Court Opinion

ID: 9408363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 16:02:23.101487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.476332
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 23-100

          UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

DANYANG WEIWANG TOOLS
MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. ET AL.,

       Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES,
                                                Before: Claire R. Kelly, Judge
       Defendant,
                                                Court No. 19-00006
and

DIAMOND SAWBLADES
MANUFACTURERS’ COALITION,

       Defendant-Intervenor.

                             OPINION AND ORDER

[Sustaining Commerce’s remand results on the 2016–2017 administrative review of
the antidumping duty order covering diamond sawblades from the People’s Republic
of China.]

                                                               Dated: July 12, 2023

Brittney R. Powell, Fox Rothschild LLP of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs Danyang
Weiwang Tools Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Chengdu Huifeng New Material Technology
Co., Ltd., and Quanzhou Zhongzhi Diamond Tool Co., Ltd. Also on the brief was
Lizbeth R. Levinson.

Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, and Meen Geu Oh, Senior Trial Counsel,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice of
Washington, DC, for defendant United States. Also on the brief were Brian M.
Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy,
Director. Of counsel was Benjamin W. Juvelier, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel
for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington,
DC.
Court No. 19-00006                                                          Page 2

Daniel Brian Pickard, Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney PC of Washington, DC, for
defendant-intervenor Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition.

      Kelly, Judge:   Before the Court is the U.S. Department of Commerce’s

(“Commerce”) remand results filed pursuant to the Court’s order, see Order, Jan. 13,

2023, ECF No. 46, in connection with Commerce’s final determination in the 2016–

2017 administrative review of the antidumping duty (“ADD”) order on diamond

sawblades and parts thereof (“diamond sawblades”) from the People’s Republic of

China (“China”). Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Remand, A-570-

900 (Dep’t Commerce Apr. 13, 2023), ECF No. 49-1 (“Remand Results”); see [Diamond

Sawblades] from [China], 83 Fed. Reg. 64,331 (Dep’t Commerce Dec. 14, 2018) (final

results of ADD admin. review; 2016–2017), and accompanying Issues & Decision

Mem., A-570-900 (Dec. 10, 2018), ECF No. 18-5 (“Decision Mem.”).

                                 BACKGROUND

      Commerce’s 2016–2017 administrative review of the ADD order on diamond

sawblades from China covers the period of review of November 1, 2016, to October

31, 2017. Decision Mem. at 1. During the administrative review, the separate-rate

respondents, 1 including Plaintiffs, challenged Commerce’s assignment of the 82.05

percent China-wide ADD rate to the separate-rate respondents. Id. at 3; Compl. ¶¶

1 Separate-rate respondents are those respondents covered by an ADD or
countervailing duty investigation or administrative review in a nonmarket economy,
who request a rate separate from the countrywide duty rate Commerce imposed
based on its investigation of the mandatory respondents. See Yangzhou Bestpak
Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 716 F.3d 1370, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Court No. 19-00006                                                              Page 3

8, 12–13, Feb. 6, 2019, ECF No. 7. The 82.05 percent rate reflects Commerce’s

application of facts available with an adverse inference (“AFA”) 2 to the two

mandatory respondents for their failure to respond to Commerce’s requests for

information. Decision Mem. at 3. The respondents argued Commerce unreasonably

included an AFA rate in the averaged margin assigned to cooperative non-selected

respondents. See id. at 3–4. The petitioner argued Commerce should continue to

apply the rate of 82.05 percent for the non-selected separate rate respondents because

it was the rate calculated in the previous administrative review. Id. at 5. In its final

determination, Commerce continued to assign the non-selected separate rate

respondents, including Plaintiffs, the separate rate of 82.05 percent assigned to the

non-selected separate rate respondents in the previous administrative review. Id. at

6–7.

       Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 6, 2019, requesting the Court

declare as contrary to law Commerce’s assignment of the 82.05 percent separate rate

to Plaintiffs as equal to the China-wide rate and equal to the total AFA rate. Compl.

at 7. On July 1, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the record. See ECF No. 25-

2. On January 13, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to stay the

2 Parties and Commerce sometimes use the shorthand “adverse facts available” or
“AFA” to refer to Commerce’s reliance on facts otherwise available with an adverse
inference to reach a final determination. However, AFA encompasses a two-part
inquiry pursuant to which Commerce must first identify why it needs to rely on facts
otherwise available, and second, explain how a party failed to cooperate to the best of
its ability as to warrant the use of an adverse inference when “selecting among the
facts otherwise available.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a)–(b).
Court No. 19-00006                                                           Page 4

proceedings pending resolution of Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Ct.

No. 18-102. Order, Jan. 13, 2020, ECF No. 35; Pls.’ Unopposed Mot. Stay, Jan. 13,

2020, ECF No. 34. In Bosun Tools Co., Ltd. v. United States, 405 F. Supp. 3d 1359,

1367 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019), where the previous administrative review of diamond

sawblades from China was at issue, the Court instructed Commerce to reconsider the

rate applicable to the mandatory respondents previously found to be non-cooperative

and subject to the 82.05 percent AFA rate. The Court also ordered Commerce to

adjust the separate rate respondents’ rates accordingly if Commerce determined a

different rate applied to the mandatory respondent. See id.

      On remand in Bosun Tools, 493 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 1357–58 (Ct. Int’l Trade

2021), the Court sustained Commerce’s revision of the separate rate from 82.05

percent to 41.03 percent, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, No. 2021-1930, 2022 WL

94172 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2022). On January 13, 2023, Defendant filed an unopposed

motion for remand to consider the effect of Bosun Tools on this case, see ECF No. 45,

which the Court granted, see ECF No. 46. Commerce filed its Remand Results on

April 13, 2023.

                  JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

      This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (2018), which

grants the court authority to review actions initiated under 19 U.S.C.
Court No. 19-00006                                                              Page 5

§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) 3 contesting the final determination in an administrative review

of an ADD order. The Court will uphold Commerce’s determination unless it is

“unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance

with law.” 19 U.S.C. 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Substantial evidence “means such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

(quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). “The results

of a redetermination pursuant to court remand are also reviewed ‘for compliance with

the court’s remand order.’” Xinjiamei Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co. v. United States,

968 F. Supp. 2d 1255, 1259 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (quoting Nakornthai Strip Mill

Public Co. v. United States, 32 CIT 1272, 1274, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (2008).

                                    DISCUSSION

      On remand, Commerce applies Bosun Tools, No. 2021-1930, 2022 WL 94172,

to its administrative review of the ADD order on diamond saw blades from China and

determines that the appropriate rate to apply to Plaintiffs is 41.03 percent. Remand

Results at 1–3. Commerce revised the rate for the separate rate respondents in the

preceding administrative review of the ADD order, and Commerce therefore revises

the rate applying to Plaintiffs in the current administrative review. Id. at 3. In their

comments on remand, Plaintiffs agree with Commerce’s decision to revise the rate to

3 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant
provisions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2018 edition.
Court No. 19-00006                                                        Page 6

41.03 percent consistent with the preceding administrative review. Pls.’ Comments

on [Remand Results] at 2, May 12, 2023, ECF No. 51. Defendant-Intervenor did not

file comments on the Remand Results. Commerce’s Remand Results are reasonable,

see Matsushita, 750 F.2d at 933, and comply with the Court’s Remand Order, see

Xinjiamei, 968 F. Supp. 2d at 1259.

                                 CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, the Remand Results are supported by substantial

evidence, comply with the Court’s remand order, see ECF No. 46, and are therefore

sustained. Judgment will enter accordingly.

                                                 /s/ Claire R. Kelly
                                                 Claire R. Kelly, Judge

Dated:      July 12, 2023
            New York, New York