Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 30 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014–1479.,2014–1479. |
| Citation | 777 F.3d 1343 |
| Parties | DONGTAI PEAK HONEY INDUSTRY CO., LTD., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, American Honey Producers Association, and Sioux Honey Association, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Yingchao Xiao, Lee & Xiao, of San Marino, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. With her on the brief was Douglas Campau.
Jane C. Dempsey, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. With her on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director.
Michael J. Coursey, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, of Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees American Honey Producers Association and the Sioux Honey Association. With him on the brief were R. Alan Luberda and Benjamin Blase Caryl.
Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd. (“Dongtai Peak”) appeals the decision of the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) denying its Motion for Judgment on the Agency Record. See Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. United States, 971 F.Supp.2d 1234 (Ct.Int'l Trade 2014). Because the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) properly exercised its discretion in denying Dongtai Peak's untimely filings, and because Commerce's decisions to treat Dongtai Peak as part of the China-wide entity and to impose a dumping margin based on adverse facts available were supported by substantial evidence and were in accordance with law, this court affirms.
In 2001, Commerce imposed an antidumping duty order on honey imported from the People's Republic of China (“China”). Honey From the People's Republic of China, 66 Fed.Reg. 63,670 (Dep't of Commerce Dec. 10, 2001) (notice of amended final determination of sales at less than fair value and antidumping duty order) (the “Order”). In January 2012, Commerce initiated the tenth administrative review of the Order for the period of review December 1, 2010, through November 30, 2011. Initiation of Antidumping & Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews & Requests for Revocation in Part, 77 Fed.Reg. 4759 (Dep't of Commerce Jan. 31, 2012) (“Initiation ”). Dongtai Peak was named a respondent in this review. Id. at 4761.
As part of the review, on March 2, 2012, Commerce issued a non-market economy questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) to Dongtai Peak, which included Section A (General Information), with a deadline of March 23, 2012, and Sections C (Sales to the United States) and D (Factors of Production), with a deadline of April 8, 2012. Appellant timely filed a response to Section A of the Questionnaire, and filed its responses to Sections C and D after receiving a one-day extension of the deadline from Commerce. Because Appellant's extension request was received less than six minutes before the submission deadline for Sections C and D, in granting the request Commerce stated: “To ensure that [Commerce] is fully able to consider requests of this nature, we advise Dongtai Peak to plan accordingly and file any future extension requests as soon as it suspects additional time may be necessary.” J.A. 157.
On April 3, 2012, Commerce issued a Supplemental Section A Questionnaire (the “Supplemental Questionnaire”) to address certain deficiencies in Dongtai Peak's original Section A response. The deadline to respond to the Supplemental Questionnaire was “COB [Close of Business], April 17, 2012.” J.A. 158. However, Dongtai Peak failed to submit its response by this deadline. Instead, on April 19, 2012, Dongtai Peak filed an untimely request (the “April 19 Letter”) to extend the deadline to April 27, 2012, claiming good cause for an extension existed because of the overlap with the deadline to file its responses to Sections C and D, a national holiday, and various issues with its translator, its United States-based attorneys, and its computers. In response, the American Honey Producers Association and Sioux Honey Association (“Petitioners”) submitted an objection to the untimely extension request. On April 24, 2012, Appellant submitted a response to the objection, restating its claim that good cause existed for the extension. Then, on April 27, 2012, Dongtai Peak submitted a second request for an additional one-day extension of the deadline (the “April 27 Letter”). Following the close of business on April 27, 2012, Appellant submitted its response to the Supplemental Questionnaire (the “Supplemental Response”) without Commerce having granted the extension requests in the April 19 or April 27 Letters.
On May 22, 2012, Commerce denied Dongtai Peak's extension requests because “good cause [did] not exist ... to extend retroactively its deadline.” J.A. 190. Commerce noted although Appellant explained why it could not timely file its Supplemental Response, it “provided no explanation as to why it was unable to file its extension request in a timely manner prior to the deadline for its questionnaire response.” J.A. 190. It also noted Dongtai Peak had “previously been cautioned with respect to late extension requests when it requested an extension of the deadline to file its Section C and D questionnaire responses five minutes before the deadline for that questionnaire response.” J.A. 189. Commerce therefore removed Appellant's extension requests and its Supplemental Response from the official record.
Dongtai Peak requested reconsideration of this determination, but Commerce upheld its decision to deny the extension requests and to remove the requests and the Supplemental Response from the record in its Preliminary Results. Honey From the People's Republic of China, 77 Fed.Reg. 46,699, 46,701 –02 (Dep't of Commerce Aug. 6, 2012) (“Preliminary Results ”). In doing so, Commerce again noted the April 19 Letter did not address Dongtai Peak's inability to file an extension request by the deadline, and stated the deadline was significant because Commerce had found Appellant's United States sales to be non-bona fide in prior reviews, and therefore needed time for a full analysis of the information sought in the Supplemental Questionnaire. Id. Accordingly, in the Preliminary Results, Commerce determined that without the Supplemental Response, the record lacked sufficient information to calculate a separate rate for Dongtai Peak, and therefore the company would be considered part of the China-wide entity. Id. at 46,702. In addition, Commerce determined the China-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability during the review, and therefore Commerce relied entirely on adverse facts available (“AFA”) to determine the dumping margin for the China-wide entity. Id.
Commerce selected a rate of $2.63 per kilogram based on the rate calculated for Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corporation (“Anhui Native”) during the sixth administrative review, which had also been assigned to the China-wide entity in the sixth and seventh administrative reviews. Id. at 46,703.
On November 26, 2012, the Final Results of the review were issued, upholding the Preliminary Results in their entirety. Administrative Review of Honey From the People's Republic of China, 77 Fed.Reg. 70,417 (Dep't of Commerce Nov. 26, 2012) (final results of antidumping duty administrative review) (“Final Results ”), and accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum (Nov. 19, 2012) (J.A. 137–56) (“Issues & Dec. Mem. ”).
In December 2012, Dongtai Peak filed an action in the CIT challenging several aspects of the Final Results, including: (1) the denial of its extension requests and the removal of those requests and the Supplemental Response from the record; (2) Commerce's decision to consider Dongtai Peak part of the China-wide entity; (3) Commerce's use of AFA to calculate the dumping margin for the China-wide rate; and (4) the $2.63 per kilogram AFA rate itself. Dongtai Peak moved for Judgment on the Agency Record, which the CIT denied on March 21, 2014.
In response to Dongtai Peak's argument that Commerce improperly rejected its extension requests and removed the filings from the record, the CIT found Commerce's determinations were consistent with its regulations and within its discretion. In addition, the CIT found “Commerce reasonably determined that [Dongtai] Peak's extension requests were unsupported by good cause” because Commerce found (1) Appellant “failed to comply with the regulations by filing its extension requests after the deadline expired”; (2) “the facts of the instant case did not warrant granting [Dongtai] Peak's untimely requests”; and (3) Appellant “was aware of the deadline in question and its particular importance.” Dongtai Peak, 971 F.Supp.2d at 1240 (citing Issues & Dec. Mem. at 5–6). The CIT also found Commerce's denial of the extension requests did not violate Appellant's “statutory rights” because the company had notice of the deadline and an opportunity to comply, but simply failed to file a timely extension request. Id. at 1240–41.
As to Dongtai Peak's argument that Commerce improperly denied it separate rate status, the CIT found Commerce reasonably concluded that without the Supplemental Response, “[t]he record lacked certain information regarding [Dongtai] Peak's separate rate eligibility because [it] failed to timely file its extension requests and failed to show good cause to extend the deadline.” Id. at 1242. As to Appellant's initial Section A response that remained on the record, the CIT found the company did not identify any evidence in that response demonstrating the lack of government control as required for separate rate status. Id. Although there were translations of Chinese law and information concerning Dongtai Peak's ownership and corporate structure in the initial Section A response, the CIT found this did not render Commerce's decisions unsupported by...
To continue reading
Request your trial