Slip. Op. 02-135
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
________________________________________
:
JIANGSU HILONG INTERNATIONAL TRADING :
CO., LTD., :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Court No. 02-00311
:
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant, :
:
CRAWFISH PROCESSORS ALLIANCE, :
THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF :
AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY and :
BOB ODOM, COMMISSIONER, :
:
Defendant-Intervenors. :
________________________________________:
Coudert Brothers LLP (John M. Gurley and Matthew J. McConkey)
for Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Co., Ltd., plaintiff.
Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; David M.
Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice (Lucius B. Lau, Assistant
Director, Mark L. Josephs and Ada E. Bosque); Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, and Arthur D.
Sidney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Administration,
United States Department of Commerce, of counsel, for the United
States, defendant.
Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P. (Will E. Leonard, John
C. Steinberger and Mark R. Leventhal) for Crawfish Processors
Alliance, The Lousiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry and Bob
Odom, Commissioner, defendant-intervenors.1
Dated: November 4, 2002
1
Defendant-intervenors have not submitted any comments to the
Remand Results.
Court No. 02-00311 Page 2
JUDGMENT
This Court received and reviewed the United States Department
of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”)
Response to Ct. Remand (“Remand Results”) (July 26, 2002), which
were issued pursuant to the Court’s order of June 26, 2002 (“June
26 Order”) remanding to Commerce to provide the Court with:
(1) an explanation of whether the dumping margin assigned to
Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Co., Ltd.
(“Jiangsu”) during Jiangsu or its predecessor’s last
period of importation, that is 2.75 percent dumping
margin, was assigned to Jiangsu:
(a) solely on the grounds of Commerce’s finding of
Jiangsu’s affiliation with Ningbo Nanlian’s Frozen
Foods Company, Ltd. (“Ningbo”); and
(b) as a member of the Jiangsu-Ningbo affiliation and
not assigned separately to Jiangsu and separately
to Ningbo upon the finding of such affiliation; and
(2) a specific figure of a dumping margin, if such figure (a)
can be determined, and (b) is different from 2.75
percent, that would have been assigned to Jiangsu (solely
on the basis of Jiangsu’s actual dumping activities
during the last period when Jiangsu or its predecessor’s
performance was reviewed and not on the basis of cash
deposits that were or could have been applicable to
Jiangsu or its predecessor’s last entries) had Jiangsu
not been found to be affiliated with Ningbo during the
last period when Jiangsu’s performance was reviewed;2 and
(3) an explanation of legal and factual logic of Commerce’s
2
In the June 26 Order the Court further stated that in
addressing this issue, Commerce shall also provide the Court with
factual data explaining why the affiliation of Jiangsu and Ningbo
was granted the dumping margin of 2.75 percent if Jiangsu’s
entries, that is, the entries of what is assumed to be an indelible
member of the affiliation, were allegedly subject to 91.5 percent.
Court No. 02-00311 Page 3
decision to disregard Jiangsu’s performance during the
period when Jiangsu actually imported the merchandise at
issue and was deemed to be an affiliate of Ningbo
(“actual performance”) and to bind Jiangsu to either the
conduct that was effectively superseded by the actual
performance or to a later conduct by an affiliate in
which Jiangsu had not participated in any way.
Subsequently, on July 22, 2002, this Court issued an order
(“July 22 Order”) stating that the June 26 Order stands as issued
and that Commerce is either to admit that Jiangsu’s entries are
subject to 2.75 percent deposit rate or to seek this Court’s
approval for imposition of a deposit rate different from 2.75
percent upon the entries of Jiangsu, if and only if Commerce shows
the Court that Commerce’s record of the last review during which
Jiangsu actually performed provides Commerce and this Court with
sufficient evidence to support a finding that Jiangsu’s own
performance (without accounting for the record associated with
Ningbo’s) calls for the imposition of a deposit rate different from
2.75 percent. (Emphasis supplied).
Upon consideration of the Remand Results, Jiangsu’s comments
and Commerce’s response, the Court holds that Commerce duly
complied with the Court’s June 26 and July 22 Orders when Commerce:
(1) explained that Jiangsu3 was assigned the rate of 2.75 percent
3
“Huaiyin 5 changed its name to Jiangsu subsequent to the
September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000 period of review.” Remand
Results at 1 n.1 (citing Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
(continued...)
Court No. 02-00311 Page 4
for the period of review covering September 1, 1998, through August
31, 1999, because Commerce treated Jiangsu and Ningbo as a single
entity, see Remand Results at 6-7; (2) calculated a rate of 62.77
percent for Jiangsu for the period of review covering September 1,
1998, through August 31, 1999, “had [Jiangsu] not been treated as
a single entity with Ningbo . . . during that period[,]” id. at 8
and see Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Comments on Commerce’s Remand Resp. of
July 26, 2002 (“Def.’s Resp.”) at 6-25; (3) adequately provided the
Court with a factual explanation of why the affiliation of Jiangsu
and Ningbo was granted the dumping margin of 2.75 percent if
Jiangsu’s entries, that is, the entries of what is assumed to be an
indelible member of the affiliation, were allegedly subject to 91.5
percent, see Remand Results at 8-10; and (4) adequately provided
the Court with Commerce’s legal and factual logic of Commerce’s
decision to determine a rate of 91.5 percent for Jiangsu pursuant
to this Court’s June 4, 2002 order. See id. at 10-13. It is
hereby
ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on July 26,
2002, are affirmed in their entirety and Commerce is to impose a
3
(...continued)
Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish
Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China (“Final Results”),
67 Fed. Reg. 19,546, 19,547 (Apr. 22, 2002)).
Court No. 02-00311 Page 5
cash deposit rate of 62.77 percent for Jiangsu;4 and it is further
ORDERED that the preliminary injunction (enjoining Commerce
from the imposition of the cash deposit rate determined by Commerce
in Final Results, 67 Fed. Reg. 19,546, with regard to Jiangsu)
granted by the Court in favor of plaintiff under the Court’s order
of June 4, 2002, is dissolved; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed.
______________________________
NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
SENIOR JUDGE
Dated: November 4, 2002
New York, New York
4
The Court is satisfied with Commerce’s determination that a
cash deposit rate of 62.77 percent should be imposed on Jiangsu
because Commerce has adequately demonstrated that Commerce’s record
of the last review during which Jiangsu’s predecessor actually
performed provides Commerce and this Court with sufficient evidence
to support a finding that Jiangsu’s own performance (without
accounting for the record associated with Ningbo’s) calls for the
imposition of a deposit rate different from 2.75 percent.