SlipȱOp.ȱ23Ȭ75ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ
CHINAȱMANUFACTURERSȱ ALLIANCE,ȱLLCȱandȱDOUBLEȱCOINȱ HOLDINGSȱLTD.,ȱetȱal.,ȱ
Plaintiffs,ȱ Before:ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ v.ȱ Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ Defendant.ȱ
OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ
[EffectuatingȱtheȱmandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱandȱ adjudicatingȱtheȱremainingȱclaimȱinȱthisȱlitigation,ȱinȱwhichȱpartiesȱcontestedȱanȱagencyȱ determinationȱconcludingȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱ offȬtheȬroadȱtiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina]ȱ
Dated:ȱMayȱ16,ȱ2023ȱ
DanielȱL.ȱPorter,ȱCurtis,ȱMalletȬPrevost,ȱColtȱ&ȱMosleȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱ forȱplaintiffsȱChinaȱManufacturersȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱCoinȱHoldingsȱLtd.ȱȱWithȱ himȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱwereȱJamesȱP.ȱDurling,ȱMatthewȱP.ȱMcCullough,ȱandȱTungȱA.ȱNguyen.ȱ
NedȱH.ȱMarshak,ȱGrunfeld,ȱDesiderio,ȱLebowitz,ȱSilvermanȱ&ȱKlestadtȱLLP,ȱofȱ Washington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffsȱGuizhouȱTyreȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱandȱGuizhouȱTyreȱImportȱandȱ ExportȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱwereȱBrandonȱM.ȱPetelin,ȱDharmendraȱN.ȱ Choudhary,ȱAndrewȱT.ȱSchutz,ȱandȱJordanȱC.ȱKahn.ȱ
JohnȱJ.ȱTodor,ȱSeniorȱTrialȱCounsel,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱDivision,ȱ U.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱhimȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱ wereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneral,ȱPatriciaȱM.ȱ McCarthy,ȱDirector,ȱandȱFranklinȱE.ȱWhite,ȱJr.,ȱAssistantȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱwasȱPaulȱK.ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ2ȱ ȱ Keith,ȱAttorney,ȱOfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱ DepartmentȱofȱCommerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ
Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱInȱthisȱconsolidatedȱcase,ȱplaintiffsȱcontestedȱaȱfinalȱ determinationȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱCommerceȱ (“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱissuedȱuponȱtheȱconclusionȱofȱtheȱfifthȱperiodicȱ administrativeȱreviewȱ(“FifthȱReview”)ȱofȱanȱantidumpingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱcertainȱoffȬ theȬroadȱpneumaticȱtiresȱ(theȱ“subjectȱmerchandise”)ȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱ Chinaȱ(“China”ȱorȱtheȱ“PRC”).ȱ ThisȱOpinionȱandȱOrderȱisȱissuedȱtoȱeffectuateȱtheȱmandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱ AppealsȱforȱtheȱFederalȱCircuitȱ(“CourtȱofȱAppeals”),ȱCAFCȱMandateȱinȱAppealȱ #ȱ20Ȭ1159ȱ(Aug.ȱ2,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ253,ȱinȱChinaȱMfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ 1ȱF.4thȱ1028ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2021)ȱ(“CMAȱIV”)ȱandȱtoȱadjudicateȱtheȱsoleȱclaimȱthatȱremainsȱatȱ issueȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
BackgroundȱonȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱpriorȱopinionsȱofȱthisȱCourtȱandȱtheȱ CourtȱofȱAppealsȱandȱisȱsupplementedȱherein.ȱȱSeeȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.4thȱatȱ1030–35;ȱChinaȱ Mfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱNo.ȱ19Ȭ115,ȱ2019ȱWLȱ4165274,ȱatȱ*1–3ȱ(Ct.ȱInt’lȱTradeȱ Sept.ȱ3,ȱ2019)ȱ(“CMAȱIII”);ȱChinaȱMfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ43ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ357ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1364,ȱ1365–68ȱ(2019)ȱ(“CMAȱII”);ȱChinaȱMfrs.ȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ 41ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ205ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1325,ȱ1329–32ȱ(2017)ȱ(“CMAȱI”).ȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ3ȱ ȱ Theȱadministrativeȱdeterminationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱreferredȱtoȱhereinȱasȱtheȱ
“FinalȱResults,”ȱappearedȱinȱtwoȱFederalȱRegisterȱpublications.ȱȱCertainȱNewȱPneumaticȱ OffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAmendedȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱ AntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2012Ȭ2013,ȱ80ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ26,230ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ Admin.ȱMayȱ7,ȱ2015)ȱ(correctingȱaȱministerialȱerrorȱinȱanȱearlierȱpublishedȱdecision,ȱ CertainȱNewȱPneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFinalȱResultsȱ ofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2012Ȭ2013,ȱ80ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ20,197ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ Admin.ȱApr.ȱ15,ȱ2015)).ȱ TheȱplaintiffsȱinȱthisȱcaseȱareȱChinaȱManufacturersȱAllianceȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱ CoinȱHoldingsȱLtd.ȱ(collectively,ȱ“DoubleȱCoin”),ȱandȱGuizhouȱTyreȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱandȱ GuizhouȱTyreȱExportȱandȱImportȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱ(collectively,ȱ“GTC”).ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱandȱGTCȱ wereȱtheȱexporters/producersȱthatȱCommerceȱselectedȱasȱtheȱmandatoryȱrespondentsȱinȱ theȱFifthȱReview.ȱȱDefendantȱisȱtheȱUnitedȱStates.ȱ II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
AllȱissuesȱpertainingȱtoȱtheȱclaimsȱbroughtȱbyȱGTCȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱhaveȱbeenȱ resolved.ȱȱAsȱtoȱDoubleȱCoin,ȱtheȱcourtȱfirstȱmustȱinterpretȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱmandateȱofȱ theȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱCMAȱIV,ȱonȱwhichȱDoubleȱCoinȱandȱdefendantȱUnitedȱStatesȱ disagree,ȱasȱshownȱbyȱsubmissionsȱtheyȱmadeȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱfollowingȱtheȱissuanceȱofȱthatȱ mandate.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱthenȱmustȱdecideȱwhatȱissues,ȱifȱany,ȱremainȱtoȱbeȱlitigatedȱasȱtoȱ theȱclaimsȱofȱDoubleȱCoin.ȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ4ȱ ȱ A.ȱȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱClaimȱConcerningȱControlȱbyȱtheȱGovernmentȱofȱtheȱPRCȱHasȱNotȱ BeenȱAdjudicatedȱ
ȱ DoubleȱCoinȱarguesȱthatȱremainingȱtoȱbeȱadjudicatedȱisȱitsȱclaimȱthatȱCommerceȱ
erredȱinȱfindingȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱDepartment’sȱpresumptionȱthatȱ DoubleȱCoinȱisȱcontrolledȱbyȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱtheȱPRC.ȱȱJointȱStatusȱReportȱandȱ ProposedȱBriefingȱScheduleȱ1–3ȱ(Sept.ȱ17,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ255.ȱȱDisagreeing,ȱdefendantȱ arguesȱthatȱthisȱclaimȱalreadyȱhasȱbeenȱadjudicatedȱinȱitsȱfavor.ȱ Accordingȱtoȱdefendant,ȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱheldȱinȱCMAȱIVȱthatȱ“Commerce’sȱ applicationȱofȱtheȱ105.31%ȱPRCȬwideȱentityȱrateȱtoȱDoubleȱCoinȱwasȱnotȱcontraryȱtoȱlawȱ andȱwasȱreasonableȱonȱtheȱfactsȱofȱthisȱcase.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4ȱ(quotingȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.4thȱatȱ1040).ȱȱ DefendantȱinterpretsȱthisȱstatementȱinȱtheȱCMAȱIVȱopinionȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱtheȱCourtȱofȱ AppealsȱhasȱadjudicatedȱtheȱclaimȱatȱissueȱonȱtheȱmeritsȱandȱthatȱCommerce,ȱonȱ remand,ȱmustȱassignȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱ105.31%ȱrateȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱforȱtheȱPRCȬ wideȱentityȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱwhichȱrateȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals,ȱreversingȱthisȱCourt’sȱ decisionȱandȱjudgmentȱinȱCMAȱIII,ȱruledȱwasȱaccordingȱtoȱlawȱasȱappliedȱtoȱthatȱentity.ȱȱ Ifȱdefendantȱisȱcorrect,ȱnoȱissuesȱremainȱtoȱbeȱdecidedȱinȱthisȱlitigation.ȱȱIfȱDoubleȱCoinȱ isȱcorrect,ȱthenȱtheȱcourtȱnowȱmustȱadjudicateȱitsȱclaimȱcontestingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ determinationȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱcontrolȱbyȱtheȱPRCȱ governmentȱandȱtheȱDepartment’sȱresultingȱdecisionȱtoȱincludeȱDoubleȱCoinȱwithinȱtheȱ PRCȬwideȱentity.ȱȱWereȱDoubleȱCoinȱtoȱprevailȱonȱthatȱclaim,ȱCommerceȱwouldȱbeȱ requiredȱonȱremandȱtoȱassignȱtoȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱrateȱCommerceȱcalculatedȱforȱDoubleȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ5ȱ ȱ CoinȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱwhichȱwasȱaȱdeȱminimisȱrateȱofȱ0.14%.ȱȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱ
MemorandumȱforȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱNewȱ PneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina;ȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱatȱ12ȱ(Int’lȱ TradeȱAdmin.ȱApr.ȱ8,ȱ2015),ȱP.R.ȱ293ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).1ȱ TheȱcourtȱconcludesȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱisȱcorrectȱasȱtoȱtheȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱ mandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppeals.ȱȱCMAȱIVȱheldȱthatȱitȱisȱpermissibleȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱ determineȱaȱ“countryȬwideȱNMEȱ[nonmarketȱeconomy]ȱentityȱrate”ȱandȱtoȱ“assignȱsuchȱ aȱrateȱtoȱtheȱunitaryȱgroupȱofȱexportersȱinȱanȱNMEȱcountryȱthatȱhaveȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱ presumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol.”ȱȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.ȱ4thȱatȱ1039.ȱȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱ thatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱandȱthusȱwasȱamongȱtheȱunitaryȱ groupȱofȱexporters,ȱbutȱthatȱdetermination,ȱwhichȱDoubleȱCoinȱcontestedȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱ claimsȱitȱassertedȱinȱthisȱaction,ȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱadjudicatedȱbyȱthisȱCourt.ȱȱAsȱdefendantȱ acknowledges,ȱthisȱCourtȱ“didȱnotȱmakeȱanyȱfindingsȱinȱCMAȱIȱregardingȱDoubleȱ Coin’sȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱchallengeȱtoȱCommerce’sȱconclusionȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱ failedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱdeȱfactoȱChineseȱgovernmentȱcontrol.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱtoȱ Pls.’ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ5ȱ(Feb.ȱ4,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ264;ȱseeȱCMAȱI,ȱ41ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ 205ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1344.ȱȱTheȱissueȱofȱwhetherȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱsupportedȱthatȱ agencyȱdecisionȱwasȱnotȱbeforeȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱCMAȱIV,ȱthisȱCourtȱnotȱhavingȱ
ȱ
1ȱReferencesȱtoȱpublicȱdocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Mar.ȱ11,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ
266ȱ(Public),ȱ267ȱ(Conf.)ȱareȱcitedȱasȱ“P.R.ȱ__.”ȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ6ȱ ȱ adjudicatedȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱclaimȱcontestingȱit.ȱȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱthisȱCourtȱ
setȱasideȱbyȱCMAȱIVȱwasȱnotȱaȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱmeritsȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱclaimȱ contestingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱ presumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol.ȱȱJudgmentȱ(Sept.ȱ3,ȱ2019),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ243.ȱȱTheȱcourt,ȱ therefore,ȱproceedsȱtoȱadjudicateȱthatȱclaimȱasȱassertedȱinȱsupportȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱ motionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecord.ȱ TheȱpartiesȱhaveȱsubmittedȱupdatedȱbriefingȱonȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱmotion.ȱȱOpeningȱ Br.ȱofȱPls.ȱChinaȱManufacturingȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱCoinȱHoldings,ȱLtd.ȱ(Dec.ȱ6,ȱ 2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ260ȱ(Conf.),ȱ261ȱ(Public)ȱ(“DoubleȱCoin’sȱBr.”);ȱPls.’ȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱ onȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ(Dec.ȱ6,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ260ȱ(Conf.),ȱ261ȱ(Public).ȱȱDefendantȱhasȱ respondedȱinȱoppositionȱtoȱthisȱmotion,ȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱtoȱPls.’ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAdmin.ȱR.ȱ (Feb.ȱ4,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ264,ȱandȱplaintiffsȱhaveȱreplied,ȱReplyȱBr.ȱofȱPls.ȱChinaȱ ManufacturersȱAlliance,ȱLLCȱandȱDoubleȱCoinȱHoldings,ȱLtd.ȱ(Feb.ȱ25,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ 265.ȱ
B.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱDeterminationȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱFailedȱtoȱRebutȱtheȱ PresumptionȱofȱGovernmentȱControlȱIsȱSupportedȱbyȱSubstantialȱEvidenceȱ ȱ InȱdeterminingȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱdeȱfactoȱ
controlȱoverȱitsȱexportȱfunctionsȱbyȱtheȱChineseȱgovernment,ȱCommerceȱreliedȱ principallyȱonȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱcorporateȱownershipȱstructure.ȱȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱ DoubleȱCoin’sȱmajorityȱshareholderȱwasȱtheȱHuayiȱGroupȱ(“Huayi”),ȱwhichȱheldȱaȱ 65.66%ȱownershipȱshare.ȱȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ7ȱ ȱ DutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱPneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȬTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱ
ofȱChina,ȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱatȱ10ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ30,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ259ȱ(“Prelim.ȱDecisionȱ Mem.”);ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ16ȱ(incorporatingȱfindingsȱfromȱPrelim.ȱDecisionȱMem.).ȱ CommerceȱalsoȱfoundȱthatȱHuayiȱisȱ100%ȱownedȱbyȱtheȱShanghaiȱStateȬownedȱAssetsȱ SupervisionȱandȱAdministrationȱCommissionȱofȱtheȱStateȱCouncilȱ(“SASAC”)ȱandȱthatȱ SASACȱ“isȱaȱcentralȱgovernmentalȱbodyȱthatȱoverseesȱimportantȱstateȱassets.”ȱȱPrelim.ȱ DecisionȱMem.ȱatȱ10.ȱȱTheȱrecordȱalsoȱcontainsȱevidenceȱthatȱnoȱotherȱshareholderȱheldȱ moreȱthanȱaȱoneȱpercentȱownershipȱshare.ȱȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱtheȱ AntidumpingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱCertainȱNewȱPneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȱTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ RepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAnalysisȱofȱtheȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱMarginȱCalculationȱforȱDoubleȱCoinȱatȱ 11ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ30,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ264ȱ(citingȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱSectionȱAȱResponseȱatȱ 2–3ȱ(Jan.ȱ22,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ48,ȱ55).ȱ Commerceȱalsoȱreachedȱfindingsȱaddressingȱwhatȱitȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱtheȱeffectȱofȱ theȱlevelȱofȱgovernmentȱownershipȱinȱDoubleȱCoin.ȱȱCommerceȱfoundȱthatȱ“asȱHuayiȱisȱ theȱcontrollingȱshareholder,ȱitȱisȱtheȱentityȱcontrollingȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱboardȱandȱ management.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ15.ȱȱItȱalsoȱfoundȱthatȱ“DoubleȱCoin’sȱArticlesȱofȱ Associationȱdemonstrateȱthatȱaȱmajorityȱshareholder—andȱparticularlyȱoneȱwithȱaȱ65.66ȱ percentȱownership—hasȱnearȱcompleteȱcontrolȱoverȱanyȱshareholderȱdecisions,ȱ includingȱdecisionsȱwhichȱmayȱaffectȱtheȱmanagementȱandȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱcompany.”ȱȱ Id.ȱatȱ16.ȱȱCommerceȱfound,ȱinȱsummary,ȱthatȱ“thereȱisȱundeniableȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ8ȱ ȱ 100ȱpercentȱSASACȬownedȱmajorityȬownerȱofȱDoubleȱCoinȱexertsȱconsiderableȱ
influenceȱoverȱtheȱboardȱofȱdirectorsȱ(and,ȱthus,ȱtheȱmanagementȱandȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱ company),ȱandȱthatȱtheȱfactualȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱprovideȱsufficientȱinformationȱtoȱrebutȱ theȱpresumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ18.ȱ Inȱsupportȱofȱitsȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecord,ȱDoubleȱCoinȱ acknowledgesȱthatȱHuayiȱ“hasȱsignificantȱinfluenceȱinȱtheȱconstitutionȱofȱtheȱboard,ȱandȱ evenȱinȱtheȱselectionȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱmanagement”ȱbutȱarguesȱthatȱ“suchȱrightȱdoesȱ notȱautomaticallyȱresultȱinȱcontrolȱbyȱHuayiȱoverȱtheȱboardȱandȱmanagement.”ȱȱDoubleȱ Coin’sȱBr.ȱ36.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱarguesȱthatȱdespiteȱtheȱmajorityȱgovernmentȱownership,ȱitȱ retainedȱcontrolȱoverȱitsȱownȱbusinessȱactivities,ȱand,ȱinȱparticular,ȱitsȱexportȱactivities.ȱȱ Id.ȱatȱ10,ȱ39–50.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱitsȱU.S.ȱsubsidiary,ȱChinaȱManufacturersȱ Alliance,ȱsetȱpricesȱdirectlyȱwithȱU.S.ȱcustomers.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ44.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱalsoȱarguesȱthatȱ Commerce,ȱalthoughȱsayingȱitȱappliedȱaȱfourȬfactorȱtestȱtoȱmakeȱitsȱdetermination,ȱ departedȱfromȱitsȱestablishedȱpolicyȱbyȱregardingȱitsȱdecisionȱonȱtheȱthirdȱfactorȱasȱtheȱ controllingȱfactor,ȱwhichȱwasȱwhetherȱaȱrespondentȱhasȱautonomyȱfromȱtheȱ governmentȱinȱmakingȱdecisionsȱregardingȱtheȱselectionȱofȱmanagement.2ȱȱId.ȱatȱ13–15.ȱ
ȱ
2 ȱConcerningȱitsȱfourȬfactorȱtest,ȱCommerceȱexplained:ȱ ȱ Typically,ȱtheȱDepartmentȱconsidersȱfourȱfactorsȱinȱevaluatingȱwhetherȱ eachȱrespondentȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱdeȱfactoȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱitsȱexportȱ functions:ȱ(1)ȱwhetherȱtheȱexportȱpricesȱareȱsetȱbyȱorȱareȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱ approvalȱofȱaȱgovernmentȱagency;ȱ(2)ȱwhetherȱtheȱrespondentȱhasȱ (continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ9ȱ ȱ DoubleȱCoin’sȱremainingȱclaimȱturnsȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱtheȱlevelȱofȱdiscretionȱ
CommerceȱmayȱexerciseȱinȱdeterminingȱwhetherȱaȱmajorityȬgovernmentȬownedȱ respondentȱhasȱrebuttedȱitsȱpresumptionȱofȱdeȱfactoȱgovernmentȱcontrol.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱ concludesȱthatȱthisȱdiscretionȱisȱconsiderablyȱbroad.ȱ TheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱrepeatedlyȱhasȱaffirmedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱauthorityȱtoȱ applyȱaȱrebuttableȱpresumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol,ȱevenȱtoȱaȱcooperativeȱ mandatoryȱrespondent,ȱandȱtoȱapplyȱtoȱthatȱrespondentȱaȱrateȱselectedȱforȱtheȱ PRCȬwideȱentityȱifȱtheȱpresumptionȱisȱnotȱrebutted.ȱȱCMAȱIV,ȱ1ȱF.4thȱatȱ1039;ȱDiamondȱ SawbladesȱMfrs.ȱCoal.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ866ȱF.3dȱ1304ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2017).ȱȱCommerceȱhasȱnotȱ groundedȱitsȱexerciseȱofȱthatȱauthorityȱinȱaȱspecificȱprovisionȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱorȱ implementingȱregulations.ȱȱSeeȱJilinȱForestȱIndus.ȱJinqiaoȱFlooringȱGrp.ȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ No.ȱ23Ȭ14,ȱ2023ȱWLȱ1867677,ȱatȱ*9ȱ(Ct.ȱInt’lȱTradeȱFeb.ȱ9,ȱ2023).ȱȱThus,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ statutoryȱlanguage,ȱlegislativeȱhistory,ȱorȱregulatoryȱlanguageȱorȱpreambleȱtoȱguideȱaȱ courtȱwhenȱrulingȱonȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱtoȱapplyȱitsȱmethodology.ȱȱAccordingȱ
ȱ
(.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcontinued)ȱ
authorityȱtoȱnegotiateȱandȱsignȱcontractsȱandȱotherȱagreements;ȱ (3)ȱwhetherȱtheȱrespondentȱhasȱautonomyȱfromȱtheȱgovernmentȱinȱmakingȱ decisionsȱregardingȱtheȱselectionȱofȱmanagement;ȱandȱ(4)ȱwhetherȱtheȱ respondentȱretainsȱtheȱproceedsȱofȱitsȱexportȱsalesȱandȱmakesȱindependentȱ decisionsȱregardingȱdispositionȱofȱprofitsȱorȱfinancingȱofȱlosses.ȱ ȱ DecisionȱMem.ȱforȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱCertainȱ PneumaticȱOffȬtheȬRoadȬTiresȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱ2012Ȭ2013ȱatȱ8ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ Admin.ȱSept.ȱ30,ȱ2014),ȱP.R.ȱ259ȱ(citingȱtwoȱpreviousȱadministrativeȱdeterminations).ȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ10ȱ ȱ toȱthatȱmethodologyȱasȱappliedȱinȱtheȱFifthȱReview,ȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱ
controlȱoverȱexportȱfunctions,ȱasȱaȱgeneralȱmatter,ȱisȱnotȱrebuttedȱifȱaȱboardȱofȱdirectorsȱ underȱtheȱcontrolȱofȱaȱmajorityȱgovernmentȱshareholderȱhadȱtheȱauthorityȱandȱpotentialȱ toȱselectȱandȱoverseeȱcompanyȱmanagement.ȱ Untetheredȱbyȱstatutoryȱorȱregulatoryȱstandards,ȱCommerceȱwasȱfreeȱtoȱchangeȱ itsȱinterpretationȱandȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱfourȬfactorȱtestȱatȱanyȱtime,ȱsoȱlongȱasȱitȱ providedȱaȱreasonableȱexplanationȱforȱaȱdepartureȱfromȱpastȱpractice.ȱȱSee,ȱe.g.,ȱAtchison,ȱ T.ȱ&ȱS.ȱF.ȱRy.ȱCo.ȱv.ȱWichitaȱBd.ȱofȱTrade,ȱ412ȱU.S.ȱ800,ȱ808ȱ(1973);ȱAlleghenyȱLudlumȱCorp.ȱ v.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ346ȱF.3dȱ1368,ȱ1373ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2003)ȱ(citingȱAtchison,ȱ412ȱU.S.ȱatȱ808)ȱ (“Commerceȱisȱpermittedȱtoȱdeviateȱfromȱthisȱpastȱpractice,ȱatȱleastȱwhereȱitȱexplainsȱ theȱreasonȱforȱitsȱdeparture,”ȱwhereȱtheȱ“pastȱpractice”ȱwasȱ“notȱaȱburdenȱimposedȱbyȱ statuteȱorȱregulation”ȱbutȱwasȱmerelyȱ“aȱgeneralȱpracticeȱofȱCommerce.”).ȱȱForȱtheȱFinalȱ Results,ȱCommerceȱexplainedȱthatȱitȱrevisedȱitsȱpracticeȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱdecisionȱofȱ thisȱCourtȱinȱAdvancedȱTech.ȱ&ȱMaterialsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ36ȱCITȱ1576,ȱ1593,ȱ885ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ2dȱ1343,ȱ1359ȱ(2012),ȱaff’d,ȱ581ȱF.ȱApp’xȱ900ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2014)ȱ(reasoningȱthatȱ absentȱproofȱotherwise,ȱmanagementȱofȱaȱcompanyȱwithȱmajorityȱgovernmentȱ ownershipȱshouldȱbeȱpresumedȱ“toȱbeȱbeholdenȱtoȱtheȱboardȱthatȱcontrolsȱtheirȱ payȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”).ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ18ȱn.64.ȱȱAlthoughȱtheȱdecisionsȱofȱthisȱCourtȱandȱtheȱ CourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱtheȱAdvancedȱTech.ȱ&ȱMaterialsȱlitigationȱareȱnotȱprecedential,ȱ nothingȱprecludedȱCommerceȱfromȱbeingȱguidedȱbyȱthemȱinȱrevisingȱtheȱpracticeȱbyȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ11ȱ ȱ whichȱitȱappliesȱitsȱdeȱfactoȱtest.ȱȱForȱtheseȱreasons,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱnotȱpersuadedȱbyȱDoubleȱ
Coin’sȱargumentȱthatȱCommerceȱexceededȱitsȱdiscretionȱbyȱgivingȱcontrollingȱweightȱtoȱ itsȱthirdȱfactorȱonȱtheȱrecordȱfactsȱofȱtheȱreview.ȱ NorȱisȱtheȱcourtȱpersuadedȱbyȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱargumentȱthatȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱ didȱnotȱsupportȱaȱfindingȱthatȱHuayiȱactuallyȱcontrolledȱdayȬtoȬdayȱbusinessȱdecisionsȱ duringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreview,ȱincludingȱdecisionsȱonȱtheȱpricingȱofȱexports.ȱȱUnderȱitsȱ revisedȱdeȱfactoȱtest,ȱCommerceȱneedȱnotȱbaseȱitsȱdecisionȱentirelyȱonȱevidence,ȱorȱtheȱ lackȱthereof,ȱofȱdirectȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱtheȱdayȬtoȬdayȱgeneralȱbusinessȱ operations,ȱorȱtheȱexportȬrelatedȱoperationsȱinȱparticular,ȱofȱaȱmajorityȬgovernmentȬ ownedȱcorporation.ȱȱInstead,ȱCommerceȱmayȱconsiderȱwhetherȱthereȱisȱindirect,ȱorȱ potential,ȱcontrolȱofȱsuchȱdayȬtoȬdayȱoperationsȱbecauseȱofȱaȱgovernmentȬinfluencedȱ boardȱofȱdirectorsȱthatȱhasȱtheȱauthorityȱtoȱappointȱandȱoverseeȱaȱcompany’sȱ management.ȱȱThatȱisȱwhatȱCommerceȱdidȱforȱtheȱFinalȱResults.ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ16ȱ (emphasisȱadded)ȱ(findingȱ“nearȱcompleteȱcontrolȱoverȱanyȱshareholderȱdecisions,ȱ includingȱdecisionsȱwhichȱmayȱaffectȱtheȱmanagementȱandȱoperationsȱofȱtheȱ company.”).ȱ Moreover,ȱanȱagencyȱmayȱdrawȱreasonableȱinferencesȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱ consideredȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱȱSeAHȱSteelȱVINAȱCorp.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ950ȱF.3dȱ833,ȱ845ȱ(Fed.ȱ Cir.ȱ2020)ȱ(quotingȱMatsushitaȱElec.ȱIndus.ȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ750ȱF.2dȱ927,ȱ933ȱ (Fed.ȱCir.ȱ1984)ȱforȱtheȱprincipleȱthatȱ“substantialȱevidenceȱincludesȱ‘reasonableȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ12ȱ ȱ inferencesȱfromȱtheȱrecord’”).ȱȱUnderȱitsȱrevisedȱtest,ȱitȱsufficedȱthatȱHuayi,ȱaȱ
governmentȱentity,ȱwasȱtheȱmajorityȱshareholder,ȱthatȱnoȱotherȱshareholderȱhadȱmoreȱ thanȱaȱoneȱpercentȱshare,ȱand,ȱasȱDoubleȱCoinȱitselfȱacknowledges,ȱthatȱHuayiȱhadȱ significantȱinfluenceȱinȱtheȱconstitutionȱofȱtheȱboardȱandȱtheȱselectionȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱ management.ȱȱFromȱtheseȱfacts,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱinferredȱthatȱanȱentityȱofȱtheȱ Chineseȱgovernment,ȱamongȱallȱshareholders,ȱhadȱoutsizedȱinfluenceȱoverȱallȱbusinessȱ decisionsȱofȱDoubleȱCoin.ȱ DoubleȱCoinȱarguesȱthatȱdespiteȱHuayi’sȱsignificantȱinfluenceȱinȱtheȱconstitutionȱ ofȱtheȱboardȱandȱselectionȱofȱmanagement,ȱHuayiȱdidȱnotȱ“control”ȱtheȱboardȱandȱ managementȱbecauseȱtheȱboardȱmustȱactȱinȱtheȱbestȱinterestȱofȱDoubleȱCoin,ȱbecauseȱ minorityȱshareholdersȱmayȱbringȱsuitȱagainstȱboardȱmembersȱwhoȱfailȱsuchȱduty,ȱandȱ becauseȱofȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱ“independent”ȱboardȱmembers.ȱȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱBr.ȱ36.ȱȱ DoubleȱCoinȱexplainsȱthatȱindependentȱboardȱmembersȱareȱrequiredȱtoȱactȱwithoutȱtheȱ interferenceȱofȱtheȱprincipalȱshareholders,ȱorȱofȱpersonsȱinȱactualȱcontrolȱorȱholdingȱaȱ materialȱinterestȱin,ȱtheȱcompany.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ37ȱ(citingȱArticleȱ130ȱofȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱArticlesȱ ofȱAssociationȱ(“AoAs”),ȱP.R.ȱ192).ȱȱItȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱthreeȱofȱtheȱsevenȱdirectorsȱwereȱ independentȱdirectors.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ35ȱn.4.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱpointsȱtoȱsafeguardsȱsuchȱasȱ Articleȱ35ȱofȱtheȱAoAs,ȱwhichȱrecognizesȱtheȱrightȱofȱaȱminorityȱshareholderȱtoȱbringȱ suitȱagainstȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱboardȱorȱseniorȱmanagementȱwhoȱactsȱagainstȱtheȱinterestsȱ ofȱtheȱcompanyȱandȱtherebyȱbreachesȱapplicableȱlawȱorȱDoubleȱCoin’sȱAoAs.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ34.ȱȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ13ȱ ȱ DoubleȱCoinȱalsoȱmentionsȱtheȱrightȱofȱholdersȱofȱ10%ȱofȱsharesȱtoȱcallȱaȱshareholders’ȱ
meeting,ȱandȱofȱshareholdersȱofȱ3%ȱofȱsharesȱtoȱraiseȱaȱproposalȱatȱaȱshareholders’ȱ meeting,ȱaddingȱthatȱHuayi’sȱsharesȱwouldȱbeȱexcludedȱfromȱvotingȱinȱtheȱeventȱofȱaȱ conflictȱofȱinterestȱonȱaȱdecisionȱunderȱdebate.ȱȱId.ȱ DoubleȱCoin’sȱargumentsȱareȱunconvincingȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱbasedȱonȱaȱ presumptionȱthatȱtheȱeffectȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱisȱmanifestedȱonlyȱwhenȱthereȱisȱ conflictȱorȱ“interference”ȱbetweenȱtheȱgovernmentalȱandȱcommercialȱinterestsȱofȱaȱ company.ȱȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailsȱtoȱexplainȱwhyȱCommerce,ȱwhenȱexaminingȱtheȱeffectȱofȱ governmentȱownershipȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱcompany’sȱgoverningȱstructure,ȱwasȱrequiredȱ toȱconstrueȱtheȱinfluenceȱandȱeffectȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱsoȱnarrowly.ȱȱImplicitȱinȱtheȱ Department’sȱinquiryȱunderȱitsȱrevisedȱfourȬfactorȱtestȱisȱthatȱaȱgovernmentȬcontrolledȱ businessȱenterpriseȱdiffersȱfundamentallyȱfromȱoneȱthatȱisȱfreeȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱ withȱrespectȱtoȱitsȱexportȱfunctions.ȱȱBecauseȱofȱtheȱbreadthȱofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ discretionȱinȱimplementingȱitsȱtestȱforȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱexportȱfunctions,ȱtheȱcourtȱ hasȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱCommerceȱmayȱnotȱdoȱso.ȱȱInȱitsȱnarrowȱfocusȱonȱ “conflict”ȱorȱ“interference”ȱwithȱcommercialȱinterests,ȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailsȱtoȱrecognizeȱ thatȱaȱgovernmentȬcontrolledȱcompanyȱmayȱhave,ȱforȱexample,ȱcommercialȱadvantages,ȱ asȱwellȱasȱcommercialȱdisadvantages,ȱcomparedȱtoȱcompaniesȱthatȱareȱindependentȱofȱ suchȱcontrol.ȱȱOnȱtheȱevidentiaryȱrecordȱofȱtheȱFifthȱReview,ȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱ couldȱconcludeȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱindependenceȱfromȱaspectsȱofȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ14ȱ ȱ governmentȱcontrolȱoverȱitsȱbusinessȱoperationsȱinȱgeneral.ȱȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱ
couldȱinferȱthatȱthisȱlevelȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱwasȱinconsistentȱwithȱtheȱindependentȱ exerciseȱofȱdecisionȬmakingȱoverȱexportȱfunctions.ȱ III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱANDȱORDERȱ CommerceȱcenteredȱitsȱinquiryȱonȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱaȱgovernmentȬcontrolledȱ majorityȱshareholderȱonȱtheȱselectionȱandȱsupervisionȱofȱmanagement.ȱȱThatȱinquiryȱisȱ notȱnecessarilyȱconfinedȱtoȱaȱconsiderationȱofȱevidenceȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱoverȱ management’sȱdayȬtoȬdayȱbusinessȱdecisions.ȱȱInȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱaȱstatuteȱorȱregulationȱ thatȱdefinesȱorȱotherwiseȱgovernsȱthisȱinquiry,ȱtheȱcourtȱlacksȱaȱbasisȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱ Commerceȱactedȱcontraryȱtoȱlawȱinȱexercisingȱitsȱbroadȱdiscretionȱinȱthisȱway.ȱ Theȱcourtȱconcludes,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱasȱaȱwholeȱsupportedȱtheȱ Department’sȱfindings,ȱandȱreasonableȱinferences,ȱwhichȱinȱtheȱaggregateȱshowedȱthatȱ DoubleȱCoinȱfailedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱthatȱitȱwasȱfreeȱofȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱHuayiȱonȱitsȱboardȱ and,ȱindirectly,ȱonȱitsȱmanagement.ȱȱWhileȱDoubleȱCoinȱputȱforthȱcertainȱevidenceȱofȱ independenceȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrol,ȱincluding,ȱinȱparticular,ȱtheȱabilityȱofȱitsȱU.S.ȱ affiliateȱtoȱsetȱpricesȱofȱsubjectȱmerchandise,ȱitȱdidȱnotȱshowȱthatȱitȱwasȱfreeȱfromȱallȱ materialȱaspectsȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱthatȱemanatedȱfromȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱboardȱ toȱselectȱandȱoverseeȱtheȱcompany’sȱmanagementȱpersonnel.ȱȱTherefore,ȱtheȱcourtȱ sustainsȱasȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱtheȱdeterminationȱthatȱDoubleȱ
ȱ
Consol.ȱCourtȱNo.ȱ15Ȭ00124ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ15ȱ ȱ Coinȱfailedȱtoȱrebutȱtheȱpresumptionȱofȱcontrolȱofȱexportȱfunctions,ȱwhenȱviewedȱ
accordingȱtoȱtheȱmethodologyȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱappliedȱinȱtheȱreview.ȱ Finally,ȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱhavingȱfoundȱthatȱDoubleȱCoinȱdidȱnotȱrebutȱitsȱ presumptionȱofȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱofȱitsȱexportȱfunctions,ȱandȱthereȱbeingȱnoȱotherȱ issuesȱtoȱbeȱdecidedȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱbyȱeitherȱCommerceȱorȱtheȱcourt,ȱCommerceȱmustȱ issueȱaȱnewȱdeterminationȱuponȱremand.ȱȱThatȱdeterminationȱmustȱeffectuateȱtheȱ mandateȱofȱtheȱCourtȱofȱAppealsȱinȱCMAȱIVȱbyȱassigningȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱPRCȬwideȱ rateȱofȱ105.31%,ȱwhichȱwillȱallowȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱenterȱjudgmentȱconcludingȱthisȱlitigation.ȱ Therefore,ȱuponȱconsiderationȱofȱallȱpapersȱandȱproceedingsȱhadȱherein,ȱandȱ uponȱdueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱherebyȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱPlaintiffs’ȱRuleȱ56.2ȱMotionȱforȱJudgmentȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱRecordȱ (Dec.ȱ6,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ260ȱ(Conf.),ȱ261ȱ(Public)ȱbe,ȱandȱherebyȱis,ȱdenied;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ ȱ ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱissueȱaȱnewȱdeterminationȱuponȱremandȱthatȱ assignsȱtoȱDoubleȱCoinȱtheȱPRCȬwideȱrateȱofȱ105.31%;ȱandȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ ȱ ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱissueȱtheȱrequiredȱredeterminationȱwithinȱ 30ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱissuanceȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder.ȱ ȱ ȱ /s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ Dated:ȱMayȱ16,ȱ2023ȱ ȱ ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ
ȱ