JUANCHENG KANGTAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD., NAC GROUP LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion Issued: July 15, 2019
from the United States Court of International Trade in No.
1:17-cv-00257-RWG, Senior Judge Richard W. Goldberg.
Gregory S. Menegaz, DeKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, Washington,
DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by
James Kevin Horgan, Alexandra H. Salzman.
Marie Orfield, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued
for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Joseph H. Hunt,
Jeanne Davidson, Patricia M. McCarthy; Catherine D. Miller,
Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance,
United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Reyna, Wallach, and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
WALLACH, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. ("Kangtai
Chemical") and NAC Group Limited ("NAC")
(together, "Kangtai") appeal from the opinion and
order of the U.S. Court of International Trade
("CIT") dismissing its complaint. The CIT held,
inter alia, that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1581(i) (2012) to consider three counts raised in
Kangtai's Complaint relating to certain antidumping
duties. See Juancheng Kangtai Chem. Co. v. United
States (Kangtai), 322 F.Supp.3d 1351, 1356 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 2018). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). We affirm.
statute, antidumping duties may be imposed on "foreign
merchandise . . . being, or . . . likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than its fair value." 19 U.S.C.
§ 1673 (2012). Following an investigation into imposition
of antidumping duties, if the U.S. Department of Commerce
("Commerce") and the U.S. International Trade
Commission have made the requisite findings, Commerce
"shall publish an antidumping duty order" directing
U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs")
officers to assess duties on imports of goods covered by the
investigation. Id. § 1673e(a); see id.
§§ 1673, 1673a, 1677(1). Each year after the order
is published, if Commerce receives a request for an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order, it shall
conduct such a review. Id. § 1675(a)(1)(B).
conducting these reviews, Commerce typically must
"determine the individual weighted average dumping
margin for each known exporter and producer of the subject
merchandise." 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1(c)(1); see
Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. v. United States, 839 F.3d
1099, 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, when "it
is not practical to determine individual rates for each"
exporter or producer, "Commerce generally selects a
subset of companies for mandatory review and determines an
individual dumping rate for each of those mandatory
respondents"). "A dumping margin reflects the
amount by which the normal value (the price a producer
charges in its home market) exceeds the export price (the
price of the product in the United States) or constructed
export price." SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v. United
States, 910 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation marks, footnote, and citation omitted);
see 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A).
statute explains how "normal value shall be
determined" "[i]n order to achieve a fair
comparison with the export price or constructed export
price." 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(a). Relevant here,
Commerce has found the People's Republic of China
("China") is a nonmarket economy country. See
SolarWorld, 910 F.3d at 1220 n.3. A "non-market
economy country" is "any foreign country that
[Commerce] determines does not operate on market principles
of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise
in such country do not reflect the fair value of the
merchandise." 19 U.S.C. § 1677(18)(A). "In
antidumping duty proceedings involving merchandise from a
non-market economy, . . . Commerce presumes that all
respondents are government-controlled and[, ] therefore[, ]
subject to a single country-wide rate," unless
respondents "rebut this presumption" to demonstrate
eligibility for separate rates, i.e., "individual
dumping margins . . . for each known exporter or
producer." Dongtai Peak Honey Indus. Co. v. United
States, 777 F.3d 1343, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(footnote omitted) (citing, inter alia, 19 U.S.C. §
2005, Commerce published an antidumping duty order on
chlorinated isocyanurates ("subject merchandise")
from China. Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People's Republic of China (AD Order), 70
Fed. Reg. 36, 561, 36, 561- 62 (Dep't of Commerce June
24, 2005) (antidumping duty order). Related to this appeal,
Commerce conducted its ninth administrative review ("AR
9") of the AD Order, covering the period of
review ("POR") from June 1, 2013, through May 31,
2014, and tenth administrative review ("AR 10"),
covering the POR from June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.
See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China (AR 10 Final Results), 82
Fed. Reg. 4852, 4852 (Dep't of Commerce Jan. 17, 2017)
(final admin. review); Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People's Republic of China (AR 9 Final
Results), 81 Fed. Reg. 1167, 1167 (Dep't of Commerce
Jan. 11, 2016) (final admin. review). In the AR 9 Final
Results, Commerce assigned Kangtai Chemical, which had
been selected by Commerce as a mandatory respondent, a 0%
antidumping duty margin. 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168. In the AR
10 Final Results, Commerce assigned Kangtai Chemical,
which again had been selected by Commerce as a mandatory
respondent, an antidumping duty margin of 35.05%. 82 Fed.
Reg. at 4852. Regarding both AR 9 and AR 10, Commerce
explained that for the exporters individually reviewed, such
as Kangtai Chemical, Commerce would require cash deposits at
the antidumping duty margin rate calculated, but that
"for all [Chinese] exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be eligible for a separate rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the [China]-wide rate of
285.63[%]." AR 10 Final Results, 82 Fed. Reg.
at 4853; AR 9 Final Results, 81 Fed. Reg. at 1168.
the AR 9 Final Results, in which Kangtai received a
zero percent antidumping duty margin, Commerce issued
liquidation instructions to Customs. See J.A. 101-
04. The AR 9 liquidation instructions ordered Customs to
assess a rate of $0.00 per metric ton on all shipments of
subject merchandise "exported by [Kangtai Chemical],
imported by or sold to" NAC, "and entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the
period 06/01/2013 through 05/31/2014," which is the POR
covered by AR 9. J.A. 102 (emphasis added). The AR 10
liquidation instructions similarly set liquidation rates in
U.S. dollars per metric ton for shipments of subject
merchandise based on the margins calculated in the AR 10
Final Results "exported by [Kangtai Chemical],
imported by or sold to [specified purchasers, not including
NAC], and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption during the period 06/01/2014 through
05/31/2015." J.A. 106 For entries made during the POR
associated with AR 10 "not covered" by the ...