SlipȱOp.ȱ24Ȭ43ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ YAMAȱRIBBONSȱANDȱBOWSȱCO.,ȱLTD.,ȱ Plaintiff,ȱ
v.ȱ
UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ Before:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ Defendant,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ andȱ
BERWICKȱOFFRAYȱLLC,ȱ DefendantȬIntervenor.ȱ
OPINIONȱANDȱORDERȱ
[Remandingȱaȱredeterminationȱinȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱproceedingȱonȱnarrowȱ wovenȱribbonsȱwithȱwovenȱselvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina]ȱ
Dated:ȱAprilȱ10,ȱ2024ȱ
BrittneyȱR.ȱPowell,ȱFoxȱRothschildȱLLP,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱplaintiffȱYamaȱ RibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱwereȱLizbethȱR.ȱLevinsonȱandȱRonaldȱ M. Wisla.
KaraȱM.ȱWestercamp,ȱTrialȱAttorney,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱ theȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱAssistantȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱandȱ PatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱRachelȱA.ȱBogdan,ȱAttorney,ȱ OfficeȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ Commerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ2ȱ ȱ DanielȱB.ȱPickard,ȱBuchananȱIngersollȱandȱRooneyȱPC,ȱofȱWashingtonȱD.C.,ȱforȱ defendantȬintervenorȱBerwickȱOffrayȱLLC.ȱȱȱ ȱ Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱPlaintiffȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBows,ȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱ(“Yama”)ȱcontestedȱaȱ
determinationȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ Commerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱinȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ(“CVD”)ȱ proceeding.ȱȱTheȱcontestedȱdecisionȱconcludedȱtheȱseventhȱperiodicȱadministrativeȱ reviewȱ(“seventhȱreview”)ȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱnarrowȱwovenȱribbonsȱ withȱwovenȱselvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(“China”ȱorȱtheȱ“PRC”).ȱ BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“RemandȱRedetermination,”ȱissuedȱinȱ responseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ 46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1394ȱ(2022)ȱ(“YamaȱI”).ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ PursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ15,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ48ȱ(“Remandȱ Redetermination”).ȱȱYamaȱopposesȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱBecauseȱaȱfindingȱinȱ theȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱisȱnotȱsupportedȱbyȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱ ofȱtheȱseventhȱreview,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandsȱthisȱdecisionȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱreconsiderationȱ andȱcorrectiveȱaction,ȱasȱappropriate.ȱ I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ
Backgroundȱforȱthisȱcaseȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpriorȱopinionȱandȱisȱ supplementedȱherein.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1396—98.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ3ȱ ȱ A.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱDeterminationȱ
Commerceȱpublishedȱtheȱdeterminationȱcontestedȱinȱthisȱlitigationȱ(theȱ“Finalȱ Results”)ȱasȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱ China:ȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview;ȱ2017ȱ85ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ10,653ȱ (Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ25,ȱ2020),ȱ(“FinalȱResults”).ȱȱCommerceȱincorporatedȱbyȱ referenceȱanȱexplanatoryȱdocument,ȱtheȱ“FinalȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱ IssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱ2017ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ AdministrativeȱReview:ȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱ RepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱFeb.ȱ19,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ171ȱ(“FinalȱI&DȱMem.”).1ȱȱ Theȱseventhȱreviewȱofȱtheȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱpertainedȱtoȱentriesȱmadeȱduringȱaȱ periodȱofȱreviewȱ(“POR”)ȱofȱJanuaryȱ1,ȱ2017ȱthroughȱDecemberȱ31,ȱ2017.2ȱ
ȱ
1 ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(Mar.ȱ26,ȱ2021),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ38ȱ(conf.),ȱ39ȱ (public)ȱareȱcitedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱrecordȱdocumentsȱareȱtoȱtheȱ publicȱversions.ȱ ȱ 2ȱTheȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱwasȱissuedȱinȱ2010.ȱȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱWithȱ
WovenȱSelvedgeȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ 75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ53,642ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱȱSubjectȱmerchandiseȱisȱdefinedȱ generallyȱinȱtheȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱasȱwovenȱribbonsȱtwelveȱcentimetersȱorȱlessȱ inȱwidth,ȱandȱofȱanyȱlength,ȱthatȱareȱcomposedȱinȱwholeȱorȱinȱpartȱofȱmanȬmadeȱfibersȱ andȱthatȱhaveȱwovenȱselvedge;ȱsomeȱexclusionsȱapply.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ53,642–43.ȱȱTheȱtermȱ “selvedge”ȱrefersȱtoȱ“theȱedgeȱonȱeitherȱsideȱofȱaȱwovenȱorȱflatȬknittedȱfabricȱsoȱfinishedȱ asȱtoȱpreventȱraveling.”ȱȱSelvageȱorȱselvedge,ȱWEBSTER’SȱTHIRDȱNEWȱINTERNATIONALȱ DICTIONARYȱUNABRIDGEDȱ(2002).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ4ȱ ȱ InȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱthatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱ23ȱ
countervailableȱChineseȱgovernmentȱprogramsȱandȱassignedȱYamaȱaȱtotalȱ countervailableȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ31.87%.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1397;ȱ FinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ3–5.ȱ B.ȱȱYama’sȱClaimsȱinȱthisȱLitigationȱ InȱaȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecordȱbroughtȱunderȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2,ȱ YamaȱchallengedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionsȱtoȱcountervailȱthreeȱofȱtheȱ23ȱprogramsȱ andȱtheȱassociatedȱcountervailingȱdutyȱsubsidyȱrates:ȱ“aȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱforȱtheȱExportȱ Buyer’sȱCreditȱProgramȱ(“EBCP”ȱorȱ“EBCȱProgram”),ȱwhichȱisȱanȱexportȬpromotingȱ loanȱprogramȱadministeredȱbyȱtheȱExportȱImportȱBankȱofȱChina;ȱaȱrateȱofȱ17.76%ȱforȱtheȱ provisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱforȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱremunerationȱ(“LTAR”);ȱandȱaȱrateȱofȱ 0.17%ȱforȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱcausticȱsodaȱforȱLTAR.”ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ atȱ1398.ȱȱForȱtheȱderivationȱofȱallȱthreeȱofȱthoseȱsubsidyȱrates,ȱCommerceȱinvokedȱitsȱ authorityȱtoȱuseȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱunderȱsectionȱ776(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱActȱofȱ 1930,ȱasȱamendedȱ(“TariffȱAct”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a),ȱandȱ“adverseȱinferences”ȱunderȱ sectionȱ776(b)ȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b).3ȱȱWhenȱrelyingȱonȱbothȱtheȱ“factsȱ otherwiseȱavailable”ȱandȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱprovisionsȱofȱtheȱstatute,ȱCommerceȱusesȱ theȱtermȱ“adverseȱfactsȱavailable”ȱorȱ“AFA.”ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ atȱ1399;ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ2.ȱ
ȱ
3 ȱCitationsȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ5ȱ ȱ InȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱbasedȱitsȱuseȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱonȱ
findingsȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱtheȱPRCȱwithheldȱrequestedȱinformation;ȱitȱfound,ȱ further,ȱthatȱadverseȱinferencesȱwereȱwarrantedȱbecauseȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱfailedȱ toȱcooperateȱbyȱnotȱactingȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ informationȱrequests.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1399—1400,ȱ1404.ȱȱ CommerceȱdidȱnotȱfindȱthatȱYamaȱitselfȱwithheldȱanyȱinformationȱorȱfailedȱtoȱcooperateȱ toȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱquestionnaires.ȱ C.ȱȱTheȱCourt’sȱOpinionȱinȱYamaȱIȱ InȱresponseȱtoȱYama’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotion,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱtoȱ Commerceȱwithȱdirectionsȱtoȱreconsiderȱtheȱ10.54%ȱrateȱappliedȱasȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ forȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱProgram.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1405.ȱȱ TheȱcourtȱdeniedȱreliefȱonȱYama’sȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱinȱallȱotherȱrespects.ȱ D.ȱȱTheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱCommentȱSubmissionsȱ InȱresponseȱtoȱYamaȱI,ȱCommerceȱreconsideredȱtheȱ10.54%ȱrateȱitȱassignedȱforȱtheȱ EBCP.ȱȱCommerceȱagainȱassignedȱthisȱrateȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱandȱ includedȱanȱexplanationȱofȱitsȱrevisedȱreasoning.ȱȱYamaȱopposedȱtheȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱinȱaȱcommentȱsubmissionȱtoȱtheȱcourt.ȱȱPl.’sȱCommentsȱinȱOppositionȱ toȱtheȱResultsȱofȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Mar.ȱ17,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ50ȱ(“Yama’sȱ Comments”).ȱȱDefendantȬintervenorȱdidȱnotȱcomment.ȱȱDefendantȱrepliedȱtoȱYama’sȱ opposition,ȱadvocatingȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱsustainȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDef.’sȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ6ȱ ȱ ResponseȱtoȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Apr.ȱ1,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ51ȱ(“Def.’sȱ
Resp.”).ȱ II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ
A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ ȱ Theȱcourtȱexercisesȱjurisdictionȱaccordingȱtoȱsectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱCourtsȱ
Actȱofȱ1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱwhichȱgrantsȱthisȱCourtȱauthorityȱtoȱreviewȱactionsȱ commencedȱunderȱsectionȱ516AȱofȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a,ȱincludingȱactionsȱ contestingȱaȱfinalȱdeterminationȱthatȱCommerceȱissuesȱtoȱconcludeȱanȱadministrativeȱ reviewȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorder.ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii).ȱ Inȱreviewingȱaȱfinalȱdetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱ“shallȱholdȱunlawfulȱanyȱ determination,ȱfinding,ȱorȱconclusionȱfoundȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtoȱbeȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ evidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱorȱotherwiseȱnotȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱlaw.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1516a(b)(1).ȱȱ Substantialȱevidenceȱrefersȱtoȱ“suchȱrelevantȱevidenceȱasȱaȱreasonableȱmindȱmightȱ acceptȱasȱadequateȱtoȱsupportȱaȱconclusion.”ȱȱSKFȱUSA,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ537ȱF.3dȱ 1373,ȱ1378ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2008)ȱ(quotingȱConsol.ȱEdisonȱCo.ȱv.ȱNLRB,ȱ305ȱU.S.ȱ197,ȱ229ȱ(1938)).ȱ B.ȱȱPriorȱProceedingsȱ
WithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱEBCP,ȱYamaȱclaimedȱinȱitsȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱthatȱ“Commerceȱ shouldȱnotȱhaveȱimposedȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱuponȱYama’sȱexportsȱforȱtheȱEBCP”ȱasȱ theȱrecordȱevidenceȱdemonstratedȱthatȱ“neitherȱYamaȱnorȱitsȱcustomersȱusedȱthisȱ program.”ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1400ȱ(quotingȱMem.ȱofȱP.ȱ&ȱA.ȱinȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ7ȱ ȱ Supp.ȱofȱPl.’sȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱonȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ24–25ȱ(Oct.ȱ28,ȱ2020),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ29Ȭ2ȱ
(“Pl.’sȱBr.”)).ȱȱ“Inȱtheȱalternative,ȱYamaȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱ10.54%ȱsubsidyȱrateȱthatȱ Commerceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱattributedȱtoȱtheȱprogramȱwasȱ‘extremelyȱadverse,ȱpunitiveȱandȱnotȱ relatedȱtoȱexportsȱorȱthisȱindustry,ȱorȱconnectedȱtoȱtheȱEBC.’”ȱȱId.ȱ ConcerningȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱforȱLTAR,ȱYamaȱ arguedȱthatȱCommerceȱimproperlyȱdetermined,ȱthroughȱtheȱuseȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱ availableȱandȱadverseȱinferences,ȱthatȱ“eachȱofȱtheȱprivateȱcompaniesȱwhichȱsuppliedȱ Yamaȱwithȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱisȱanȱ‘authority,’”ȱi.e.,ȱaȱgovernmentȱorȱ publicȱentityȱfromȱwhichȱaȱcountervailableȱsubsidyȱmayȱoriginate,ȱasȱprovidedȱinȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)(B).ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1404ȱ(quotingȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ9).ȱ InȱYamaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱdeterminedȱthatȱ“Commerceȱactedȱlawfullyȱinȱdecidingȱthatȱ theȱrecordȱbeforeȱit,ȱbasedȱonȱactualȱevidenceȱandȱpermissibleȱadverseȱinferences,ȱ allowedȱYamaȱtoȱbenefitȱfromȱ‘programs’ȱallowingȱitȱtoȱobtainȱtheȱinputsȱ[syntheticȱ yarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda]ȱforȱLTAR.”ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1405ȱ(citationȱ omitted).ȱȱȱ OnȱtheȱEBCP,ȱYamaȱIȱheldȱthatȱ“Commerceȱwasȱwithinȱitsȱauthorityȱinȱusingȱanȱ adverseȱinferenceȱthatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱtheȱEBCP”ȱduringȱtheȱPOR.ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱ atȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1401.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱbasedȱitsȱconclusionȱonȱtheȱfailureȱofȱtheȱ ChineseȱgovernmentȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱaȱrequestȱfromȱCommerceȱthatȱwasȱspecificȱtoȱtheȱ POR,ȱi.e.,ȱcalendarȱyearȱ2017,ȱandȱwasȱwordedȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Ifȱyouȱclaimȱthatȱnoȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ8ȱ ȱ customerȱofȱtheȱrespondentȱcompaniesȱusedȱbuyerȱcredits,ȱpleaseȱexplainȱinȱdetailȱtheȱ
stepsȱtheȱgovernmentȱtookȱtoȱdetermineȱthatȱnoȱcustomerȱusedȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCredits.”ȱȱ Id.ȱ(quotingȱ2017ȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱtheȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrderȱonȱNarrowȱWovenȱ RibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ QuestionnaireȱatȱIIȬ13ȱ(Nov.ȱ26,ȱ2018),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ4).ȱȱCommerceȱusedȱadverseȱinferencesȱ regardingȱtheȱEBCPȱbecauseȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱ(theȱ“GOC”),ȱmakingȱnoȱ meaningfulȱattemptȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinformationȱrequest,ȱdidȱnotȱ provideȱanyȱanswersȱspecificȱtoȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreviewȱandȱprovidedȱtheȱsameȱ questionnaireȱresponseȱitȱhadȱprovidedȱCommerceȱinȱtheȱpriorȱreview.ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱ NarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱGOCȱ Responseȱ(Feb.ȱ19,ȱ2019),ȱP.R.ȱDocs.ȱ21,ȱ23).ȱ TheȱcourtȱconcludedȱinȱYamaȱIȱthatȱ“Commerceȱmustȱbeȱaffordedȱdiscretionȱtoȱ determineȱtheȱscopeȱofȱitsȱinquiryȱinȱconductingȱreviewsȱofȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorders,ȱ soȱlongȱasȱitȱdoesȱsoȱreasonably”ȱandȱthatȱ“[h]ere,ȱitȱwasȱreasonableȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱ requestȱinformationȱfromȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱtoȱsupplementȱandȱcorroborateȱtheȱ informationȱYamaȱprovidedȱtoȱshowȱthatȱneitherȱYamaȱnorȱitsȱU.S.ȱcustomersȱusedȱtheȱ EBCP.”ȱȱId.ȱȱ“ButȱbecauseȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱmadeȱnoȱeffortȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱ requestedȱinformationȱasȱitȱrelatedȱspecificallyȱtoȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreview,ȱCommerceȱwasȱ withinȱitsȱauthorityȱinȱusingȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱthatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱtheȱEBCPȱ duringȱthatȱperiod.”ȱȱId.ȱȱTheȱPORȬspecificȱinformationȱCommerceȱrequestedȱfromȱtheȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ9ȱ ȱ Chineseȱgovernmentȱ“wasȱmissingȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱdueȱtoȱtheȱfailureȱofȱtheȱChineseȱ
governmentȱtoȱmakeȱevenȱaȱminimalȱeffortȱtoȱassistȱCommerceȱinȱconfirmingȱthatȱYamaȱ receivedȱnoȱbenefitȱfromȱtheȱEBCPȱduringȱthatȱyear.”ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ atȱ1402.ȱȱUponȱprovidingȱCommerceȱonlyȱitsȱanswerȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱquestionnaireȱ inȱtheȱpriorȱreview,ȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱinformedȱCommerceȱthatȱitȱwouldȱnotȱ submitȱanyȱfurtherȱresponsesȱinȱtheȱproceeding.ȱȱId.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ atȱ1400.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱrecognizedȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱcontainedȱinformationȱtoȱsupportȱaȱ findingȱthatȱneitherȱYamaȱnorȱitsȱcustomersȱusedȱtheȱEBCPȱduringȱtheȱPORȱbutȱ reasonedȱthatȱ“Commerceȱwasȱnotȱrequiredȱtoȱconsiderȱthatȱinformationȱdeterminativeȱ inȱtheȱparticularȱsituationȱthisȱcaseȱpresents.”4ȱȱId.ȱȱ“Itȱwasȱreasonableȱinȱthatȱsituationȱ forȱCommerceȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱPORȬspecificȱinformationȱitȱsoughtȱfromȱtheȱGOC—noneȱ ofȱwhichȱitȱobtained—toȱbeȱessentialȱtoȱitsȱinquiry.”ȱȱId.ȱ AlthoughȱconcludingȱthatȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱcouldȱuseȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ thatȱYamaȱbenefittedȱfromȱtheȱEBCP,ȱtheȱcourtȱinȱYamaȱIȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱtoȱ CommerceȱuponȱconcludingȱthatȱCommerce,ȱinȱselectingȱtheȱ10.54%ȱsubsidyȱrateȱforȱtheȱ EBCPȱasȱthatȱadverseȱinference,ȱhadȱreliedȱuponȱaȱfindingȱunsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱ evidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱTheȱfindingȱatȱissueȱwasȱthatȱaȱChineseȱgovernmentȱprogramȱ
ȱ
4ȱYamaȱtoldȱtheȱagencyȱthatȱitȱdidȱnotȱuseȱtheȱExportȱBuyersȱCreditȱProgramȱ
duringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱreviewȱandȱwasȱinformedȱbyȱitsȱcustomersȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱnotȱusedȱ theȱprogramȱeither.ȱȱYamaȱprovidedȱcertificationsȱofȱnonȬuseȱfromȱonlyȱsomeȱofȱitsȱ customers.ȱȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1394,ȱ 1401ȱ(2022).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ10ȱ ȱ forȱpreferentialȱlendingȱtoȱtheȱcoatedȱpaperȱindustry,ȱforȱwhichȱCommerceȱhadȱ
determinedȱaȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱinȱanotherȱcountervailingȱdutyȱproceeding,ȱwasȱ availableȱtoȱtheȱwovenȱribbonsȱindustry,ȱofȱwhichȱYamaȱwasȱaȱpart.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdirectedȱ asȱfollows:ȱ
Onȱremand,ȱCommerceȱmustȱreconsider,ȱinȱtheȱentirety,ȱitsȱuseȱofȱ theȱ10.54%ȱrateȱasȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱandȱexplainȱwhyȱwhateverȱrateȱitȱ decidesȱtoȱuseȱisȱappropriateȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b)ȱandȱisȱconsistentȱ withȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱthatȱstatute,ȱwhich,ȱratherȱthanȱtoȱimposeȱaȱrateȱthatȱisȱ “punitive,”ȱisȱtoȱencourageȱinterestedȱpartiesȱtoȱactȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱtheirȱ abilityȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱtheȱagency’sȱinformationȱrequests.ȱȱCommerceȱ mustȱexplain,ȱspecifically,ȱwhyȱitȱconsidersȱtheȱrateȱitȱchoosesȱtoȱbeȱ appropriateȱforȱthatȱpurposeȱinȱtheȱspecialȱcaseȱpresentedȱhere,ȱinȱwhichȱ anȱunreasonablyȱhighȱrateȱcouldȱundulyȱprejudiceȱYama,ȱasȱtheȱ “interestedȱparty”ȱthatȱwasȱfullyȱcooperativeȱduringȱtheȱreview.ȱ ȱ Id.,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403.ȱ
C.ȱȱTheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ ȱ TheȱissueȱremainingȱtoȱbeȱdecidedȱisȱwhetherȱCommerceȱactedȱlawfullyȱinȱagainȱ
assigningȱYama,ȱusingȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinference,ȱaȱ countervailableȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱforȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱThisȱrequiresȱtheȱcourtȱtoȱ determineȱwhetherȱtheȱassignmentȱofȱthisȱrateȱcompliesȱwithȱtheȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱ provisionsȱinȱtheȱTariffȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱand,ȱspecifically,ȱwhetherȱtheȱfindingsȱ Commerceȱmadeȱtoȱsupportȱitsȱconclusionȱunderȱthoseȱprovisionsȱareȱsupportedȱbyȱ substantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱofȱtheȱseventhȱreview.ȱ InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱdescribedȱaȱmethodologyȱforȱ choosingȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱrateȱthatȱdifferedȱfromȱtheȱoneȱitȱappliedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ11ȱ ȱ Results.ȱȱForȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱexplainedȱthatȱ“[c]onsistentȱwithȱsectionȱ
776(d)ȱofȱtheȱActȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)]ȱandȱourȱestablishedȱpractice,ȱweȱselectȱtheȱ highestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱtheȱsameȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱasȱAFA”ȱandȱdescribedȱaȱ “threeȬstep”ȱmethodologyȱforȱselectingȱthatȱrate.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ atȱ1402—03ȱ(citationsȱandȱfootnotesȱomitted).ȱ Asȱtheȱfirstȱstepȱinȱitsȱmethodology,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱ“[w]henȱselectingȱ ratesȱinȱanȱadministrativeȱreview,ȱweȱfirstȱdetermineȱifȱthereȱisȱanȱidenticalȱprogramȱ fromȱanyȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱproceedingȱandȱuseȱtheȱhighestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱtheȱidenticalȱ programȱ(excludingȱdeȱminimisȱrates).”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1402.ȱȱWhere,ȱasȱhere,ȱthereȱwasȱnoȱsuchȱ identicalȱprogram,ȱCommerceȱdescribedȱasȱitsȱsecondȱstepȱthatȱitȱwouldȱ“determineȱifȱ thereȱisȱaȱsimilar/comparableȱprogramȱ(basedȱonȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱbenefit)ȱwithinȱtheȱ sameȱproceedingȱandȱapplyȱtheȱhighestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱtheȱsimilar/comparableȱ program,ȱexcludingȱdeȱminimisȱrates.”ȱȱId.ȱȱThereȱhavingȱbeenȱnoȱsimilarȱorȱcomparableȱ programȱ“withinȱtheȱsameȱproceeding,”ȱCommerceȱproceededȱtoȱitsȱthirdȱstep,ȱstatingȱ thatȱ“weȱapplyȱtheȱhighestȱcalculatedȱrateȱfromȱanyȱnonȬcompanyȱspecificȱprogramȱinȱ anyȱCVDȱcaseȱinvolvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry,ȱbutȱweȱdoȱnotȱuseȱaȱrateȱfromȱaȱprogramȱifȱtheȱ industryȱinȱtheȱproceedingȱcannotȱuseȱthatȱprogram.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ1402—1403ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱ Commerceȱexplainedȱthatȱtheȱ10.54%ȱrateȱitȱchoseȱwasȱdeterminedȱinȱ“CoatedȱPaperȱfromȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ12ȱ ȱ China”ȱforȱtheȱ“PreferentialȱLendingȱtoȱtheȱCoatedȱPaperȱIndustryȱprogram.”5ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ
46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403ȱ(citingȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱPreliminaryȱResultsȱ ofȱ2017ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱ SelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱatȱ11ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱAug.ȱ5,ȱ2019),ȱP.R.ȱ Doc.ȱ110).ȱ BasedȱonȱtheȱDepartment’sȱownȱdescriptionȱofȱitsȱAFAȱrateȱselectionȱ methodology,ȱYamaȱarguedȱinȱitsȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱthatȱCommerceȱfailedȱtoȱ demonstrateȱthatȱaȱloanȱprogramȱforȱtheȱcoatedȱpaperȱindustryȱwasȱavailableȱtoȱtheȱ wovenȱribbonsȱindustry,ȱandȱtheȱcourtȱagreedȱwithȱthisȱargument.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ 611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403.ȱ InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱitȱ“reconsideredȱourȱ selectionȱofȱtheȱ10.54ȱpercentȱsubsidyȱrate,”ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ3,ȱandȱconcludedȱ againȱ“thatȱtheȱ10.54ȱpercentȱAFAȱrateȱisȱappropriate.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱȱCommerceȱexplainedȱ thatȱitȱhadȱ“incorrectlyȱdescribedȱtheȱstepsȱofȱCommerce’sȱCVDȱAFAȱhierarchy”ȱinȱtheȱ FinalȱResultsȱ“asȱhavingȱthreeȱsteps.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱ“However,ȱ
ȱ
5 ȱ“CoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChina”ȱisȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱseparate,ȱpriorȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ proceeding.ȱȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ46ȱCITȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1394,ȱ 1403ȱ(2022)ȱ(citingȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱforȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱ SheetȬFedȱPressesȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAmendedȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱ CountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ70,201ȱ (Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ17,ȱ2010)ȱ(amendingȱanȱearlierȱdeterminationȱforȱministerialȱ errors,ȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱforȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheetȬFedȱPressesȱ FromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFinalȱCountervailingȱDutyȱDetermination,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ 59,212ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ27,ȱ2010)).ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ13ȱ ȱ Commerce’sȱCVDȱAFAȱhierarchyȱisȱmoreȱaccuratelyȱdescribedȱasȱhavingȱfourȱsteps.”ȱȱ
Id.ȱ(footnoteȱomitted).ȱȱTheȱfourȬstepȱ“hierarchy”ȱitȱdescribedȱwasȱasȱfollows:ȱ
UnderȱtheȱfirstȱstepȱofȱCommerce’sȱCVDȱAFAȱhierarchyȱforȱ administrativeȱreviews,ȱCommerceȱappliesȱtheȱhighestȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱ rateȱcalculatedȱforȱtheȱidenticalȱprogramȱinȱanyȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱsameȱ proceeding.ȱȱIfȱthereȱisȱnoȱidenticalȱprogramȱmatchȱwithinȱtheȱsameȱ proceeding,ȱorȱifȱtheȱrateȱisȱdeȱminimis,ȱunderȱstepȱtwoȱofȱtheȱhierarchy,ȱ CommerceȱappliesȱtheȱhighestȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱcalculatedȱforȱaȱsimilarȱ programȱwithinȱanyȱsegmentȱofȱtheȱsameȱproceeding.ȱȱIfȱthereȱisȱnoȱnonȬdeȱ minimisȱrateȱcalculatedȱforȱaȱsimilarȱprogramȱwithinȱtheȱsameȱproceeding,ȱunderȱ stepȱthreeȱofȱtheȱhierarchy,ȱCommerceȱappliesȱtheȱhighestȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱ calculatedȱforȱanȱidenticalȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱinȱanotherȱCVDȱproceedingȱ involvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry.ȱȱFinally,ȱifȱthereȱisȱnoȱnonȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱ calculatedȱforȱanȱidenticalȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱinȱanotherȱCVDȱproceedingȱ involvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry,ȱunderȱstepȱfour,ȱCommerceȱappliesȱtheȱ highestȱcalculatedȱrateȱforȱanyȱprogramȱfromȱtheȱsameȱcountryȱthatȱtheȱ industryȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱreviewȱcouldȱhaveȱused.ȱ ȱ Id.ȱatȱ3—4ȱ(emphasisȱsupplied).ȱȱCommerceȱexplained,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱasȱ“weȱhadȱnotȱ
previouslyȱcalculatedȱanȱaboveȬdeȱminimisȱrateȱforȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱprogramȱinȱ thisȱproceeding,”ȱitȱcouldȱnotȱuseȱstepȱoneȱofȱitsȱmethodology,ȱandȱasȱ“weȱfoundȱnoȱ similar/comparableȱprogramȱwithinȱthisȱproceedingȱwithoutȱaȱdeȱminimisȱrate,”ȱitȱ couldȱnotȱuseȱstepȱtwo.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ4.ȱȱCommerceȱinsteadȱreliedȱonȱstepȱthreeȱofȱitsȱrestatedȱ hierarchyȱtoȱdetermineȱanȱAFAȱrateȱforȱtheȱEBCPȱbasedȱonȱitsȱfindingsȱinȱtheȱpriorȱCVDȱ proceedingȱpertainingȱtoȱaȱprogramȱforȱpreferentialȱlendingȱtoȱtheȱChineseȱcoatedȱpaperȱ industry.ȱȱId.ȱ InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱreasonedȱthatȱ“onlyȱtheȱfourthȱstep”ȱ ofȱtheȱDepartment’sȱAFAȱmethodologyȱ“requiresȱthatȱCommerceȱuseȱaȱprogramȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ14ȱ ȱ availableȱtoȱtheȱindustryȱinȱtheȱproceeding.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ5.ȱȱBecauseȱCommerceȱreliedȱonȱtheȱ
thirdȱstepȱofȱtheȱmethodologyȱitȱdescribedȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱitȱ“hasȱnotȱ consideredȱwhetherȱthisȱprogramȱisȱavailableȱtoȱtheȱnarrowȱwovenȱribbonsȱwithȱwovenȱ selvedgeȱ(narrowȱwovenȱribbons)ȱindustryȱinȱChina.”ȱȱId.ȱȱThus,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱitȱ sufficient,ȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱdeterminingȱanȱAFAȱrateȱforȱtheȱEBCP,ȱthatȱaȱ“preferentialȱ policyȱlendingȱprogramȱinȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱ Creditȱprogram.”ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ28).ȱȱCommerce,ȱtherefore,ȱ“continue[d]ȱ toȱapplyȱtheȱ10.54ȱpercentȱsubsidyȱrateȱasȱAFAȱforȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱProgram”ȱ andȱ“madeȱnoȱchangesȱtoȱYama’sȱoverallȱsubsidyȱrateȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱ(i.e.,ȱ 31.87ȱpercent).”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ9.ȱ
D.ȱȱYama’sȱObjectionsȱtoȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ ȱ YamaȱraisesȱtwoȱobjectionsȱtoȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱItȱargues,ȱfirst,ȱthatȱ
Commerceȱ“hasȱnotȱsupportedȱwithȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱthisȱrecordȱitsȱfindingȱthatȱ theȱpreferentialȱpolicyȱlendingȱprogramȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCP.”ȱȱYama’sȱCommentsȱ2.ȱȱ Yamaȱargues,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱ“Commerceȱappliedȱessentiallyȱtheȱsameȱunsupportedȱ rationaleȱasȱbeforeȱtoȱjustifyȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱpunitiveȱAFAȱrateȱtoȱYamaȱRibbons,ȱaȱfullyȱ cooperativeȱrespondent.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3.ȱ
1.ȱȱEvidenceȱIsȱNotȱonȱtheȱRecordȱtoȱSupportȱtheȱFindingȱthatȱtheȱPreferentialȱ LendingȱProgramȱCitedȱinȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱisȱSimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCPȱ ȱ Withȱrespectȱtoȱitsȱfirstȱobjection,ȱYamaȱarguesȱthatȱ“inȱtheȱissuesȱandȱdecisionȱ
memorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱonlyȱapparentȱsupportȱforȱitsȱRemandȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ15ȱ ȱ Results,ȱCommerceȱdoesȱnotȱciteȱtoȱanyȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecordȱofȱthisȱproceedingȱ
demonstratingȱthatȱtheȱpreferentialȱpolicyȱlendingȱprogramȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCP,”ȱid.ȱ atȱ2—3,ȱandȱthatȱ“[s]uchȱaȱfailureȱignoresȱtheȱCourt’sȱexplicitȱinstructionsȱinȱtheȱ RemandȱOpinion.”ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3.ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱisȱinsufficientȱtoȱsupportȱ aȱcomparativeȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱEBCPȱwithȱtheȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogramȱCommerceȱ cites,ȱtheȱcourtȱisȱpersuadedȱbyȱYama’sȱfirstȱobjection.ȱ TheȱTariffȱAct,ȱinȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d),ȱprovidesȱthatȱwhenȱCommerceȱ“usesȱanȱ inferenceȱthatȱisȱadverseȱtoȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱaȱpartyȱunderȱsubsectionȱ(b)(1)(A)ȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1677e(b)(1)(A)]ȱinȱselectingȱamongȱtheȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailable,”ȱCommerceȱmayȱ“useȱ aȱcountervailableȱsubsidyȱrateȱappliedȱforȱtheȱsameȱorȱsimilarȱprogramȱinȱaȱ countervailingȱdutyȱproceedingȱinvolvingȱtheȱsameȱcountry,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i)ȱ (emphasisȱadded),ȱorȱ“ifȱthereȱisȱnoȱsameȱorȱsimilarȱprogram,ȱuseȱaȱcountervailableȱ subsidyȱrateȱforȱaȱsubsidyȱprogramȱfromȱaȱproceedingȱthatȱtheȱadministeringȱauthorityȱ considersȱreasonableȱtoȱuse.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(ii).ȱȱInȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱ Commerceȱinvokedȱonlyȱtheȱfirstȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱsubsections,ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i).ȱ InȱbothȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱandȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱfoundȱ thatȱtheȱpreferentialȱlendingȱprogramȱidentifiedȱinȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱwasȱsimilarȱ toȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱInȱboth,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingȱofȱsimilarityȱwasȱ“basedȱonȱtheȱ treatmentȱofȱtheȱbenefitȱbecauseȱtheȱcreditsȱfunctionȱasȱshortȬtermȱorȱmediumȬtermȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ16ȱ ȱ loans.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ28ȱ(footnoteȱomitted);ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ5ȱ(footnoteȱ
omitted).ȱ Oneȱproblemȱinȱthisȱcaseȱarisesȱbecauseȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱ supportȱaȱfindingȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogramȱinvolvingȱgovernmentȬ conferredȱcreditsȱthatȱ“functionȱasȱshortȬtermȱorȱmediumȬtermȱloans”ȱandȱinȱthatȱ respectȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱYamaȱdoesȱnotȱcontestȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱisȱsufficientȱtoȱ showȱthatȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱaȱgovernmentȱprogramȱtoȱpromoteȱChineseȱindustriesȱthroughȱ theȱprovisionȱofȱloansȱwithȱpreferentialȱinterestȱrates.ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ9—12ȱ(detailingȱaȱ “statementȱofȱfactsȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱEBCȱProgram,”ȱincludingȱthatȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱ“anȱexportȱ promotingȱloanȱprogramȱadministeredȱbyȱtheȱExportȬImportȱBankȱofȱChina”);ȱYamaȱI,ȱ 46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1398—1400ȱ(explainingȱthatȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱ“anȱ exportȬpromotingȱloanȱprogram”ȱthatȱisȱ“administeredȱbyȱtheȱExportȱImportȱBankȱofȱ China”);ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ15ȱ(describingȱtheȱEBCPȱcreditsȱasȱ“mediumȬȱandȱlongȬtermȱ loans”ȱwithȱ“preferential,ȱlowȱinterestȱrates”)ȱ(citationȱomitted).ȱȱYamaȱobjectsȱtoȱtheȱ insufficiencyȱofȱtheȱrecordȱofȱtheȱseventhȱreviewȱtoȱestablishȱfactsȱaboutȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱ lendingȱprogramȱthatȱwouldȱbeȱneededȱtoȱdemonstrateȱsimilarityȱwithȱtheȱEBCP.ȱ InȱreferencingȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱinȱbothȱitsȱFinalȱResults,ȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱ atȱ28ȱn.133,ȱandȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ4ȱn.8,ȱ Commerceȱcitedȱtheȱfinalȱdeterminationȱandȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱpublishedȱinȱtheȱ FederalȱRegister.ȱȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱforȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ17ȱ ȱ SheetȬFedȱPressesȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱAmendedȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱ
CountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱOrder,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ70,201ȱ (Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ17,ȱ2010).ȱȱNeitherȱcontainsȱaȱmeaningfulȱdescriptionȱofȱaȱ coatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogram.ȱ Aȱterseȱdescriptionȱofȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogramȱmayȱbeȱgleanedȱfromȱtheȱ issuesȱandȱdecisionȱmemorandumȱCommerceȱincorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱintoȱtheȱfinalȱ determinationȱforȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChina.ȱȱSeeȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱ FinalȱDeterminationȱinȱtheȱCountervailingȱDutyȱInvestigationȱofȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱ forȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheetȬFedȱPressesȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ atȱ11ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱSept.ȱ20,ȱ2010).ȱȱThisȱpublicȱdocument,ȱofȱwhichȱtheȱcourtȱmayȱ takeȱjudicialȱnotice,ȱdescribesȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱasȱinvolvingȱ“PolicyȱLoansȱtoȱ CoatedȱPaperȱProducersȱandȱRelatedȱPulpȱProducersȱfromȱStateȬOwnedȱCommercialȱ BanksȱandȱGovernmentȱPolicyȱBanks,”ȱid.ȱatȱ11,ȱbutȱtheȱevidentiaryȱbasisȱforȱthatȱfactualȱ findingȱisȱnotȱpresentȱonȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱofȱtheȱreviewȱatȱissueȱinȱthisȱ litigation.ȱȱMoreover,ȱtheȱissuesȱandȱdecisionȱmemorandumȱforȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChinaȱ doesȱnotȱindicateȱthatȱtheȱtermsȱofȱtheȱcreditsȱprovidedȱunderȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱ necessarilyȱwereȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱshortȬtermȱorȱmediumȬtermȱloans,ȱasȱCommerceȱfound.ȱȱ Evenȱwereȱtheȱissuesȱandȱdecisionȱmemorandumȱtoȱhaveȱsoȱstated,ȱtheȱsupportingȱ recordȱevidenceȱisȱnotȱavailableȱforȱtheȱcourt’sȱreview.ȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ18ȱ ȱ Aȱsecondȱproblemȱinȱthisȱcaseȱarisesȱbecause,ȱinȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱanyȱmeaningfulȱ
recordȱevidenceȱaboutȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱlendingȱprogram,ȱtheȱcourtȱcannotȱpresumeȱthat,ȱ hadȱsuchȱevidenceȱbeenȱplacedȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱitȱnecessarilyȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱincludedȱ evidenceȱofȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheseȱtwoȱ“programs”ȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱdissimilar.ȱȱThus,ȱanyȱ presumptionȱofȱsimilarityȱsoȱasȱtoȱsatisfyȱtheȱcriterionȱofȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i)ȱ wouldȱrestȱalmostȱentirelyȱonȱspeculation.ȱ DefendantȱdoesȱnotȱofferȱaȱconvincingȱresponseȱtoȱYama’sȱargument,ȱYama’sȱ Commentsȱ2—3,ȱthatȱrecordȱevidenceȱisȱlackingȱtoȱdemonstrateȱtheȱclaimedȱsimilarity.ȱȱ Defendantȱarguesȱthatȱ“theȱfinalȱresultsȱofȱCoatedȱPaperȱfromȱChina”ȱdescribeȱtheȱ preferentialȱlendingȱprogramȱasȱ“aȱloanȱprogramȱfromȱpolicyȱbanks,ȱasȱtheȱtitleȱofȱtheȱ programȱalsoȱreasonablyȱsuggests.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱ8—9ȱ(citingȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱ SuitableȱForȱHigh–QualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheet–FedȱPressesȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱ ofȱChina:ȱPreliminaryȱAffirmativeȱCountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱAlignmentȱofȱFinalȱ CountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱwithȱFinalȱAntidumpingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱ75ȱFed.ȱ Reg.ȱ10,774ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱMar.ȱ9,ȱ2010).ȱȱTheȱEnglishȬlanguageȱtitleȱofȱtheȱcitedȱ coatedȱpaperȱprogramȱisȱstatedȱinȱtheȱFederalȱRegisterȱdocumentsȱasȱ“Preferentialȱ LendingȱtoȱtheȱCoatedȱPaperȱIndustryȱprogram”;ȱsee,ȱe.g.,ȱCertainȱCoatedȱPaperȱSuitableȱ forȱHighȬQualityȱPrintȱGraphicsȱUsingȱSheetȬFedȱPressesȱFromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱ AmendedȱFinalȱAffirmativeȱCountervailingȱDutyȱDeterminationȱandȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ Order,ȱ75ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ70,201ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱNov.ȱ17,ȱ2010),ȱbutȱtheȱcourtȱhasȱnoȱwayȱ
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ19ȱ ȱ ofȱreviewingȱevenȱsoȱmuchȱasȱaȱfindingȱthatȱthisȱwasȱtheȱofficialȱtitleȱandȱalsoȱlacksȱ
essentialȱinformationȱonȱhowȱanyȱsuchȱprogramȱoperated.ȱ Inȱsummary,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱfindingȱofȱsimilarityȱbetweenȱtheȱcitedȱcoatedȱ paperȱprogramȱandȱtheȱEBCPȱisȱnotȱbasedȱonȱevidenceȱpresentȱonȱtheȱadministrativeȱ recordȱofȱtheȱseventhȱreview.ȱȱUnderȱtheȱ“substantialȱevidence”ȱelementȱofȱtheȱstandardȱ ofȱreview,ȱtheȱcourtȱis,ȱtherefore,ȱunableȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱDepartment’sȱultimateȱ determinationȱofȱsimilarityȱwouldȱsatisfyȱtheȱrequirementȱofȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1677e(d)(1)(A)(i).ȱȱSeeȱCampȱv.ȱPitts,ȱ411ȱU.S.ȱ138,ȱ142ȱ(1973)ȱ(statingȱthatȱ“theȱfocalȱ pointȱforȱjudicialȱreviewȱshouldȱbeȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱalreadyȱinȱexistence,ȱnotȱ someȱnewȱrecordȱmadeȱinitiallyȱinȱtheȱreviewingȱcourt”).ȱȱCommerce,ȱtherefore,ȱmustȱ reconsiderȱitsȱdecisionȱtoȱuseȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱ anȱadverseȱinferenceȱsubsidyȱrate.ȱ
2.ȱȱTheȱCourtȱDefersȱConsiderationȱofȱYama’sȱSecondȱObjectionȱ ȱ Forȱitsȱsecondȱobjection,ȱYamaȱarguesȱthatȱCommerceȱfailedȱinȱitsȱobligationȱtoȱ
“justifyȱtheȱ10.54%ȱAFAȱrateȱasȱappropriateȱinȱtheȱ‘specialȱcaseȱpresentedȱhere,ȱinȱwhichȱ anȱunreasonablyȱhighȱrateȱcouldȱundulyȱprejudice’ȱYamaȱRibbons.”ȱȱYama’sȱ Commentsȱ3ȱ(quotingȱYamaȱI,ȱ46ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1403).ȱȱBecauseȱCommerceȱ mustȱreconsiderȱitsȱchoiceȱtoȱuseȱtheȱreferencesȱtoȱaȱcoatedȱpaperȱprogramȱwithȱtheȱ associatedȱsubsidyȱrate,ȱtheȱcourtȱdefersȱconsiderationȱofȱYama’sȱsecondȱobjectionȱ pendingȱaȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱremandȱorderȱtheȱcourtȱisȱissuing.ȱ ȱ III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱ
Forȱtheȱreasonsȱsetȱforthȱinȱtheȱforegoing,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandsȱtheȱRemandȱ RedeterminationȱtoȱCommerceȱforȱreconsiderationȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱ Order.ȱ Therefore,ȱuponȱconsiderationȱofȱallȱpapersȱandȱproceedingsȱhadȱherein,ȱandȱ uponȱdueȱdeliberation,ȱitȱisȱherebyȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱsubmitȱaȱnewȱdeterminationȱuponȱremandȱ (theȱ“SecondȱRemandȱRedetermination”)ȱthatȱcompliesȱwithȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder;ȱitȱ isȱfurtherȱ ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱCommerceȱshallȱsubmitȱitsȱSecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ withinȱ60ȱdaysȱofȱtheȱdateȱofȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder;ȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱanyȱcommentsȱbyȱplaintiffȱorȱdefendantȬintervenorȱonȱtheȱ SecondȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱmustȱbeȱfiledȱwithȱtheȱcourtȱnoȱlaterȱthanȱ30ȱdaysȱ afterȱtheȱfilingȱofȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱRedetermination;ȱandȱitȱisȱfurtherȱ ȱ
ORDEREDȱthatȱdefendantȱmayȱfileȱaȱresponseȱtoȱcommentsȱwithinȱ15ȱdaysȱ afterȱtheȱfilingȱofȱtheȱlastȱcommentȱsubmissionȱonȱtheȱSecondȱRemandȱ Redetermination.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ /s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ Judgeȱ
ȱ Dated:ȱAprilȱ10,ȱ2024ȱ ȱ ȱNewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ