Fusong Jinlong Wooden Grp. Co. v. United States, 19-00144
| Docket Number | 19-00144,Slip Op. 22-155 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2022 |
| Parties | FUSONG JINLONG WOODEN GROUP CO., LTD. ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, YIHUA LIFESTYLE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. ET AL., Consolidated Plaintiffs, and LUMBER LIQUIDATORS SERVICES, LLC ET AL., Plaintiff-Intervenors, and AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS OF MULTILAYERED WOOD FLOORING, Defendant-Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
[U.S Department of Commerce's final results are sustained in part, and remanded.]
Alexandra H. Salzman, deKieffer &Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., argued for Plaintiffs Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., and Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd. With her on the brief was Gregory S. Menegaz and J. Kevin Horgan.
Daniel M. Witkowski and, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &Feld, LLP of Washington, D.C., argued for Consolidated Plaintiff Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. With him on the brief was Matthew R. Nicely and Dean A. Pinkert, Hughes, Hubbard &Reed LLP, of Washington, D.C.
David J. Craven, Craven Trade Law LLC, of Chicago, IL, argued for Consolidated Plaintiffs Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd. Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd., Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc., Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd., A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd., and Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd.
Adams C. Lee, Harris Bricken McVay Sliwoski LLP, of Seattle, WA, present but did not argue for Consolidated Plaintiff Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd.
Lizbeth Mohan, Fox Rothschild LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for Consolidated Plaintiff Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co. With her on the brief were Ronald M. Wisla and Brittney R. Powell.
Kavita Mohan, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman &Klestadt LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued for Consolidated Plaintiff Scholar Home (Shanghai) New Material Co., Ltd. With her on the brief were Elaine F. Wang, Francis J. Sailer, Ned H. Marshak, and Jordan C. Kahn.
Sarah M. Wyss and Jill A. Cramer, Mowry &Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., present but did not argue for Consolidated Plaintiff Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd. Of counsel on the brief was John R. Magnus, TradeWins LLC, of Washington, D.C.
Gregory S. McCue and Adriana M. Campos-Korn, Steptoe &Johnson, LLP, of Washington, D.C., present but did not argue for Consolidated Plaintiffs Struxtur, Inc. and Evolutions Flooring, Inc.
Mark R. Ludwikowski, Clark Hill PLC, of Washington, D.C., argued for Plaintiff-Intervenor Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC. With him on the brief were William C. Sjoberg and Courtney G. Taylor.
Sonia M. Orfield, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant the United States. With her on the brief were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Rachel A. Bogdan, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Stephanie M. Bell, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C. argued for Defendant-Intervenor American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring. With her on the brief were Timothy C. Brightbill, Maureen E. Thorson, and Tessa V. Capeloto.
Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge
This consolidated case involves the final results of the U.S. Department of Commerce's ("Commerce" or the "Department") sixth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China ("China") covering the period of December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017. See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China, 84 Fed.Reg. 38,002 (Dep't Commerce Aug. 5, 2019) ("Final Results") and accompanying Issues and Decision Mem. (July 29, 2019), PR 484 ("Final IDM").
Before the court are twelve pending motions for judgment on the agency record by which Plaintiffs Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd. et al. ("Fusong"), Consolidated Plaintiffs Sino-Maple (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. ("Sino-Maple"), Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. et al. ("Metropolitan Hardwood"), Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd. et al. ("Huzhou"), Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd. ("GreenHome"), Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co., Ltd. ("Yihua"), Linyi Anying Co., Ltd. and Linyi Youyou Co., Ltd. (collectively, "Linyi"), Struxtur, Inc. and Evolutions Flooring, Inc. (collectively, "Struxtur"), Scholar Home (Shanghai) New Material Co., Ltd. ("Scholar Home"), Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co. ("Baishan Huafeng"), together with Plaintiff-Intervenors Benxi Wood Company et al. ("Benxi Wood") and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC ("Lumber Liquidators"), challenge several aspects of Commerce's Final Results as unsupported by substantial evidence and not in accordance with law. See Pls.' Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 51-2 ("Fusong's Br.");[1] Consol. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 57 ("Sino-Maple's Br."); Consol. Pls.' Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 59-2 ("Metropolitan Hardwood's Br.");[2] Consol. Pls.' Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 50-1 ("Huzhou's Br.");[3] Consol. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 56-2 ("GreenHome's Br."); Consol. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 47-2 ("Yihua's Br."); Consol. Pls.' Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 53 ("Linyi's Br.");[4]Consol. Pls.' Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 52 ("Struxtur's Br.");[5] Consol. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 48 ("Scholar Home's Br."); Consol. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 60-2 ("Baishan Huafeng's Br."); Pl.-Ints.' Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 55-2 ("Benxi Wood's Br.");[6] Pl.-Int.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R., ECF No. 54-2 ("Lumber Liquidators' Br.").
Defendant the United States, on behalf of Commerce, and Petitioner and Defendant-Intervenor American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring ("American Manufacturers" or "Petitioner") oppose the motions. See Def.'s Resp. Pls.' Mots. J. Agency R., ECF No. 70 ( ); Def.-Int.'s Resp. Pls.' Mots. J. Agency R., ECF No. 69 ( ).
For the reasons below, the court sustains the Department's decision to use adverse facts available ("AFA") in determining Sino-Maple's dumping margin as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The court also sustains Commerce's separate rate eligibility determinations as supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law. The court cannot sustain, however, the method Commerce used to determine Sino-Maple's AFA rate-i.e., by selecting the highest transaction-specific margin on the record-because it is not in accordance with law.
Thus, on remand, Commerce shall reconsider the method used to select an AFA rate for Sino-Maple in a manner that complies with this Opinion and Order, and the statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(d).[7] Since the remaining issues are contingent upon the outcome of Commerce's redetermination of Sino-Maple's rate on remand, the court reserves decision on these issues[8] until the results of redetermination are before the court.
On December 4, 2017, Commerce issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review for the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 82 Fed.Reg. 57,219, 57,220 (Dep't Commerce Dec. 4, 2017).
On March 7, 2018, Commerce placed on the administrative record U.S. Customs and
Border Protection ("Customs") data for mandatory respondent[9] selection purposes. See Release of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data Mem. (Mar. 7, 2018), PR 40. Based on this data, Commerce initially selected Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd. ("Senmao") and Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited ("Fine Furniture")-the two largest exporters[10] of the subject wood flooring-as mandatory respondents. See Mandatory Respondent Selection Mem. (June 19, 2018) at 8, PR 258, CR 159.
On July 30, 2018, Commerce issued an additional mandatory respondent memorandum stating its intention to rescind the review with respect to Fine Furniture and to select Sino-Maple- the next largest exporter-as a mandatory respondent in its place. See Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent Mem. (July 30, 2018) at 2-3, PR 276.
On July 31, 2018, Commerce issued an initial antidumping questionnaire to Sino-Maple. See Sino-Maple Antidumping Quest. (July 31, 2018), PR 278. Sino-Maple timely filed its responses, providing Commerce with, inter alia, information regarding its U.S. sales during the period of review. See Sino-Maple's Resp. Sec. A Quest. (Sept. 4, 2018), PR 298, 299; see also Sino-Maple's Resp. Secs. C &D Quest. (Sept. 13 2018), PR 302, CR 190-202. After considering the responses and identifying a potentially relevant relationship between Sino-Maple and a U.S. affiliate-Alpha Floors, Inc.-on October 17, 2018, Commerce issued a supplemental questionnaire asking Sino-Maple to "explain [its] relationship with Alpha Floors, including whether Alpha Floors assists Sino-Maple with finding U.S. customers and/or facilitating the sale of subject merchandise." Sino-Maple First Suppl. Quest. (Oct. 17, 2018) ( ) at 4, PR 351, CR 229. Sino-Maple responded that Alpha Floors, an affiliated company, "assist[ed it] with finding U.S. customers and facilitating the sales of subject merchandise in the United States at times during the [period of review]." Sino-Maple's Resp. First Suppl. Quest. (Nov. 5, 2018) at 5, PR 376, CR...
To continue reading
Request your trial