Background
China Cornici and RaoPing challenged Commerce’s administrative reviews of antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering Chinese wood mouldings and millwork products. Commerce initially treated the companies as lacking suspended entries during the relevant periods because entries had been mislabeled or liquidated. It assigned China Cornici China-wide rates, rescinded RaoPing’s countervailing-duty review, and declined to apply RaoPing’s separate antidumping rate to merchandise sold through Taiwanese reseller Chen Chiu.
In an earlier opinion, the court held that Commerce could not rescind the reviews solely because no entries remained suspended when the record showed subject merchandise had entered during the review periods. On remand, Commerce reopened the record, continued the reviews, assigned both companies the 8.89% non-examined-company countervailing-duty rate, and assigned China Cornici the China-wide antidumping rate after finding insufficient proof of de facto independence. Commerce nevertheless declined to issue assessment instructions for the entries because they had already been liquidated.
The Court’s Holding
The court sustained Commerce’s remand results. Although the companies did not timely comment on Commerce’s draft remand results, the court reached their legal arguments because Commerce gave them only two days to respond after evaluating newly submitted evidence. A further remand was unnecessary, however, because the companies had received opportunities to supplement the record and did not show that additional proceedings would change the result.
The court held that Commerce reasonably declined to order reliquidation. The entries had become final because the importers did not secure suspension, obtain an injunction, or timely protest the liquidations, and the prior-disclosure provision in 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d) did not authorize reliquidation here because the government had not been deprived of lawful revenue. The court also upheld the China-wide antidumping rate for China Cornici because its price list and emails correcting an invoicing error did not establish independent price negotiation. Finally, it sustained Commerce’s treatment of the liquidated Chen Chiu entry without deciding what documentation would be required for future reseller entries.
Key Takeaways
- A prior disclosure may reduce penalty exposure, but it does not by itself change an entry’s type, suspend liquidation, or preserve a right to reliquidation.
- Importers must timely pursue available mechanisms—such as post-summary correction, protest, or an injunction—to prevent liquidation from foreclosing effective relief.
- A Chinese exporter seeking a separate antidumping rate must prove every element of de facto independence; documents showing only listed prices or correction of a billing error may not establish independent price negotiation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that winning a substantive challenge to Commerce may provide no relief for entries that have already been liquidated. Importers and exporters must coordinate entry documentation and preservation measures while administrative reviews and litigation remain pending.
It also highlights the evidentiary burden on nonmarket-economy exporters seeking separate rates and the need for records directly demonstrating independent commercial decision-making, particularly actual price negotiations.