Meihua Grp. Int'l Trading (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. United States , 2024 CIT 86 ( 2024 )

Slip Op. 24-86
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
MEIHUA GROUP
INTERNATIONAL TRADING
(HONG KONG) LIMITED and
XINJIANG MEIHUA AMINO ACID
CO., LTD.,
Plaintiffs,
and
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
DEOSEN BIOCHEMICAL (ORDOS)
LTD., DEOSEN BIOCHEMICAL Consol. Court No. 22-00069
LTD., and JIANLONG
BIOTECHNOLOGY COMPANY,
LTD.,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s second remand redetermination of
the 2019‒2020 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan
gum from the People’s Republic of China].
Dated: July 29, 2024
Mark B. Lehnardt, Law Offices of David L. Simon, PLLC, of Washington, D.C.,
for Plaintiffs Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited and
Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd.
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 2
Chunlian (Lian) Yang, Alston & Bird, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Consolidated
Plaintiffs Deosen Biochemical (Ordos), Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical Ltd.
Robert G. Gosselink, Aqmar Rahman, Jonathan M. Freed, Kenneth N. Hammer,
and MacKensie R. Sugama, Trade Pacific, PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for
Consolidated Plaintiff Jianlong Biotechnology Company, Ltd.
Sosun Bae, Senior Trial Attorney, and Kelly Ann Krystyniak, Trial Attorney,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. Of Counsel was Spencer C. Neff,
Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This action concerns the 2019‒2020 administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on xanthan gum from the People’s Republic
of China (“China”) conducted by the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”), covering the period from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020. See
Xanthan Gum from the People’s Republic of China (“Final Results”), 87 Fed. Reg.
7104 (Dep’t of Commerce Feb. 8, 2022) (final results of antidumping duty
administrative review and final determination of no shipments; 2019–2021); see
also Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2019‒2020
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Xanthan Gum from the People’s
Republic of China (“Final IDM”), ECF No. 23-3.
Before the Court is Commerce’s Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand
Order in Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited et al. v.
United States (“Second Remand Redetermination”), ECF Nos. 73, 74. See Meihua
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 3
Grp. Int’l Trading (Hong Kong), Ltd. v. United States (“Meihua II”), 48 CIT __,
686 F. Supp. 3d 1359 (2024). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed
Motion to Forego Comment Period (“Plaintiffs’ Motion” or “Pls.’ Mot.”), ECF No.
78, filed by Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited and
Xinjiang Meihua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiffs” or “Meihua”).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court sustains Commerce’s Second
Remand Redetermination and grants Plaintiffs’ Motion.
BACKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this
case as set forth in Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong) Limited v.
United States (“Meihua I”), 47 CIT __, __, 633 F. Supp. 3d 1203, 1207‒08 (2023)
and Meihua Group International Trading (Hong Kong), Limited v. United States
(“Meihua II”), 48 CIT __, __, 686 F. Supp. 3d 1359, 1364‒65 (2024).
In the Final Results, Commerce determined that Meihua knowingly provided
inaccurate data and withheld relevant information, and Commerce applied an
adverse inference when it selected from the facts otherwise available on the record
to determine Meihua’s dumping margin. Final IDM at 11–16. Commerce applied
a dumping margin rate of 154.07% to Meihua. Final Results, 87 Fed. Reg. at 7105.
Commerce assigned Consolidated Plaintiffs Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. and
Deosen Biochemical Ltd. (collectively, “Deosen”) and Jianlong Biotechnology
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 4
Co., Ltd. (“Jianlong”) a dumping margin rate of 77.04% for separate companies
not individually investigated, based on the average of the 154.07% dumping
margin rate assigned to Meihua and the 0% dumping margin rate assigned to
Neimenggu Fufeng Biotechnologies Co., Ltd., Xinjiang Fufeng Biotechnologies
Co., Ltd., and Shandong Fufeng Fermentation Co., Ltd. Id. Commerce also
treated Deosen as a single collapsed entity and determined that Deosen had
shipments to the United States during the period of review. Final IDM at 8.
Commerce rejected Deosen Biochemical Ltd.’s offer to provide additional
documents showing that Deosen Biochemical Ltd. did not have shipments during
the period of review and Commerce did not rescind the review of Deosen
Biochemical Ltd. Id. at 7‒8
In Meihua I, the Court remanded for Commerce to reconsider the application
of total adverse facts available and the highest dumping margin rate to Meihua
because the Court concluded that Commerce failed to satisfy its statutory
obligation under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d). Meihua I, 47 CIT at __, 633 F. Supp. 3d
at 1212. The Court directed Commerce to reconsider the applicable separate rate
for Jianlong and Deosen in light of any changes Commerce made to Meihua’s
dumping margin rate. Id. at __, 633 F. Supp. 3d at 1213. The Court also remanded
for Commerce to perform a collapsing analysis pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(f)
to determine whether the Deosen entities should have remained collapsed, whether
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 5
Deosen Biochemical Ltd. was an exporter with shipments of subject merchandise
during the period of review, and whether Commerce should have rescinded Deosen
Biochemical Ltd.’s review. Id. at __, 633 F. Supp. 3d at 1215.
In the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (“First
Remand Redetermination”), ECF Nos. 52-1, 53-1, Commerce did not provide
Meihua with an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies and continued to apply
total adverse facts available to Meihua. First Remand Redetermination at 7‒13,
18‒21. Commerce made no changes to Meihua’s dumping margin rates and the
Consolidated Plaintiffs’ separate rate. Id. at 16, 18‒21, 27‒29. Commerce did not
conduct a collapsing analysis of the Deosen entities based on Commerce’s prior
determination that the collapsed entities comprised a single entity. Id. at 14‒16,
23‒25.
In Meihua II, the Court remanded for Commerce to reconsider the
application of total adverse facts available and the highest dumping margin rate to
Meihua pursuant to Commerce’s statutory obligation under 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(d)
and for Commerce to reconsider the separate rate based on any changes made to
Meihua’s dumping margin rate. Meihua II, 48 CIT at __, 686 F. Supp. 3d at 1370.
The Court also remanded for Commerce to conduct a new collapsing analysis of
Deosen based on information specific to the relevant period of review. Id. at __,
686 F. Supp. 3d at 1374.
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 6
Commerce filed its Second Remand Redetermination, determining that: (1) a
rate of 0% was appropriate for Meihua for the period of review; (2) a separate rate
of 0% for Jianlong and Deosen was also appropriate for the period of review;
(3) Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. did not
comprise a single entity during the period of review; and (4) the 2019‒2020
administrative review for Deosen Biochemical Ltd. should be rescinded. Second
Remand Redetermination at 2.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to forego the comment period and requested that the
Court affirm Commerce’s Second Remand Redetermination. Pls.’ Mot. at 1‒2.
No party opposed Plaintiffs’ Motion or filed comments opposing the Second
Remand Redetermination. Id.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court authority to
review actions contesting the final determination in an administrative review of an
antidumping duty order. The Court shall hold unlawful any determination found to
be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in
accordance with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). The Court reviews
determinations made on remand for compliance with the Court’s remand order.
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 7
Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. United States, 38 CIT 727, 730, 992 F.
Supp. 2d 1285, 1290 (2014), aff’d, 802 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs and Consolidated Plaintiffs waive their right to file comments
regarding Commerce’s Second Remand Redetermination and ask the Court to
sustain the Second Remand Redetermination. Pls.’ Mot. at 2.
Commerce calculated a 0% weighted average dumping margin based on
information reported by Meihua in its June 16, 2021 response to Commerce’s third
supplemental questionnaire and the final usable U.S. sales database that Meihua
submitted in its June 4, 2021 response to Commerce’s second supplemental
questionnaire. Second Remand Redetermination at 8 (citing Meihua’s Resp.
Second Supp. Sec. C/D Questionnaire at Ex. SC2-6, PR 230;1 Meihua’s Resp.
Third Supp. Sec. C/D Questionnaire, PR 244). Consistent with Commerce’s
practice of using a reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for
exporters and producers not individually investigated, Commerce determined that
it was reasonable to assign a dumping margin of 0% to Jianlong and Deosen. Id. at
9.
1
Citations to the administrative record reflect the public record (“PR”) and public
remand record (“PRR”) numbers filed in this case, ECF Nos. 45, 62.
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 8
On second remand, Commerce issued requests in March and April 2024 for
Deosen to identify record information and provide new factual information
regarding the collapsed status of Deosen Biochemical Ltd. and Deosen
Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd. for the 2019‒2020 period of review. Id. at 10‒11.
Commerce conducted a collapsing analysis based on Deosen Biochemical Ltd.’s
certification that Deosen Biochemical Ltd. made no shipments during the period of
review and information showing that Deosen Biochemical Ltd. was not capable of
producing xanthan gum or a similar product during the period of review. Id. at 11‒
12. Commerce determined that, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 351.401(f)(1), Deosen
Biochemical Ltd. should not be collapsed with Deosen Biochemical (Ordos) Ltd.
for the 2019‒2020 period of review. Id. at 12. Consequently, Commerce
determined that Deosen Biochemical Ltd.’s 2019‒2020 administrative review
should be rescinded. Id. at 13.
Commerce’s recalculation of Meihua’s dumping margin rate and
recalculation of the separate rate for Jianlong and Deosen is consistent with the
Court’s prior opinions and orders in Meihua I and Meihua II. Meihua I, 47 CIT at
__, 633 F. Supp. 3d at 1213; Meihua II, 48 CIT at __, 686 F. Supp. 3d at 1370.
Commerce’s determinations that Deosen did not comprise a single entity for the
2019‒2020 period of review and that Deosen Biochemical Ltd.’s 2019‒2020
administrative review should be rescinded are also consistent with the Court’s prior
Consol. Court No. 22-00069 Page 9
opinion and orders in Meihua I and Meihua II. Meihua I, at __, 633 F. Supp. 3d at
1215; Meihua II, at __, 686 F. Supp. 3d at 1374.
CONCLUSION
The Court sustains the Second Remand Redetermination. Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Forego Comment Period,
ECF No. 78, is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the remaining deadlines and opportunities for comments in
opposition and in support of the Second Remand Redetermination, as specified in
the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 72, are hereby stricken.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: July 29, 2024
New York, New York