Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Indus. Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 11 March 2020
• Docket Number: Consol. Court No. 15-00225,Slip Op. 20-31
• Parties: JIANGSU SENMAO BAMBOO AND WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, and Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd., et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Coalition for American Hardwood Parity, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

435 F.Supp.3d 1278

JIANGSU SENMAO BAMBOO AND WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs,andGuangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd., et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant,andCoalition for American Hardwood Parity, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 20-31

Consol. Court No. 15-00225

United States Court of International Trade.

March 11, 2020

Jeffrey S. Neeley, Husch Blackwell LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs and defendant-intervenors Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd., Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd., Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC., Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd., Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Kentier Wood Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd., Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd., Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Puli Trading Limited, Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai/Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd., Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd., Tongxiang Jisheng Import And Export Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd.

Gregory S. Menegaz, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd. With him on the brief were Alexandra H. Salzman, James K. Horgan, and Judith L. Holdsworth.

Jill A. Cramer, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenor, and defendant-intervenor Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited. With her on the brief were Kristin H. Mowry, Jeffrey S. Grimson, and Sarah M. Wyss.

H. Deen Kaplan, Hogan Lovells US LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. and Armstrong Flooring, Inc. With him on the brief was Craig A. Lewis.

Mark R. Ludwikowski, Clark Hill PLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenor Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC.

Ronald M. Wisla, Fox Rothschild LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenors, and defendant-intervenors BR Custom Surface, CDC Distributors, Inc., CLBY Inc., doing business as D&M Flooring, Custom Wholesale Floors, Inc., Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd., Doma Source LLC, Dunhua City Hongyuan Wooden Products Co., Ltd., Galleher Corporation, HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd., Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd., Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd., Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc., Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Pinnacle Interior Elements, Ltd., Real Wood Floors, LLC, Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd., Shanghai Shenlin Corporation, Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd., Swiff Train Co., Timeless Design Import LCC, V.A.L. Floors, Inc., Wego Chemical & Mineral Corp., Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Dadongwu Greenhome Wood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd. (collectively, the "Penghong Plaintiffs"). With him on the brief was Lizbeth R. Levinson.

John R. Magnus, Tradewins LLC, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff, plaintiff-intervenor, and defendant-intervenor Old Master Products, Inc. With him on the brief was Sheridan S. McKinney.

Jonathan M. Zielinski, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-intervenor Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. With him on the brief was Thomas M. Beline.

Jeffrey S. Levin, Levin Trade Law, P.C., of Bethesda, MD, for plaintiff and defendant-intervenor Coalition for American Hardwood Parity.

Tara K. Hogan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington D.C., argued for defendant United States. With her on the brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director. Of counsel was Rachel A. Bogdan, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. Of counsel on the brief was Mercedes C. Morno, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.

OPINION AND ORDER

Stanceu, Chief Judge:

Before the court is the decision (the "First Remand Redetermination") the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ("Commerce," or the "Department") issued in response to the court’s order in Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo & Wood Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States , 42 CIT ––––, 322 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (2018) (" Senmao I "). Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Ct. Order (June 3, 2019), ECF No. 145 ("First Remand Redetermination ").

The court’s order in Senmao I , 42 CIT at ––––, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1350, ordered Commerce to reconsider several decisions made in a published determination concluding an antidumping duty proceeding (the "Final Results"). Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review; 2012-2013 , 80 Fed. Reg. 41,476 (Int'l Trade Admin. July 15, 2015) ("Final Results "). The Final Results concluded the second periodic administrative review of an antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People’s Republic of China (the "Order"), which applied to the period of December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013 (the "period of review").

Because the court sets aside as unlawful one of the decisions in the First Remand Redetermination—the decision to adjust downward the export price of subject merchandise to account for what Commerce considered to be irrecoverable value-added tax—the court remands the First Remand Redetermination to Commerce for correction.

I. BACKGROUND

Background on this consolidated case is presented in the court’s previous opinion and is supplemented herein. See Senmao I , 42 CIT at ––––, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1313–16.

In the Final Results, Commerce assigned individually determined weighted-average dumping margins to two Chinese respondents who produced and exported multilayered wood flooring (the "subject merchandise"): Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd., to which it assigned a zero margin, and Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. ("Senmao"), to which it assigned a margin of 13.74%. Final Results , 80 Fed. Reg. at 41,478.

Commerce assigned the 13.74% rate determined for Senmao to numerous "separate-rate" respondents (i.e., respondents that Commerce considered to have established their independence from the government of the People’s Republic of China ("China")) that were not selected for individual examination (the "non-selected companies"). Id. ; see also Senmao I , 42 CIT at ––––, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1314. Senmao and numerous non-selected companies are plaintiffs in this consolidated case, as is the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (the "Coalition"), an association of U.S. producers of multilayered wood flooring. See Senmao I , 42 CIT at ––––, 322 F. Supp. 3d at 1315.

The changes Commerce made to the Final Results in the First Remand Redetermination reduced the dumping margin Commerce calculated for Senmao from 13.74% to 6.55%. First Remand Redetermination 30. Specifically, Commerce, in response to the court’s order in Senmao I , reconsidered and revised the surrogate values it applied to overlaying glue (one of Senmao’s production inputs), id. at 11–14, and to Senmao’s cost for inland freight, id. at 14–17. Commerce reconsidered, but left unchanged, its surrogate value for another of Senmao’s production inputs, plywood. Id. at 2–11. Commerce assigned the 6.55% rate to 46 non-selected companies in the First Remand Redetermination. Id. at 32–34.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The court exercises jurisdiction according to section 201 of the Customs Courts Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), under which the court reviews actions commenced under section 516A of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the "Tariff Act"), as amended , 19 U.S.C. § 1516a, including an action contesting a final determination concluding an administrative review of an antidumping duty order. See 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii).¹ In reviewing a final determination, including a determination made upon remand, the court "shall hold unlawful any determination, finding, or conclusion found ... to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Id. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). In addition, the court considers whether the Department’s decisions in the Remand Redetermination comply with the court’s order in Senmao I .

B. Contested and Uncontested Decisions in the First Remand Redetermination

No party commented to the court in opposition to the decisions Commerce made in the First Remand Redetermination pertaining to the surrogate values for overlaying glue, inland freight, and plywood. Concluding that they comply with the order in Senmao I , the court sustains these decisions.

Parties contested two decisions in the First Remand Redetermination. The first is the Department’s decision not to address the issue of whether Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited ("Fine Furniture"), an unexamined separate rate respondent, should have been examined individually as a "vol...