,ȱCommerceȱwasȱfreeȱtoȱchangeȱ

itsȱinterpretationȱandȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱfourȬfactorȱtestȱatȱanyȱtime,ȱsoȱlongȱasȱitȱ

providedȱaȱreasonableȱexplanationȱforȱaȱdepartureȱfromȱpastȱpractice.ȱȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱAtchison,ȱ

T.ȱ&ȱS.ȱF.ȱRy.ȱCo.ȱv.ȱWichitaȱBd.ȱofȱTrade,ȱ412ȱU.S.ȱ800,ȱ808ȱ(1973);ȱAlleghenyȱLudlumȱCorp.ȱ

v.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ346ȱF.3dȱ1368,ȱ1373ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2003)ȱ(citingȱAtchison,ȱ412ȱU.S.ȱatȱ808)ȱ

(“Commerceȱisȱpermittedȱtoȱdeviateȱfromȱthisȱpastȱpractice,ȱatȱleastȱwhereȱitȱexplainsȱ

theȱreasonȱforȱitsȱdeparture,”ȱwhereȱtheȱ“pastȱpractice”ȱwasȱ“notȱaȱburdenȱimposedȱbyȱ

statuteȱorȱregulation”ȱbutȱwasȱmerelyȱ“aȱgeneralȱpracticeȱofȱCommerce.”).ȱȱForȱtheȱFinalȱ

Results,ȱCommerceȱexplainedȱthatȱitȱrevisedȱitsȱpracticeȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱofȱ

thisȱCourtȱinȱAdvancedȱTech.ȱ&ȱMaterialsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ36ȱCITȱ1576,ȱ1593,ȱ885ȱ

F.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱ1343,ȱ1359ȱ(2012),ȱaff’d,ȱ581ȱF.ȱApp’xȱ900ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2014)ȱ(reasoningȱthatȱ

absentȱproofȱotherwise,ȱmanagementȱofȱaȱcompanyȱwithȱmajorityȱgovernmentȱ

ownershipȱshouldȱbeȱpresumedȱ“toȱbeȱbeholdenȱtoȱtheȱboardȱthatȱcontrolsȱtheirȱ

payȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”).ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ18ȱn.64.ȱȱAlthoughȱtheȱdecisionsȱofȱthisȱCourtȱandȱtheȱ

CourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱtheȱAdvancedȱTech.ȱ&ȱMaterialsȱlitigationȱareȱnotȱprecedential,ȱ

nothingȱprecludedȱCommerceȱfromȱbeingȱguidedȱbyȱthemȱinȱrevisingȱtheȱpracticeȱbyȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ11ȱ
ȱ
whichȱitȱappliesȱitsȱdeȱfactoȱtest.ȱȱForȱtheseȱreasons,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱnotȱpersuadedȱbyȱDoubleȱ

Coin’sȱargumentȱthatȱCommerceȱexceededȱitsȱdiscretionȱbyȱgivingȱcontrollingȱweightȱtoȱ

itsȱthirdȱfactorȱonȱtheȱrecordȱfactsȱofȱtheȱreview.ȱ

       NorȱisȱtheȱcourtȱpersuadedȱbyȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱargumentȱthatȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱ

didȱnotȱsupportȱaȱfindingȱthatȱHuayiȱactuallyȱcontrolledȱdayȬtoȬdayȱbusinessȱdecisionsȱ

duringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreview,ȱincludingȱdecisionsȱonȱtheȱpricingȱofȱexports.ȱȱUnderȱitsȱ

revisedȱdeȱfactoȱtest,ȱCommerceȱneedȱnotȱbaseȱitsȱdecisionȱentirelyȱonȱevidence,ȱorȱtheȱ

lackȱthereof,ȱofȱdirectȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱtheȱdayȬtoȬdayȱgeneralȱbusinessȱ

operations,ȱorȱtheȱexportȬrelatedȱoperationsȱinȱparticular,ȱofȱaȱmajorityȬgovernmentȬ

ownedȱcorporation.ȱȱInstead,ȱCommerceȱmayȱconsiderȱwhetherȱthereȱisȱindirect,ȱorȱ

potential,ȱcontrolȱofȱsuchȱdayȬtoȬdayȱoperationsȱbecauseȱofȱaȱgovernmentȬinfluencedȱ

boardȱofȱdirectorsȱthatȱhasȱtheȱauthorityȱtoȱappointȱandȱoverseeȱaȱcompany’sȱ

management.ȱȱThatȱisȱwhatȱCommerceȱdidȱforȱtheȱFinalȱResults.ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ16ȱ

(emphasisȱadded)ȱ(findingȱ“nearȱcompleteȱcontrolȱoverȱanyȱshareholderȱdecisions,ȱ

includingȱdecisionsȱwhichȱmayȱaffectȱtheȱmanagementȱandȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱ

company.”).ȱ

       Moreover,ȱanȱagencyȱmayȱdrawȱreasonableȱinferencesȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱ

consideredȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱȱSeAHȱSteelȱVINAȱCorp.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ950ȱF.3dȱ833,ȱ845ȱ(Fed.ȱ

Cir.ȱ2020)ȱ(quotingȱMatsushitaȱElec.ȱIndus.ȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ750ȱF.2dȱ927,ȱ933ȱ

(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ1984)ȱforȱtheȱprincipleȱthatȱ“substantialȱevidenceȱincludesȱ‘reasonableȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ12ȱ
ȱ
inferencesȱfromȱtheȱrecord’”).ȱȱUnderȱitsȱrevisedȱtest,ȱitȱsufficedȱthatȱHuayi,ȱaȱ

governmentȱentity,ȱwasȱtheȱmajorityȱshareholder,ȱthatȱnoȱotherȱshareholderȱhadȱmoreȱ

thanȱaȱoneȱpercentȱshare,ȱand,ȱasȱDoubleȱCoinȱitselfȱacknowledges,ȱthatȱHuayiȱhadȱ

significantȱinfluenceȱinȱtheȱconstitutionȱofȱtheȱboardȱandȱtheȱselectionȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱ

management.ȱȱFromȱtheseȱfacts,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱinferredȱthatȱanȱentityȱofȱtheȱ

Chineseȱgovernment,ȱamongȱallȱshareholders,ȱhadȱoutsizedȱinfluenceȱoverȱallȱbusinessȱ

decisionsȱofȱDoubleȱCoin.ȱ

       DoubleȱCoinȱarguesȱthatȱdespiteȱHuayi’sȱsignificantȱinfluenceȱinȱtheȱconstitutionȱ

ofȱtheȱboardȱandȱselectionȱofȱmanagement,ȱHuayiȱdidȱnotȱ“control”ȱtheȱboardȱandȱ

managementȱbecauseȱtheȱboardȱmustȱactȱinȱtheȱbestȱinterestȱofȱDoubleȱCoin,ȱbecauseȱ

minorityȱshareholdersȱmayȱbringȱsuitȱagainstȱboardȱmembersȱwhoȱfailȱsuchȱduty,ȱandȱ

becauseȱofȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱ“independent”ȱboardȱmembers.ȱȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱBr.ȱ36.ȱȱ

DoubleȱCoinȱexplainsȱthatȱindependentȱboardȱmembersȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱactȱwithoutȱtheȱ

interferenceȱofȱtheȱprincipalȱshareholders,ȱorȱofȱpersonsȱinȱactualȱcontrolȱorȱholdingȱaȱ

materialȱinterestȱin,ȱtheȱcompany.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ37ȱ(citingȱArticleȱ130ȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱArticlesȱ

ofȱAssociationȱ(“AoAs”),ȱP.R.ȱ192).ȱȱItȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱthreeȱofȱtheȱsevenȱdirectorsȱwereȱ

independentȱdirectors.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ35ȱn.4.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱpointsȱtoȱsafeguardsȱsuchȱasȱ

Articleȱ35ȱofȱtheȱAoAs,ȱwhichȱrecognizesȱtheȱrightȱofȱaȱminorityȱshareholderȱtoȱbringȱ

suitȱagainstȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱboardȱorȱseniorȱmanagementȱwhoȱactsȱagainstȱtheȱinterestsȱ

ofȱtheȱcompanyȱandȱtherebyȱbreachesȱapplicableȱlawȱorȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱAoAs.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ34.ȱȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ      ȱ       ȱ     ȱ    ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ13ȱ
ȱ
DoubleȱCoinȱalsoȱmentionsȱtheȱrightȱofȱholdersȱofȱ10%ȱofȱsharesȱtoȱcallȱaȱshareholders’ȱ

meeting,ȱandȱofȱshareholdersȱofȱ3%ȱofȱsharesȱtoȱraiseȱaȱproposalȱatȱaȱshareholders’ȱ

meeting,ȱaddingȱthatȱHuayi’sȱsharesȱwouldȱbeȱexcludedȱfromȱvotingȱinȱtheȱeventȱofȱaȱ

conflictȱofȱinterestȱonȱaȱdecisionȱunderȱdebate.ȱȱId.ȱ

       DoubleȱCoin’sȱargumentsȱareȱunconvincingȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱbasedȱonȱaȱ

presumptionȱthatȱtheȱeffectȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱisȱmanifestedȱonlyȱwhenȱthereȱisȱ

conflictȱorȱ“interference”ȱbetweenȱtheȱgovernmentalȱandȱcommercialȱinterestsȱofȱaȱ

company.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailsȱtoȱexplainȱwhyȱCommerce,ȱwhenȱexaminingȱtheȱeffectȱofȱ

governmentȱownershipȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱcompany’sȱgoverningȱstructure,ȱwasȱrequiredȱ

toȱconstrueȱtheȱinfluenceȱandȱeffectȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱsoȱnarrowly.ȱȱImplicitȱinȱtheȱ

Department’sȱinquiryȱunderȱitsȱrevisedȱfourȬfactorȱtestȱisȱthatȱaȱgovernmentȬcontrolledȱ

businessȱenterpriseȱdiffersȱfundamentallyȱfromȱoneȱthatȱisȱfreeȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱ

withȱrespectȱtoȱitsȱexportȱfunctions.ȱȱBecauseȱofȱtheȱbreadthȱofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ

discretionȱinȱimplementingȱitsȱtestȱforȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱexportȱfunctions,ȱtheȱcourtȱ

hasȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱCommerceȱmayȱnotȱdoȱso.ȱȱInȱitsȱnarrowȱfocusȱonȱ

“conflict”ȱorȱ“interference”ȱwithȱcommercialȱinterests,ȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailsȱtoȱrecognizeȱ

thatȱaȱgovernmentȬcontrolledȱcompanyȱmayȱhave,ȱforȱexample,ȱcommercialȱadvantages,ȱ

asȱwellȱasȱcommercialȱdisadvantages,ȱcomparedȱtoȱcompaniesȱthatȱareȱindependentȱofȱ

suchȱcontrol.ȱȱOnȱtheȱevidentiaryȱrecordȱofȱtheȱFifthȱReview,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱ

couldȱconcludeȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱindependenceȱfromȱaspectsȱofȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ         ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ14ȱ
ȱ
governmentȱcontrolȱoverȱitsȱbusinessȱoperationsȱinȱgeneral.ȱȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱ

couldȱinferȱthatȱthisȱlevelȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱwasȱinconsistentȱwithȱtheȱindependentȱ

exerciseȱofȱdecisionȬmakingȱoverȱexportȱfunctions.ȱ

                               III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱANDȱORDERȱ

       CommerceȱcenteredȱitsȱinquiryȱonȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱaȱgovernmentȬcontrolledȱ

majorityȱshareholderȱonȱtheȱselectionȱandȱsupervisionȱofȱmanagement.ȱȱThatȱinquiryȱisȱ

notȱnecessarilyȱconfinedȱtoȱaȱconsiderationȱofȱevidenceȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱoverȱ

management’sȱdayȬtoȬdayȱbusinessȱdecisions.ȱȱInȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱaȱstatuteȱorȱregulationȱ

thatȱdefinesȱorȱotherwiseȱgovernsȱthisȱinquiry,ȱtheȱcourtȱlacksȱaȱbasisȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱ

Commerceȱactedȱcontraryȱtoȱlawȱinȱexercisingȱitsȱbroadȱdiscretionȱinȱthisȱway.ȱ

       Theȱcourtȱconcludes,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱasȱaȱwholeȱsupportedȱtheȱ

Department’sȱfindings,ȱandȱreasonableȱinferences,ȱwhichȱinȱtheȱaggregateȱshowedȱthatȱ

DoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱthatȱitȱwasȱfreeȱofȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱHuayiȱonȱitsȱboardȱ

and,ȱindirectly,ȱonȱitsȱmanagement.ȱȱWhileȱDoubleȱCoinȱputȱforthȱcertainȱevidenceȱofȱ

independenceȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol,ȱincluding,ȱinȱparticular,ȱtheȱabilityȱofȱitsȱU.S.ȱ

affiliateȱtoȱsetȱpricesȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱitȱdidȱnotȱshowȱthatȱitȱwasȱfreeȱfromȱallȱ

materialȱaspectsȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱthatȱemanatedȱfromȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱboardȱ

toȱselectȱandȱoverseeȱtheȱcompany’sȱmanagementȱpersonnel.ȱȱTherefore,ȱtheȱcourtȱ

sustainsȱasȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱtheȱdeterminationȱthatȱDoubleȱ

ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ        ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ       ȱ      ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ15ȱ
ȱ
Coinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱcontrolȱofȱexportȱfunctions,ȱwhenȱviewedȱ

accordingȱtoȱtheȱmethodologyȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱappliedȱinȱtheȱreview.ȱ

       Finally,ȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱhavingȱfoundȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱdidȱnotȱrebutȱitsȱ

presumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱitsȱexportȱfunctions,ȱandȱthereȱbeingȱnoȱotherȱ

issuesȱtoȱbeȱdecidedȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱbyȱeitherȱCommerceȱorȱtheȱcourt,ȱCommerceȱmustȱ

issueȱaȱnewȱdeterminationȱuponȱremand.ȱȱThatȱdeterminationȱmustȱeffectuateȱtheȱ

mandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱCMAȱIVȱbyȱassigningȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱPRCȬwideȱ

rateȱofȱ105.31%,ȱwhichȱwillȱallowȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱenterȱjudgmentȱconcludingȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ

       Therefore,ȱuponȱconsiderationȱofȱallȱpapersȱandȱproceedingsȱhadȱherein,ȱandȱ

uponȱdueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱherebyȱ

       ORDEREDȱthatȱPlaintiffs’ȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMotionȱforȱJudgmentȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱRecordȱ
(Dec.ȱ6,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ260ȱ(Conf.),ȱ261ȱ(Public)ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱdenied;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
       ȱ
       ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱissueȱaȱnewȱdeterminationȱuponȱremandȱthatȱ
assignsȱtoȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱPRCȬwideȱrateȱofȱ105.31%;ȱandȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ
       ȱ
       ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱissueȱtheȱrequiredȱredeterminationȱwithinȱ
30ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱissuanceȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder.ȱ
       ȱ
       ȱ                                                /s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱȱ
       ȱ       ȱ     ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ      ȱ        TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ
Dated:ȱMayȱ16,ȱ2023ȱ
ȱ      ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ

ȱ