United States Court of International Trade

Court Affirmed in Part and Remanded in Part Final Results

In Gaungzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, Court Nos. 15-23 and 15-24, Slip Op. 16-87 (September 19, 2016), Guangzhou Jangho Curtain Wall System Engineering Co. Ltd. and Jangho Curtain Wall Hong Kong Ltd. (collectively “Jangho” or “Plaintiff”) challenge the results of two related administrative reviews conducted by Defendant, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) – the second administrative review of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) and the second administrative review of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on aluminum extrusions from the PRC. Before the court were plaintiff’s rule 56.2 motion for summary judgment on the agency record. The court affirmed in part and remanded in part to Commerce, holding that Commerce’s determination to include Plaintiff’s curtain wall products within the scope of the review was procedurally deficient, as it was not in accordance with the methodology set forth in Commerce’s regulations, and substantively insufficient as it was not supported by a reasonable reading of the record evidence. 

The underlying orders at issue concerned AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions. See Aluminum Extrusions from the [PRC], 76 Fed. Reg. 30,650 (Dep’t Commerce May 26, 2011) (antidumping duty order) (“AD Order”); Aluminum Extrusions from the [PRC], 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (Dep’t Commerce May 26, 2011) (countervailing duty order) (“CVD Order”).  The court held that Commerce should have opened up a scope inquiry in regards to Jangho’s curtain wall products before finding them within scope and issuing the PRC-wide rate to Jangho.  According to the court, “Commerce’s failure to initiate a scope inquiry after finding on “available evidence” that a scope inquiry was required, was contrary to the plain language of the regulation and therefore not in accordance with law.”  Slip Op, pg. 17. Commerce failed to cite to any evidence in finding that the subject imports were “standalone parts of a curtain wall” or provide any description of the product at issue.

In regards to the window wall units, the court affirmed Commerce’s findings that there was no evidence of imports of the window wall units in the period of review. 

For the above reasons, the court remanded the decision back to Commerce for further findings.

Final Results Sustained in Mushrooms Review

In Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co., Ltd. & Zhangzhou Gangcheng Canned Foods Co., Ltd. v. United States & Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., Court No. 15-184, Slip Op. 16-89 (September 21, 2016), plaintiffs, Linyi City Kangfa Foodstuff Drinkable Co. Ltd. (“Kangfa”) and Gangchang Canned Foods Co., Ltd. (“Gangchang”), exporters of subject merchandise from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), contested aspects of Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the PRC: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014; and Partial Rescission of Review, 80 Fed. Reg. 32355 (June 8. 2015) (“Final Results).  The plaintiffs challenge Commerce’s selection of surrogate values for labor, for steam coal, and for glass jars and metal caps. For the proceeding, the plaintiffs were selected as mandatory respondents, and both cooperated with Commerce thereat in responding to all information requests. Commerce determined.  For the Final Results, the margins were 75.67% for Kangfa and 99.71% for Gangchang, respectively.

As for labor, Commerce derived a surrogate value from the line item “Manufacture of Food Products and Beverages” of Chapter 6A of the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics, which is Commerce’s preferred valuation source for labor. Plaintiffs argued that two types of statistics should have been employed, and in addition to Chatper 6A, Chapter 5A should have been applied to value the labor consumed in the comparatively more labor-intensive process of growing mushrooms.  However, the court held that because Chapter 5A was not included in the record, it may not conclude that that data was more specific.

For purposes of surrogate values for glass jars and metal caps, In both its preliminary and final results, Commerce valued the glass jars Commerce using GTA data for Colombian imports under HTS 7010.90 (i.e., “Carboys, Bottles, Flasks, Jars, Pots, Vials, and Other Containers, of Glass, Of A Kind Used For The Conveyance or Packing Of Goods; Preserving Jars”) and it valued the caps using GTA data for Colombian imports under HTS 8309.90 (i.e., “Stoppers, Caps and Lids Nesoi (Not Crown), Capsules For Bottles, Bungs, Seals And Other Packing Accessories, And Parts Thereof, Of Base Metal”). While plaintiffs argued that these values were aberrantly high, the court upheld Commerce’s decision stating  that Commerce used the best information available regarding the values of those factors in the a market economy country.  The court therefore held that plaintiffs’ arguments did not persuade that Commerce erred in according weight to the data relevant to the primary surrogate country when making its surrogate value decisions.

In regards to the coal surrogate values, because plaintiffs did not raise these issues during the administrative review, they have not exhausted the administrative remedies necessary to +address such issues before the court.

For these reasons, the court sustained Commerce’s Final Results in the review.