Yama Ribbons & Bows Co. v. United States , 2024 CIT 43 ( 2024 )

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
CourtȱNo.ȱ20Ȭ00059ȱ ȱ Pageȱ20ȱ
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