Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

  • Home
  • People
  • Practice Areas
    • International Trade
    • International Investment and Project Development
    • International Disputes/Rights & Obligations of Sovereign States & Autonomous Regions
    • U.S. & International Regulation and Legislation
    • Board Advisory Work
  • Global Experience
  • News/Blog
  • Contact Us

June 26, 2013 by PKR

Federal Circuit affirms China-wide rate assigned to uncooperative respondent

On Monday, the Federal Circuit issued AMS Assocs. v. United States affirming the Department of Commerce’s assignment of a 91.73% rate to Zibo Aifudi Plastic Packaging (“Aifudi”) in an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on laminated woven sacks from China.  This China-wide rate was calculated for assignment to companies that had not established independence from control by the Chinese government.  At issue was whether Commerce could assign this rate when it preliminarily found that Aifudi was eligible for a rate separate from that of the China-wide entity but Aifudi subsequently ceased participating in the review.

Aifudi initially cooperated with Commerce and was assigned a 64.28% separate rate in the preliminary results.  However, Aifudi thereafter withdrew from the review and removed its confidential information from the record.  Commerce in the final results reversed its finding that Aifudi was separate from China because it was unable to verify the supporting information once Aifudi withdrew from the review.  Aifudi’s U.S. affiliate AMS challenged and the CIT affirmed.  In an opinion authored by Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit’s newest jurist, Commerce was again found to have acted properly.

The decision endorses Commerce’s longstanding presumption of government control in nonmarket economy (“NME”) proceedings.  In affirming Commerce’s similar assignment of the China-wide rate in an investigation of oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from China last year, CIT Chief Judge Pogueobserved that “the reasonableness of presuming, without any affirmative evidence, that all modern Chinese companies are wholly controlled by the Chinese government, such that any inquiry into their individual pricing behavior is completely meaningless, appears open to question.”  Yet the Federal Circuit did not appear concerned in any way with Commerce’s continuing to employ this presumption, notwithstanding any market elements that may be developing in the Chinese economy.

The key holding of AMS is that uncooperative respondents cannot dictate what aspects of the record that Commerce must rely upon.  AMS argued that Commerce could and must conclude from the remaining public record that Aifudi was separate from China.  The Federal Circuit disagreed: “the absence of verifiable information that would be necessary for Aifudi to carry its burden made any other Aifudi-submitted information immaterial to the point in dispute.  At least in these circumstances, Commerce committed no legal error in disregarding all of Aifudi’s remaining information.”

AMS confirms that Commerce may apply the NME-wide rate to uncooperative respondents, regardless of whether record evidence could support an alternate conclusion.  Commerce therefore has powerful mechanism to counter and deter the lack of cooperation in NME proceedings.  Such obstructionism can take the form of withdrawal, as with Aifudi, or material misrepresentation as in the OCTG case.  The Federal Circuit validation comes at a time when Commerce needs available approaches to combat instances of import fraud being documented with alarming frequency.  Indeed, this week five individuals were indicted for transshipping Chinese aluminum extrusions through Malaysia to evade antidumping and countervailing duties.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: International Law, International Trade Tagged With: aluminum, antidumping, CAFC, CBP, China, CIT, countervailing duty, import fraud, International Trade, Malaysia, nonmarket economy, OCTG

Contact

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP
1750 K Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 202 331 4040
Fax: +1 202 331 4011
info@pkrllp.com

Recent Posts

  • After an Historic Year at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Court’s Work Has Just Begun
  • Zachary J. Walker and Sophia Lin Named Counsel

Sitemap

PKR LLP Sitemap

© Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If you have a particular problem or issue for which you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.