AM Stone & Cabinets, Inc. v. United States

• Court: United States Court of International Trade
• Decided: May 14, 2026
• Docket: 24-00241
• Status: Published

Opinion

Slip Op. 26-50

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

AM STONE & CABINETS, INC.,

Plaintiff, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge v. Court No. 24-00241 UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

OPINION

[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s final results in the administrative reviews of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain quartz surface products from the People’s Republic of China.]

Dated: May 14, 2026

David J. Craven, Craven Trade Law LLC, of Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff AM Stone & Cabinets, Inc.

Alexander Brewer, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. On the brief were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Franklin E. White Jr., Assistant Director, and Anne M. Delmare, Trial Attorney. Of counsel was Jack Dunkelman, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Barnett, Chief Judge: Before the court is AM Stone & Cabinets, Inc.’s (“AM

Stone”) motion for judgment on the agency record. See Mot. for J., and accompanying

Mem. of Law in Supp. of the Rule 56.2 Mot. of Pl. AM Stone & Cabinets, Inc. for J. upon

the Agency R. (“Pl.’s Mem.”), ECF No. 26. The motion challenges the U.S. Department

of Commerce’s (“Commerce” or “the agency”) final results in the 2021–2023

administrative review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order and the 2021–2022 Court No. 24-00241 Page 2

administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on certain quartz surface

products from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). See Certain Quartz Surface

Prods. From the People’s Republic of China, 89 Fed. Reg. 92,622 (Dep’t Commerce

Nov. 22, 2024) (final results of 2021–2023 antidumping duty and 2021–2022

countervailing duty admin. revs.) (“Final Results”), ECF No. 14-4, and accompanying

Issues and Decision Mem., A-570-084, C-570-085 (Nov. 15, 2024) (“I&D Mem.”), ECF

No. 14-5.1 For the reasons discussed herein, the court will sustain Commerce’s Final

Results.

BACKGROUND

Commerce issued AD and CVD orders on certain quartz surface products from

China in June 2019. See Certain Quartz Surface Prods. From the People’s Republic of

China, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,053 (Dep’t Commerce July 11, 2019) (antidumping and

countervailing duty orders) (“the Orders”). In October 2022, Commerce issued a final

scope and circumvention ruling in which it determined that imports of quartz surface

products manufactured in China and further processed in Malaysia were covered by the

scope of the Orders. See Certain Quartz Surface Prods. From the People’s Republic of

China, 87 Fed. Reg. 64,009 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 21, 2022) (final scope ruling on

1 The administrative record for the Final Results is divided into a Public Administrative Record (“PR”), ECF No. 14-1, and a Confidential Administrative Record (“CR”), ECF No. 14-2. Parties submitted joint appendices containing record documents cited in their briefs. Confid. J.A., ECF No. 35; Public J.A., ECF No. 37; see also [Redacted] Confid. J.A., ECF No. 36. Because Plaintiff relies on the public or confidential administrative record number to identify record documents in the joint appendices, the court likewise cites to the PR or CR, as appropriate. Court No. 24-00241 Page 3

Malaysian processed quartz slab and recission of the circumvention inquiry) (“Final

Scope Ruling”). Accordingly, Commerce implemented a certification requirement for all

imports of quartz surface products from Malaysia. Id. at 64,010.

Certain companies, including Universal Quartz Industrial SDN BHD (“Universal

Quartz”), an exporter of quartz products subject to the Orders, and Resstone

Manufacturing Sdn. (“Resstone”), a manufacturer of quartz slab exported by Universal

Quartz, did not respond to Commerce’s requests for information over the course of the

scope and circumvention inquiries. Id. Commerce used adverse facts available (“AFA”)

to determine that the non-cooperating companies were “exporting to the United States

certain quartz surface products processed in Malaysia containing quartz slab

manufactured [in] China.”2 Id. Commerce further determined that the non-cooperating

companies would be ineligible to participate in the scope certification process and

explained that the non-cooperating companies would be able to request reconsideration

of their eligibility in a future segment of the proceeding, such as an administrative review

or a changed circumstances review (“CCR”). Id.

AM Stone is an importer of quartz products subject to the Orders. In June 2023,

AM Stone requested a CCR “to determine whether Universal Quartz [was] eligible to

certify that its quartz surface products are not produced from Chinese-origin quartz

2 Commerce solicits information from interested parties to arrive at its determinations over the course of an AD or CVD proceeding. When Commerce determines that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability,” the agency “may use an inference that is adverse to the interest of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(b)(1). Such inferences are commonly called “adverse facts available” or “AFA.” Court No. 24-00241 Page 4

slab.” Certain Quartz Surface Prods. From the People’s Republic of China, 88 Fed.

Reg. 41,385, 41,386 (Dep’t Commerce June 26, 2023). In July 2023, AM Stone further

requested administrative reviews of the Orders for subject merchandise exported by

Universal Quartz. See, e.g., Req. for Admin. Rev. (July 26, 2023), PR 1 (pertaining to

the AD order).3 Neither Universal Quartz nor Resstone requested an administrative

review or a CCR. See Prelim. Decision Mem. (July 29, 2024) (“Prelim. Mem.”) at 2 &

nn.3, 7, PR 65 (referencing requests filed by AM Stone, Global Stone LLC, Quartz

Surface Distributor, and Artelye Inc.).

Commerce initiated the administrative reviews in September 2023, see Initiation

of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Admin. Revs., 88 Fed. Reg. 62,322, 62,332

(Dep’t Commerce Sep. 11, 2023), characterizing AM Stone’s requests for the

administrative reviews as “requests to review the certification eligibility of Universal

Quartz,” Prelim. Mem. at 2. Commerce initiated a CCR in June 2023, Certain Quartz

Surface Prods. From the People’s Republic of China, 88 Fed. Reg. 41,385 (Dep’t

Commerce June 26, 2023) (initiation of antidumping and countervailing duty changed

circumstances revs.; AM Stone), then rescinded the CCR in October 2023, determining

that “a party’s newfound willingness to participate [in the underlying proceeding] is not a

changed circumstance sufficient to warrant . . . a [CCR] review” and that “an

3 While not included in the joint appendices before the court, AM Stone also requested a review with respect to the CVD order. See Req. for Admin. Rev. (July 26, 2023) (filed in Commerce CVD case no. C-570-085; on file with the court); infra note 4 (discussing Plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint in this action to include the AD and CVD administrative reviews, and dismissal of a related CVD action). Court No. 24-00241 Page 5

administrative review is the proper segment of a proceeding for a party . . . to request

reconsideration of its eligibility to certify, absent evidence of a changed circumstance,”

Certain Quartz Surface Prods. From the People’s Republic of China, 88 Fed. Reg.

72,994, 72,995 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 24, 2023) (rescission of antidumping and

countervailing duty changed circumstances revs.; AM Stone). Commerce thus

proceeded to examine Universal Quartz’s certification eligibility solely in the context of

the administrative reviews.

In the preliminary results of the reviews, Commerce determined that Universal

Quartz remained ineligible to participate in the certification process because AM Stone

had not provided the necessary information to show that the quartz products imported

from Universal Quartz were not of Chinese origin. See Certain Quartz Surface Prods.

From the People’s Republic of China, 89 Fed. Reg. 63,400 (Dep’t Commerce Aug. 5,

2024) (prelim. results of 2021–2023 antidumping duty and 2021–2022 countervailing

duty admin. revs.), PR 66; Prelim. Mem. at 6–7 (restating the same). Commerce

continued to find Universal Quartz ineligible to participate in the certification process in

the Final Results and assigned Universal Quartz the China-wide AD rate and the all-

others rate in the CVD review. 89 Fed. Reg. at 92,623. Commerce stated that it based

its decision on an analysis of information submitted by AM Stone and that it “did not

apply facts available or AFA in continuing to bar . . . Universal Quartz from the

certification regime.” I&D Mem. at 7. Commerce explained that “because the exporter

must be able to certify that its exports do not contain Chinese-origin quartz slab, . . . the

exporter is the locus of our examination” and that “AM Stone has not established that Court No. 24-00241 Page 6

Universal Quartz did not use Chinese-origin quartz slab in its entries during the [periods

of review (“PORs”)].” Id. at 5. The agency further explained that “even assuming

arguendo that Commerce should have limited the scope of its review[s] to AM Stone’s

entries during the PORs, we find that we do not have sufficient information on the

record[s] to determine that even the more limited pool of AM Stone’s entries do not

contain Chinese-origin quartz slab.” Id.

Plaintiff AM Stone filed an Amended Complaint on May 16, 2025, challenging

certain of Commerce’s decisions in the underlying administrative reviews.4 Am. Compl.

Plaintiff now moves for judgment on the agency record. See Pl.’s. Mem; Reply Br. of

AM Stone & Cabinets Inc. (“Pl.’s Reply”), ECF No. 34. Defendant United States filed a

response to Plaintiff’s motion. See Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Rule 56.2 Mot. for J. on the

Agency R. (“Gov’t’s Resp.”), ECF No. 33.

4 Here, exceptionally, Commerce issued a single determination applicable to both the AD and CVD administrative reviews. See Final Results, 89 Fed. Reg. at 92,623 n.4. Commerce explained that, because the reviews were conducted for the purpose of determining the certification eligibility of certain exporters, the final results of the reviews “may be [issued] in a single decision applicable to both proceedings.” Id. AM Stone initially commenced a separate action challenging Commerce’s determination in the CVD administrative review, see generally AM Stone & Cabinets, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 24-243 (CIT Dec. 19, 2024), ECF No.1, which it later dismissed, see id., ECF No. 22 (stipulation of dismissal). AM Stone instead filed an amended complaint in this action to include its challenge to the underlying determination with respect to both the AD and CVD administrative reviews. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 24. Court No. 24-00241 Page 7

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2018)5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)

(2018). The court will uphold an agency determination that is supported by substantial

evidence and otherwise in accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).

DISCUSSION

I. Whether AM Stone Provided Sufficient Information to Commerce

A. Parties’ Contentions

Plaintiff argues that no facts on the record support Commerce’s finding that AM

Stone failed to provide sufficient information to establish Universal Quartz’s certification

eligibility. Pl.’s Mem. at 7. Plaintiff further contends that it provided all information in its

possession and that this information is sufficient to establish that the quartz slab that it

imported was manufactured in Malaysia. Id.; see also Pl.’s Reply at 2–3. Despite not

providing information with respect to the totality of Universal Quartz’s exports, Plaintiff

argues that it “provided the full universe of information” for its imports and that such

information “clearly substantiated that production . . . take[s] place in Malaysia.” Pl.’s

Mem. at 7–8. Plaintiff avers that “any deficiencies were those of the exporter,” that

“[t]here is no evidence” that Plaintiff would have had access to the allegedly missing

information, and that “a significant portion of the information not provided” is irrelevant

with respect to the country of production of the imports in question. Id. at 8.

5 Further citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the relevant portions of Title 19 of the U.S. Code, 2018 edition. Court No. 24-00241 Page 8

Defendant contends that the focus of Commerce’s administrative reviews was

Universal Quartz’s certification eligibility. Gov’t’s Resp. at 8. Defendant explains that

because “[n]either Universal Quartz nor Resstone responded to Commerce’s requests

for information relating to the scope inquiry,” Commerce found those companies

ineligible to participate in the certification process during the earlier scope proceeding.

Id. at 9 (citing Final Scope Ruling, 87 Fed. Reg. at 64,010). Defendant argues that by

failing to provide complete responses and information during these administrative

reviews, AM Stone failed to rebut the presumption, based on the Final Scope Ruling,

that Universal Quartz’s exports were covered by the Orders. Id. at 7–13. Defendant

argues that the burden of producing information to rebut this presumption was on AM

Stone as the party requesting the administrative reviews. Id. at 12–13.

B. Analysis

As discussed above, Commerce implemented a certification requirement for all

imports of quartz surface products from Malaysia in the Final Scope Ruling. Final

Scope Ruling, 87 Fed. Reg. at 64,010. With respect to the certification requirement,

Commerce explained that “[t]o import quartz surface products from Malaysia and

declare them as exempt from the scope of the Orders and hence free of AD/CVD

duties, the importer and the exporter must complete and maintain certifications, along

with proof of where the quartz slab was manufactured.” Id. at 64,011 (emphasis

added). Commerce further determined that Universal Quartz was not eligible to

participate in the certification process, id. at 64,010, but that Universal Quartz could Court No. 24-00241 Page 9

“request consideration of [its] exclusion from the certification process in a future

segment of the proceeding,” such as an administrative review, id.

In these reviews, Commerce explained that “in evaluating the eligibility of a

company previously determined to be ineligible to participate in a certification process,

the ineligible company must provide information sufficient to overcome Commerce’s

presumption that the quartz surface products the company exported to the United

States contain Chinese-origin quartz slab.” I&D Mem. at 4. During the administrative

reviews, Commerce requested “the universe of the exporter’s sales to the United States

(as well as how the exporter tracked country of origin of [its] exports),” “information

related to the exporter and manufacturer’s operational and legal structures, as well as

their accounting and financial practices,” and “the manufacturer’s production process

and how it tracked the country of origin of the quartz slab it used.” Id. at 4 & n.7 (citing

Prelim. Mem. at 5). The burden of producing the requested information could have

been fulfilled by either Universal Quartz, the exporter, or AM Stone, the importer and

requesting party. See Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1583 (Fed.

Cir. 1993) (“The burden of production should belong to the party in possession of the

necessary information.”). But neither AM Stone nor Universal Quartz submitted all the

information requested by Commerce. While Universal Quartz did not participate or

provide any information, AM Stone did participate but failed to provide complete

information. AM Stone did not provide requested information regarding “the universe of

Universal Quartz’s entries during the POR,” Prelim. Mem. at 6, “a fact that AM Stone

concede[d],” I&D Mem. at 5. AM Stone further failed to provide information related to Court No. 24-00241 Page 10

Universal Quartz’s corporate structure and documentation related to Universal Quartz’s

financial and accounting practices. Prelim. Mem. at 7.

While AM Stone did provide a narrative description of Resstone as well as

photographs of Resstone’s factory, the information provided was not fully responsive to

Commerce’s request to demonstrate that Resstone manufactured the quartz surface

products in Malaysia during the POR. See Certification Eligibility Questionnaire [Resp.]

(June 14, 2024) at 7–11, Exs. 3, 5, CR 10; I&D Mem. at 5–6 (discussing the evidence

provided and finding it insufficient). AM Stone did not, for instance, provide “production

records linked to its imports demonstrating that this merchandise specifically was

produced in Malaysia, [or] . . . evidence of Resstone’s purchases of material inputs that

can be tied to AM Stone’s purchases,” nor did AM Stone provide evidence that

Resstone was in possession of certain equipment and machinery necessary to

manufacture quartz surface products. I&D Mem. at 5. In the absence of record

evidence to the contrary, Commerce properly determined that Universal Quartz

remained ineligible for the certification process. While Commerce did use AFA for both

Resstone and Universal Quartz in the Final Scope Ruling, that use of AFA based on

those parties’ non-cooperation in a distinct segment of the proceedings does not

provide a cognizable basis for AM Stone, a cooperating party, to challenge the

implications of that prior determination in these administrative reviews. In Mueller, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that Commerce is not prohibited

“from drawing adverse inferences against a non-cooperating party that have collateral

consequences for a cooperating party.” Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. De Court No. 24-00241 Page 11

C.V. v. United States, 753 F.3d 1227, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accepting as true that AM

Stone was fully cooperative and supplied all information within its possession, it is

unremarkable that the failure of Universal Quartz and Resstone to provide information

about their suppliers and inputs, among other deficiencies, would implicate Commerce’s

ability to determine that Universal Quartz’s exports were outside the scope of the

Orders, or that the agency’s determination would, in turn, have consequences for AM

Stone.

With respect to Plaintiff’s argument that “a significant portion of the information

not provided is ultimately not relevant to the issue as to production of a specific entry,”

Pl.’s Mem. at 8, it is not for Plaintiff to decide what information is relevant to

Commerce’s underlying analysis in the context of an administrative review,

see Ansaldo Componenti, S.p.A. v. United States, 10 CIT 28, 37, 628 F. Supp. 198, 205

(1986) (“It is Commerce, not the respondent, that determines what information is to be

provided for an administrative review.”). The information requested by Commerce in the

administrative reviews and that AM Stone failed to provide is the type of information that

AM Stone as an importer is required to obtain from exporters and maintain under the

certification regime. Final Scope Ruling, 87 Fed. Reg. at 64,011 (“The importer is

required to complete and maintain the importer certification . . . and retain all supporting

documentation (e.g., invoice, purchase order, production records, etc.).” The burden

was on AM Stone or its supplier/exporter, Universal Quartz, to rebut the presumption of

certification ineligibility by providing complete information. Neither party provided Court No. 24-00241 Page 12

complete information responsive to Commerce’s requests, therefore, neither party

rebutted the presumption.

II. Whether Commerce Used Facts Available with an Adverse Inference

Plaintiff contends that Commerce used AFA when determining that Universal

Quartz continued to be ineligible for the certification process in the administrative

reviews. 6 Pl.’s Mem. at 9; see also Pl.’s Reply at 3–4. Plaintiff argues that this alleged

use of AFA was improper because Plaintiff was fully cooperative during the

administrative reviews and used its “best efforts” to respond to Commerce’s information

requests. Pl.’s Mem. at 11; see also id. at 12–17; Pl.’s Reply at 1–3. Any missing

information, Plaintiff avers, was not in Plaintiff’s possession or control. Pl.’s Mem. at

17–19; see also Pl.’s Reply at 3. Plaintiff argues that the information it provided to

Commerce during the administrative reviews supports a finding that its imports are

products of Malaysia and that Commerce should thus allow Plaintiff to certify its imports

6 The court notes that, in rescinding the parallel CCR requested by AM Stone, Commerce effectively collapsed two inquiries (i.e., reviewing the rates applicable to AM Stone’s entries and reviewing Universal Quartz’s certification eligibility) into a single inquiry with Universal Quartz’s certification eligibility as the “locus of . . . examination.” I&D Mem. at 5. Plaintiff, however, does not challenge this aspect of Commerce’s conduct of the proceedings. See generally Pl.’s Mem. Commerce explained that, even if it had limited the scope of its review to AM Stone’s entries during the POR, the agency would not have had “sufficient information on the record to determine that even the more limited pool of AM Stone’s entries do not contain Chinese-origin quartz slab.” I&D Mem. at 5. Thus, Commerce adequately explained its decision not to calculate assessment rates for AM Stone’s entries subject to the reviews independently of its review of Universal Quartz’s certification eligibility, and the court does not otherwise find this decision to be in error. Court No. 24-00241 Page 13

as being of Malaysian origin despite Universal Quartz’s failure to provide requested

information. Pl.’s Mem. at 18–20.

Defendant asserts that Commerce did not apply AFA to AM Stone. Gov’t’s Resp.

at 13–15. Defendant explains that Commerce relied on AFA in the earlier, separate

Final Scope Ruling with respect to Universal Quartz to arrive at the determination that

Universal Quartz was not eligible to participate in the certification process. Id. at 14. In

contrast, Commerce’s finding here that Universal Quartz continued to be ineligible for

the certification process was based on a lack of information necessary to rebut the

presumption, based on the Final Scope Ruling, that Universal Quartz’s exports were

covered by the Orders and not eligible to be certified as being of Malaysian origin. Id.

Commerce did not rely on AFA when determining that Universal Quartz

continued to be ineligible for the certification process. Commerce explained that its

finding that imports from Universal Quartz were not eligible for the certification process

was based on Plaintiff’s failure to submit certain information, and that this information

was necessary to rebut the presumption that Universal Quartz’s exports of quartz

surface products contained Chinese-origin quartz slab. Prelim. Mem. at 6–7; I&D Mem.

at 7. Commerce accordingly assigned the China-wide AD deposit rate and the all-

others CVD deposit rate to Universal Quartz’s exports. Final Results, 89 Fed. Reg. at

92,623. Plaintiff’s argument that it “satisfied the statutory requirement of using its best

efforts,” Pl.’s Mem. at 11, to supply requested information is of no moment. That

standard applies to respondents when Commerce is assessing whether to make an Court No. 24-00241 Page 14

adverse inference which, as discussed above, did not occur here. See Nippon Steel

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (establishing the “best of

its ability” standard in the context of an adverse inference determination). The Final

Results will therefore be sustained.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, Commerce’s Final Results will be sustained.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

/s/ Mark A. Barnett Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge

Dated: May 14, 2026 New York, New York