Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. v. United States

SlipȱOp.ȱ24ȬşŘ UNITEDȱSTATESȱCOURTȱOFȱINTERNATIONALȱTRADEȱ YAMAȱRIBBONSȱANDȱBOWSȱCO.,ȱLTD.,ȱ Plaintiě,ȱ Before:ȱȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ v.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱ UNITEDȱSTATES,ȱ Defendant.ȱ OPINIONȱ [Sustainingȱanȱagencyȱdecisionȱissuedȱinȱresponseȱtoȱcourtȱorderȱinȱlitigationȱ contestingȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱdeterminationȱonȱnarrowȱwovenȱribbonsȱfromȱtheȱ People’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina]ȱ Dated:ȱAugustȱ13,ȱ2024ȱ JohnȱJ.ȱKenkel,ȱInternationalȱTradeȱLawȱCounselors,ȱPLLC,ȱofȱAlexandria,ȱ Virginia,ȱforȱplaintiěȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱ KaraȱM.ȱWestercamp,ȱTrialȱAĴorney,ȱCommercialȱLitigationȱBranch,ȱCivilȱ Division,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱJustice,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.,ȱforȱdefendant.ȱȱWithȱherȱonȱ theȱbriefȱwereȱBrianȱM.ȱBoynton,ȱPrincipalȱDeputyȱAssistantȱAĴorneyȱGeneralȱandȱ PatriciaȱM.ȱMcCarthy,ȱDirector.ȱȱOfȱcounselȱonȱtheȱbriefȱwasȱLeslieȱM.ȱLewis,ȱAĴorney,ȱ OĜceȱofȱtheȱChiefȱCounselȱforȱTradeȱEnforcementȱ&ȱCompliance,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ Commerce,ȱofȱWashington,ȱD.C.ȱ Stanceu,ȱJudge:ȱȱPlaintiěȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBows,ȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱ(“Yama”)ȱcontestedȱaȱ determinationȱofȱtheȱInternationalȱTradeȱAdministration,ȱU.S.ȱDepartmentȱofȱ Commerceȱ(“Commerce”ȱorȱtheȱ“Department”)ȱinȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱ(“CVD”)ȱ proceeding.ȱȱTheȱcontestedȱdeterminationȱ(theȱ“FinalȱResults”)ȱconcludedȱtheȱeighthȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ2ȱ

periodicȱadministrativeȱreviewȱ(“eighthȱreview”)ȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorderȱonȱ narrowȱwovenȱribbonsȱwithȱwovenȱselvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ (“China”ȱorȱtheȱ“PRC”).ȱ BeforeȱtheȱcourtȱisȱtheȱDepartment’sȱ“RemandȱRedetermination,”ȱissuedȱinȱ responseȱtoȱtheȱcourt’sȱopinionȱandȱorderȱinȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ 47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ653ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1314ȱ(2023)ȱ(“YamaȱI”).ȱȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱ PursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱOct.ȱ24,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ47ȱ(“Remandȱ Redetermination”).ȱȱYamaȱopposesȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱraisingȱseveralȱ objections.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ I.ȱȱBACKGROUNDȱ Backgroundȱisȱprovidedȱinȱtheȱcourt’sȱpreviousȱopinionȱandȱorderȱandȱisȱ summarizedȱandȱsupplementedȱherein.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱ__,ȱ653ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1314ȱ(2023)ȱatȱ 1316—1318.ȱ A.ȱȱTheȱContestedȱDecisionȱ ȱ TheȱFinalȱResultsȱareȱpublishedȱasȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱ FromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱ Review;ȱ2018,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ40,462ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJulyȱ28,ȱ2021)ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ176ȱ(“Finalȱ Results”).1ȱȱCommerceȱincorporatedȱbyȱreferenceȱanȱaccompanyingȱ“Issuesȱandȱ ȱ 1ȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱJointȱAppendixȱ(June.ȱ17,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ42ȱ(conf.),ȱ43ȱ (public),ȱareȱcitedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱȱDocumentsȱinȱtheȱRemandȱandȱJointȱȱ (continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ3ȱ

DecisionȱMemorandum.”ȱȱIssuesȱandȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱ2018ȱ CountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱ fromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱAdmin.ȱJulyȱ22,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ174ȱ(“Finalȱ I&DȱMem.”).ȱȱTheȱFinalȱResultsȱpertainedȱtoȱentriesȱmadeȱduringȱaȱ“periodȱofȱreview”ȱ (“POR”)ȱofȱJanuaryȱ1,ȱ2018,ȱthroughȱDecemberȱ31,ȱ2018.ȱȱInitiationȱofȱAntidumpingȱandȱ CountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviews,ȱ84ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ61,011,ȱ61,018ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ Admin.ȱNov.ȱ12,ȱ2019).ȱȱInȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱthatȱYamaȱbeneętedȱ fromȱ24ȱgovernmentalȱprogramsȱandȱissuedȱaȱtotalȱcountervailableȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ 42.20%.ȱȱFinalȱResults,ȱ86ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱatȱ40,462.ȱ B.ȱȱTheȱCourt’sȱPreviousȱOpinionȱandȱOrderȱ ȱ InȱYamaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱruledȱonȱYama’sȱUSCITȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱ agencyȱrecord,ȱinȱwhichȱYamaȱcontestedȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinclusionȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱ threeȱsubsidyȱrates:ȱ(1)ȱaȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱforȱtheȱęndingȱthatȱYamaȱwasȱbeneętingȱfromȱ theȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱProgramȱ(“EBCP”)ȱadministeredȱbyȱtheȱExportȬImportȱBankȱ ofȱChinaȱ(“ExȬImȱBank”),ȱaȱprogramȱthatȱprovidesȱloansȱtoȱcustomersȱatȱpreferentialȱ ratesȱforȱpurchasingȱChineseȱexportedȱgoods;ȱ(2)ȱaȱ27.74%ȱrateȱforȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱ syntheticȱyarnȱforȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱremunerationȱ(“LTAR”),ȱandȱ(3)ȱaȱ0.27%ȱrateȱforȱ theȱprovisionȱofȱcausticȱsodaȱforȱLTAR.ȱȱPl.ȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱRuleȱ56.2ȱ ȱ (…continued)ȱ Appendixȱ(Jan.ȱ5,ȱ2024),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ52,ȱareȱcitedȱhereinȱasȱ“P.R.R.ȱDoc.ȱ__.”ȱȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱ recordȱdocumentsȱareȱtoȱtheȱpublicȱversions.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ4ȱ

Mot.ȱforȱJ.ȱUponȱtheȱAgencyȱR.ȱ(Feb.ȱ4,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNos.ȱ27ȱ(Conf.),ȱ28ȱ(Public);ȱMem.ȱofȱ LawȱinȱSupp.ȱofȱPl.ȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.,ȱLtd’sȱ56.2ȱMot.ȱforȱJ.ȱUponȱtheȱ AgencyȱR.ȱ(Feb.ȱ4,ȱ2022),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ27Ȭ1ȱ(Conf.),ȱ28Ȭ1ȱ(Public)ȱ(“Pl.’sȱBr.”).ȱ InȱYamaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱtoȱCommerceȱwithȱdirectionsȱtoȱ reconsiderȱtheȱdeterminationȱtoȱapplyȱtheȱ10.54%ȱsubsidyȱrateȱforȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ 47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1326—1327.ȱȱOnȱtheȱLTARȱsubsidyȱdeterminationsȱforȱ syntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda,ȱtheȱcourtȱpermiĴedȱCommerce,ȱatȱdefendant’sȱrequest,ȱ toȱsupplementȱtheȱadministrativeȱrecordȱwithȱinformationȱconsistingȱofȱaȱ“NewȱSubsidyȱ Allegation”ȱ(“2015ȱNSA”)ȱsubmiĴedȱbyȱtheȱpetitionerȱduringȱtheȱ2015ȱadministrativeȱ reviewȱofȱtheȱOrder.ȱȱThisȱwasȱinformation,ȱpreviouslyȱomiĴedȱfromȱtheȱrecord,ȱthatȱ Commerceȱconsideredȱinȱtheȱeighthȱreviewȱandȱthatȱwasȱpertinentȱtoȱwhetherȱthereȱ existedȱtheȱ“specięcity”ȱrequiredȱbyȱsectionȱ771(5A)(D)ȱofȱtheȱTariěȱActȱofȱ1930ȱ(“Tariěȱ Act”),ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D),ȱforȱaȱcountervailableȱsubsidy.2ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1328.ȱȱOverȱYama’sȱobjection,ȱtheȱcourtȱissuedȱaȱremandȱorderȱthatȱ directedȱasȱfollows:ȱ

ȱ 2ȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱCodeȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱȱAllȱ citationsȱtoȱtheȱCodeȱofȱFederalȱRegulationsȱhereinȱareȱtoȱtheȱ2018ȱedition.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ5ȱ

Commerceȱshallȱallowȱplaintiěȱtoȱsubmitȱcommentsȱtoȱitȱthatȱaddressȱthisȱ newȱinformation.ȱȱToȱavoidȱaȱpiecemealȱapproach,ȱCommerceȱshallȱ reconsiderȱitsȱLTARȱdeterminationsȱforȱtheseȱtwoȱinputs,ȱinȱtheȱentirety,ȱ basedȱonȱtheȱsupplementedȱrecordȱandȱtheȱcommentsȱplaintiěȱsubmits.ȱȱ Plaintiěȱthenȱwillȱhaveȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱcommentȱonȱtheȱ redeterminationȱuponȱremandȱthatȱCommerceȱsubmitsȱtoȱtheȱcourt.ȱ ȱ Id.ȱ II.ȱȱDISCUSSIONȱ A.ȱȱJurisdictionȱandȱStandardȱofȱReviewȱ Sectionȱ201ȱofȱtheȱCustomsȱCourtsȱActȱofȱ1980,ȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1581(c),ȱgrantsȱthisȱ CourtȱsubjectȱmaĴerȱjurisdictionȱtoȱreviewȱactionsȱcommencedȱunderȱsectionȱ516Aȱofȱ theȱTariěȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1516a,ȱincludingȱactionsȱcontestingȱaȱęnalȱdeterminationȱthatȱ Commerceȱissuesȱtoȱconcludeȱanȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱorder.ȱȱ Id.ȱ§ȱ1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii).ȱ Inȱreviewingȱaȱęnalȱdetermination,ȱtheȱcourtȱ“shallȱholdȱunlawfulȱanyȱ determination,ȱęnding,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.ȱȱTheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱIssuedȱinȱResponseȱtoȱYamaȱIȱ InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱreconsideredȱitsȱassigningȱYamaȱaȱ countervailingȱdutyȱsubsidyȱrateȱforȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱCommerceȱdetermined,ȱunderȱprotest,ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ6ȱ

thatȱYamaȱdidȱnotȱbeneętȱfromȱtheȱprogramȱandȱconsequentlyȱrevisedȱtheȱtotalȱsubsidyȱ rateȱforȱYamaȱbyȱexcludingȱtheȱ10.54%ȱrateȱforȱtheȱEBCP.ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ2.ȱȱ Commerceȱalsoȱreconsideredȱitsȱpositionsȱonȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱ sodaȱforȱLTARȱbasedȱonȱtheȱsupplementedȱadministrativeȱrecordȱandȱYama’sȱ responsiveȱcomments.ȱȱCommerceȱmaintainedȱitsȱpreviousȱpositionsȱonȱtheseȱtwoȱ inputsȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱdidȱnotȱchangeȱtheȱsubsidyȱratesȱofȱ27.74%ȱandȱ0.27%ȱforȱ syntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda,ȱrespectively.ȱȱId.ȱȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱaȱ newȱtotalȱsubsidyȱrateȱofȱ31.66%,ȱi.e.,ȱ42.20%ȱlessȱ10.54%.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ21.ȱ YamaȱopposesȱtheȱDepartment’sȱretentionȱofȱsubsidiesȱforȱtheȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱ causticȱsodaȱinputs.ȱȱPl.’sȱCommentsȱinȱOppositionȱtoȱtheȱResultsȱofȱtheȱRemandȱ Redeterminationȱ(Nov.ȱ24,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ49ȱ(“Pl.’sȱComments”).ȱȱDefendantȱadvocatesȱ theȱcourt’sȱsustainingȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱȱDef.’sȱCorrectedȱResponseȱtoȱ CommentsȱonȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Dec.ȱ11,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ51ȱ(“Def.’sȱResp.).ȱ C.ȱȱUseȱofȱFactsȱOtherwiseȱAvailableȱandȱAdverseȱInferencesȱwhenȱtheȱExportingȱ CountryȱGovernmentȱFailsȱtoȱCooperateȱinȱaȱCVDȱProceedingȱ ȱ InȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱinvokedȱitsȱauthorityȱtoȱuseȱ“theȱfactsȱotherwiseȱ available”ȱunderȱsectionȱ776(a)ȱofȱtheȱTariěȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a),ȱandȱ“adverseȱ inferences”ȱunderȱsectionȱ776(b)ȱofȱtheȱTariěȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱ bothȱtheȱEBCPȱandȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda.ȱȱWhenȱusingȱbothȱ theȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱandȱtheȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱprovisions,ȱCommerceȱ describesȱitsȱactionȱbyȱusingȱtheȱtermȱ“adverseȱfactsȱavailable”ȱ(“AFA”).ȱȱCommerceȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ7ȱ

mayȱresortȱtoȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱwhenȱ“anȱinterestedȱpartyȱorȱanyȱotherȱperson”ȱ withholdsȱrequestedȱinformation,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)(2)(A),ȱorȱ“signięcantlyȱimpedesȱaȱ proceeding,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)(2)(C),ȱorȱwhenȱtheȱinformationȱoěeredȱ“cannotȱbeȱverięedȱasȱ providedȱinȱsectionȱ1677m(i)ȱofȱthisȱtitleȱ[19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677m(i)],”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)(2)(D).ȱȱ Moreover,ȱifȱCommerceȱęndsȱthatȱ“anȱinterestedȱpartyȱhasȱfailedȱtoȱcooperateȱbyȱnotȱ actingȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱtoȱcomply”ȱwithȱaȱrequestȱforȱinformation,ȱCommerceȱ “mayȱuseȱanȱinferenceȱthatȱisȱadverseȱtoȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱthatȱpartyȱinȱselectingȱfromȱ amongȱtheȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailable.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b)(1)(A).ȱȱInȱsomeȱinstances,ȱ Commerceȱmayȱuseȱanȱinferenceȱadverseȱtoȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱaȱcooperatingȱpartyȱinȱtheȱ proceedingȱifȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱtheȱexportingȱcountryȱfailsȱtoȱcooperateȱbyȱnotȱactingȱ toȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱaȱrequestȱforȱinformationȱonȱanȱallegedȱ countervailableȱsubsidy.ȱȱSeeȱYamaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ653ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1318.ȱ D.ȱȱTheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱProgramȱ InȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱdeterminedȱthatȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱCreditȱ Programȱ“providesȱmediumȱandȱlongȬtermȱloansȱatȱpreferential,ȱlowȱinterestȱrates”ȱandȱ “isȱadministeredȱbyȱaȱgovernmentȱentity,ȱtheȱExportȱImportȱBankȱofȱChina.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱ atȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1319ȱ(citingȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ30).ȱȱInȱYamaȱI,ȱtheȱcourtȱ consideredȱwhetherȱCommerceȱactedȱlawfullyȱinȱassigningȱYamaȱaȱcountervailableȱ subsidyȱrateȱofȱ10.54%ȱforȱtheȱEBCPȱand,ȱinȱparticular,ȱwhetherȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ8ȱ

invokedȱitsȱauthoritiesȱunderȱtheȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱandȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱ provisionsȱofȱsectionȱ776ȱofȱtheȱTariěȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e.ȱ TheȱcourtȱnotedȱinȱYamaȱIȱthatȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱmakeȱanyȱ“aĜrmativeȱęndingȱ underȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)ȱthatȱYamaȱwasȱconferredȱaȱ’beneęt’ȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱparticipationȱ inȱtheȱEBCPȱbyȱoneȱorȱmoreȱofȱitsȱcustomers.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1319.ȱȱ Instead,ȱCommerceȱimposedȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱuponȱ“aȱ‘doubleȱnegative,’ȱi.e.,ȱaȱ conclusionȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱsupportȱaȱ‘ęnding’ȱthatȱYamaȱdidȱnotȱbeneętȱfromȱ theȱEBCP.”ȱȱId.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludedȱthatȱthereȱwasȱinsuĜcientȱrecordȱevidenceȱthatȱanyȱ YamaȱcustomerȱparticipatedȱinȱtheȱEBCPȱduringȱtheȱPORȱand,ȱmoreover,ȱthatȱthereȱwasȱ recordȱevidenceȱtoȱtheȱcontrary.ȱȱId.ȱ InȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱCommerceȱinvokedȱitsȱrightȱtoȱuseȱtheȱ“factsȱotherwiseȱ available”ȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)ȱandȱ“adverseȱinferences”ȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1677e(b),ȱęndingȱthatȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱfailedȱtoȱprovideȱCommerceȱwithȱtheȱ informationȱitȱneededȱtoȱanalyzeȱtheȱEBCPȱandȱ“didȱnotȱactȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱability”ȱinȱ respondingȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinquiries.ȱȱYamaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ653ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1319.ȱȱ CommerceȱdidȱnotȱęndȱthatȱYamaȱitselfȱwithheldȱinformationȱorȱfailedȱtoȱcooperateȱtoȱ theȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱrequestsȱforȱinformation.ȱȱ YamaȱI,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ653ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1320.ȱ Commerceȱreasonedȱthatȱ“informationȱaboutȱtheȱoperationȱofȱtheȱEBCPȱitȱ consideredȱtoȱbeȱnecessaryȱbutȱmissingȱfromȱtheȱrecordȱ‘preventsȱcompleteȱandȱeěectiveȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Pageȱ9ȱ

verięcationȱofȱtheȱcustomers’ȱcertięcationsȱofȱnonȬuse.’”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱ F.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1319ȱ(citingȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ41).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱruledȱtoȱtheȱcontrary,ȱ statingȱinȱYamaȱIȱthatȱ“theȱrecordȱdoesȱnotȱsupportȱtheȱDepartment’sȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱ informationȱthatȱCommerceȱrequestedȱandȱthatȱtheȱGOCȱ[GovernmentȱofȱChina]ȱfailedȱ toȱprovideȱpreventedȱCommerceȱfromȱdeterminingȱthatȱYamaȱdidȱnotȱbeneętȱfromȱtheȱ EBCP.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱatȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1326.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱremandedȱtheȱFinalȱResults,ȱ orderingȱCommerceȱtoȱsubmitȱaȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ“thatȱreconsiders,ȱbasedȱonȱ theȱexistingȱrecord,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱonȱtheȱEBCPȱprogramȱandȱreachesȱ aȱnewȱdeterminationȱthatȱisȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱthisȱOpinionȱandȱOrder.”ȱȱId.,ȱ47ȱCITȱ atȱ__,ȱ611ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱatȱ1329.ȱ InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerceȱstatedȱthatȱitȱ“reconsideredȱitsȱ decisionȱtoȱapplyȱadverseȱfactsȱavailableȱ(AFA)ȱinȱevaluatingȱuseȱofȱtheȱEBCPȱandȱ determines,ȱunderȱrespectfulȱprotest,ȱthatȱtheȱEBCPȱwasȱnotȱusedȱbyȱYama”ȱandȱ “revisedȱYama’sȱoverallȱsubsidyȱrateȱtoȱexcludeȱtheȱ10.54ȱpercentȱAFAȱsubsidyȱrateȱ assignedȱtoȱtheȱEBCP.”ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ2.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱ Department’sȱnewȱdeterminationȱasȱtoȱtheȱEBCP,ȱwhichȱisȱuncontestedȱandȱsupportedȱ byȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord.ȱ E.ȱȱInclusionȱofȱSubsidyȱRatesȱforȱYama’sȱPurchasesȱofȱSyntheticȱYarnȱandȱ CausticȱSodaȱforȱ“LessȱthanȱAdequateȱRemuneration”ȱ ȱ UnderȱtheȱTariěȱAct,ȱaȱcountervailableȱsubsidyȱmayȱexistȱwhereȱanȱ“authority,”ȱ whichȱisȱdeęnedȱinȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)(B)ȱasȱaȱ“governmentȱofȱaȱcountryȱorȱanyȱpublicȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ10ȱ

entityȱwithinȱtheȱterritoryȱofȱtheȱcountry,”ȱprovidesȱaȱgoodȱ“forȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱ remuneration,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)(E)(iv),ȱ“andȱaȱbeneętȱisȱtherebyȱconferred,”ȱid.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)(B).ȱȱ Beforeȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱmayȱbeȱimposedȱtoȱaddressȱaȱdomesticȱsubsidy,ȱtheȱ “specięcity”ȱrequirementȱsetȱforthȱinȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)ȱmustȱbeȱsatisęed.ȱ ForȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱtheȱeighthȱreview,ȱCommerceȱusedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱ availableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱtoȱdetermineȱthatȱYama’sȱinputȱsuppliersȱareȱ “authorities”ȱwithinȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱsectionȱ771(5)(B)ȱofȱtheȱAct.ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ16.ȱȱ Then,ȱinȱexaminingȱtheȱlevelȱofȱgovernmentȱownershipȱorȱcontrolȱinȱtheȱsyntheticȱyarnȱ andȱcausticȱsodaȱsectorsȱofȱtheȱChineseȱmarketplace,ȱCommerce,ȱrelyingȱagainȱonȱfactsȱ otherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinference,ȱdeterminedȱthatȱtheȱmarketsȱforȱbothȱofȱ theseȱinputsȱwereȱdistortedȱbyȱgovernmentȱinĚuenceȱandȱcontrol.ȱȱId.,ȱatȱ14.ȱȱDecidingȱ forȱthisȱreasonȱthatȱitȱcouldȱnotȱuseȱChineseȱmarketȱpricesȱtoȱdetermineȱaȱ“benchmark”ȱ priceȱforȱeachȱinput,ȱCommerceȱusedȱdataȱonȱworldȱmarketȱpricesȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheseȱ goodsȱwereȱsoldȱforȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱremuneration.ȱȱSeeȱDecisionȱMemorandumȱforȱ PreliminaryȱResultsȱofȱ2018ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReview:ȱNarrowȱWovenȱ RibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChinaȱatȱ21—22ȱ(Int’lȱTradeȱ Admin.ȱJan.ȱ19,ȱ2021),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ162ȱ(“PreliminaryȱI&DȱMem.”).ȱȱFinally,ȱCommerceȱusedȱ factsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱ theseȱinputsȱforȱLTARȱwasȱdeȱfactoȱspecięc.ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ19—20.ȱȱBasedȱonȱtheseȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ11ȱ

variousȱdeterminations,ȱCommerceȱcalculatedȱaȱ27.74%ȱsubsidyȱrateȱforȱsyntheticȱyarnȱ andȱaȱ0.27%ȱsubsidyȱrateȱforȱcausticȱsoda.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ3.ȱ InȱitsȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotion,ȱYamaȱchallengesȱtheȱdepartment’sȱLTARȱdeterminationsȱ onȱthreeȱgrounds.ȱȱYamaȱmaintainsȱthatȱCommerceȱerredȱinȱusingȱfactsȱotherwiseȱ availableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱYama’sȱprivatelyȱownedȱsuppliersȱ areȱ“authorities”ȱwithinȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheȱTariěȱAct.ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ44.ȱȱSimilarly,ȱYamaȱ furtherȱcontendsȱthatȱCommerceȱimpermissiblyȱfoundȱthatȱtheȱChineseȱmarketȱforȱtheseȱ twoȱinputsȱwasȱdistortedȱbyȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱgovernmentȱownershipȱorȱcontrolȱinȱtheȱ industryȱsectorsȱproducingȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ40.ȱȱFinally,ȱYamaȱ contendsȱthatȱCommerceȱerredȱinȱconcludingȱthatȱtheȱallegedȱsubsidiesȱwereȱdeȱfactoȱ specięc.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ47.ȱ InȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱCommerce,ȱuponȱconsideringȱtheȱrecordȱasȱ supplementedȱbyȱtheȱ2015ȱNewȱSubsidyȱAllegationȱandȱYama’sȱcommentsȱonȱthisȱnewȱ information,ȱreachedȱtheȱsameȱęndingsȱitȱhadȱreachedȱinȱtheȱFinalȱResultsȱasȱtoȱtheȱ subsidiesȱitȱallegedȱpertainingȱtoȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda.ȱȱ Yama,ȱincorporatingȱitsȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱbyȱreference,ȱrenewedȱitsȱobjectionsȱtoȱtheȱ subsidyȱratesȱforȱtheseȱtwoȱinputs.3ȱ ȱ 3ȱPlaintiěȱdidȱnotȱsubmitȱnewȱsubstantiveȱcommentsȱopposingȱtheȱretainedȱ subsidiesȱforȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda,ȱinsteadȱexplainingȱthatȱitȱ“standsȱbyȱitsȱ openingȱandȱreplyȱbriefs,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱcommentsȱitȱsubmiĴedȱtoȱtheȱDepartmentȱonȱ Septemberȱ14,ȱ2023,ȱpursuantȱtoȱremand.”ȱȱPl.ȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBows.,ȱLtd.’sȱȱ (continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ12ȱ

1.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱAdverseȱInferencesȱthatȱYama’sȱSuppliersȱofȱSyntheticȱYarnȱandȱ CausticȱSodaȱWereȱ“Authorities”ȱ ToȱdetermineȱwhetherȱanyȱofȱtheȱprivateȱcompaniesȱthatȱsupplyȱYamaȱwithȱ syntheticȱyarnȱorȱcausticȱsodaȱwasȱanȱ“authority”ȱwithinȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱsectionȱ 771(5)(B)ȱofȱtheȱTariěȱAct,ȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)(B),ȱCommerceȱaskedȱtheȱChineseȱ government,ȱasȱtoȱtheseȱcompanies,ȱwhetherȱ“anyȱindividualȱowners,ȱmembersȱofȱtheȱ boardȱofȱdirectors,ȱorȱseniorȱmanagersȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwereȱgovernmentȱorȱCCPȱ[Chineseȱ CommunistȱParty]ȱoĜcials.”ȱȱ2018ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱNarrowȱ WovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱ QuestionnaireȱatȱIIȬ27ȱ(Nov.ȱ20,ȱ2019),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ162ȱ(“GOCȱInitialȱQuestionnaire”).ȱȱInȱ response,ȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱinformedȱCommerceȱthatȱ“[t]hereȱisȱnoȱcentralȱ informationalȱdatabaseȱtoȱsearchȱforȱtheȱrequestedȱinformation”ȱandȱinstructedȱthemȱtoȱ “collectȱthisȱinformationȱthroughȱtheȱrespondent,ȱviaȱitsȱsuppliersȱdirectly.”ȱNarrowȱ WovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱCaseȱNo.ȱCȬ570Ȭ953:ȱ InitialȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱatȱEx.ȱCȬ1,ȱ17—18ȱ(Jan.ȱ10,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ17–39ȱ(“GOCȱ

ȱ (…continued)ȱ CommentsȱonȱDefendant’sȱFinalȱResultsȱofȱRedeterminationȱPursuantȱtoȱCourtȱRemandȱ (Nov.ȱ24,ȱ2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ49ȱatȱ2.ȱȱDefendantȱarguesȱthatȱplaintiěȱwaivedȱitsȱobjectionsȱtoȱ theseȱretainedȱsubsidiesȱbyȱfailingȱtoȱcontestȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱonȱtheȱ merits.ȱȱDef.’sȱCorrectedȱResponseȱtoȱCommentsȱonȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ(Dec.ȱ11,ȱ 2023),ȱECFȱNo.ȱ51ȱatȱ6.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdisagreesȱthatȱwaiverȱhasȱoccurred.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱ ruleȱpreviouslyȱonȱtheȱmeritsȱofȱtheȱclaimsȱcontestingȱtheseȱsubsidiesȱasȱpresentedȱinȱ plaintiě’sȱbriefsȱinȱsupportȱofȱitsȱRuleȱ56.2ȱmotionȱforȱjudgmentȱonȱtheȱagencyȱrecord.ȱȱ Plaintiěȱpreservedȱthoseȱclaimsȱandȱtheȱgroundsȱitȱassertedȱthereforȱwhenȱitȱ incorporatedȱitsȱpreviousȱsubmissionsȱbyȱreference.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ13ȱ

InitialȱQuestionnaireȱResp.”). ȱCommerceȱaskedȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱtoȱtraceȱtheȱ ownershipȱofȱspecięcȱsupplyȱcompaniesȱ“backȱtoȱtheȱultimateȱindividualȱorȱstateȱ owners,”ȱreceivingȱasȱaȱresponseȱthatȱ“theȱGOCȱ[GovernmentȱofȱChina]ȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱ accessȱtoȱtheȱcompanyȱregistrationȱinformation.”ȱȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱWovenȱ SelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱCaseȱNo.ȱCȬ570Ȭ953:ȱFirstȱSupplementalȱ QuestionnaireȱResponseȱatȱ7ȱ(Apr.ȱ17,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ140ȱ(“GOCȱFirstȱSuppl.ȱQuestionnaireȱ Resp.”).ȱȱInȱtheȱęnalȱquestionnaire,ȱCommerceȱagainȱaskedȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱforȱ “ownershipȱstructureȱandȱregistrationȱinformation”ȱonȱYama’sȱsuppliersȱofȱsyntheticȱ yarn.ȱȱ2018ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱ WovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱSecondȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱatȱ9ȱ (Julyȱ24,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ144ȱ(“GOCȱSecondȱSuppl.ȱQuestionnaire”).ȱȱInȱresponse,ȱtheȱ Chineseȱgovernmentȱprovidedȱ“ExhibitȱCȬ29”ȱtoȱtheȱChineseȱgovernment’sȱSecondȱ SupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱResponse,ȱwhichȱincludedȱinformationȱaboutȱtheȱ shareholdersȱandȱpartnershipȱstructureȱofȱtheseȱcompanies.ȱȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱwithȱ WovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeopleȇsȱRepublicȱofȱChina,ȱCaseȱNo.ȱCȬ570Ȭ953:ȱSecondȱ SupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱatȱEx.ȱCȬ29ȱ(Aug.ȱ14,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱDoc.ȱ149ȱ(“GOCȱ SecondȱSuppl.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.”).ȱȱȱ TheȱDepartment’sȱoriginalȱquestionȱsoughtȱinformationȱonȱtheȱownershipȱ structureȱofȱYama’sȱinputȱsuppliersȱandȱtheȱinvolvementȱofȱtheȱgovernmentȱorȱtheȱ ChineseȱCommunistȱPartyȱinȱseniorȱmanagementȱandȱboardȱmembership.ȱȱWhileȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ14ȱ

ExhibitȱCȬ29ȱaddressedȱtheȱissueȱofȱownership,ȱitȱleftȱunansweredȱwhetherȱanyȱ governmentȱorȱChineseȱCommunistȱPartyȱmembersȱwereȱinvolvedȱwithȱYama’sȱinputȱ suppliersȱasȱboardȱmembersȱorȱinȱseniorȱmanagementȱroles.ȱȱCommerceȱinvokedȱitsȱ authorityȱtoȱuseȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱanȱadverseȱinference,ȱpursuantȱtoȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(a)ȱandȱ(b),ȱexplainingȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱ“failedȱtoȱ cooperateȱbyȱnotȱactingȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱourȱrequestsȱforȱ informationȱ[and]…ȱwithheldȱinformation.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ17.ȱ YamaȱchallengesȱtheȱDepartment’sȱuseȱofȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱwithȱanȱ adverseȱinferenceȱinȱdesignatingȱtheȱinputȱsuppliersȱasȱauthorities.ȱȱYamaȱmaintainsȱthatȱ theȱChineseȱgovernmentȱprovidedȱsuĜcientȱresponsesȱtoȱtheȱquestionnairesȱandȱthatȱ whereȱitȱdidȱnotȱsubmitȱtheȱrequestedȱinformationȱ“eitherȱ(1)ȱitȱdidȱnotȱhaveȱsuchȱ informationȱtoȱsubmit,ȱorȱ(2)ȱtheȱinformationȱwouldȱviolateȱconędentialityȱprovisionsȱofȱ ChineseȱlawȱregardingȱprivateȱpersonsȱinȱChina.”ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ38—39.ȱ TheȱTariěȱAct,ȱinȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b),ȱrequiresȱanȱinterestedȱpartyȱtoȱactȱtoȱtheȱ bestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱanȱinformationȱrequestȱfromȱCommerce.ȱȱEvenȱif,ȱasȱ theȱChineseȱgovernmentȱreported,ȱ“[t]hereȱisȱnoȱcentralȱinformationalȱdatabaseȱtoȱ searchȱforȱtheȱrequestedȱinformation,”ȱGOCȱInitialȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱatȱEx.ȱCȬ1,ȱ17,ȱ Commerceȱpermissiblyȱfoundȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentȱfailedȱtoȱactȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱ whenȱitȱrespondedȱthatȱCommerceȱshouldȱseekȱtheȱinformationȱfromȱYamaȱandȱitsȱ suppliers.ȱȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱcouldȱinferȱthatȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱwasȱinȱatȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ15ȱ

leastȱasȱgoodȱaȱpositionȱtoȱobtainȱtheȱinformationȱonȱtheȱgovernment’sȱroleȱinȱowningȱ andȱmanagingȱtheȱinputȱsuppliersȱasȱwasȱYama.ȱȱYamaȱmaintainsȱthatȱ“[t]heȱGOCȱ cannotȱbeȱforcedȱtoȱgiveȱthatȱwhichȱitȱdoesȱnotȱpossess,”ȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ39,ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱnotȱ refuteȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱmadeȱnoȱseriousȱeěortȱtoȱ obtainȱtheȱinformationȱCommerceȱrequested.ȱ Yamaȱobjectsȱtoȱtheȱuseȱofȱadverseȱinferencesȱbasedȱonlyȱonȱtheȱallegedȱfailureȱofȱ theȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱtoȱactȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱability.ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ38—39.ȱȱThisȱargumentȱ isȱunconvincing.ȱȱTheȱTariěȱActȱdeęnesȱanȱinterestedȱpartyȱtoȱincludeȱ“theȱgovernmentȱ ofȱaȱcountryȱinȱwhichȱsuchȱmerchandiseȱisȱproducedȱorȱmanufacturedȱorȱfromȱwhichȱ suchȱmerchandiseȱisȱexported.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(9)(B).ȱȱWhenȱhinderedȱinȱitsȱinquiriesȱ byȱanȱuncooperativeȱexportingȱgovernmentȱinȱaȱcountervailingȱdutyȱproceeding,ȱ Commerceȱisȱnotȱnecessarilyȱprecludedȱfromȱinvokingȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b)ȱbyȱtheȱ prospectȱofȱaȱcollateralȱadverseȱeěectȱuponȱaȱcooperatingȱparty.ȱȱSeeȱFineȱFurnitureȱ (Shanghai)ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ748ȱF.3dȱ1365,ȱ1372–73ȱ(Fed.ȱCir.ȱ2014).ȱȱCommerceȱ shouldȱavoidȱsuchȱadverseȱeěectȱifȱtheȱnecessaryȱinformationȱisȱpresentȱelsewhereȱonȱ theȱrecord,ȱseeȱChangzhouȱTrinaȱSolarȱEnergyȱCo.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ42ȱCITȱ__,ȱ__,ȱ352ȱF.ȱ Supp.ȱ3dȱ1316,ȱ1325ȱ(2018),ȱbutȱthatȱwasȱnotȱtheȱcaseȱhere.ȱ Finally,ȱYamaȱarguesȱthatȱ“theȱfactsȱonȱtheȱrecordȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱmakeȱclearȱthatȱtheȱGOCȱ [GovernmentȱofȱChina]ȱandȱtheȱCCPȱareȱprohibitedȱbyȱlawȱfromȱinterferingȱinȱtheȱ ordinaryȱbusinessȱoperationsȱandȱmanagementȱofȱaȱcompany,”ȱmaintainingȱthatȱthereȱisȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ16ȱ

nothingȱ“onȱtheȱrecordȱsuggestingȱthatȱCCP’sȱinvolvementȱinȱaȱprivateȱcompanyȱisȱ suĜcientȱtoȱtransformȱtheȱcompanyȱintoȱaȱgovernmentȱauthority.”ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ45.ȱȱThisȱ argumentȱmissesȱtheȱpoint.ȱȱCommerceȱdidȱnotȱęndȱasȱaȱfactȱthatȱYama’sȱsuppliersȱwereȱ controlledȱbyȱtheȱgovernmentȱandȱinsteadȱused,ȱpermissiblyȱunderȱtheȱcircumstances,ȱ anȱadverseȱinferenceȱthatȱtheseȱsuppliersȱwereȱsubjectȱtoȱgovernmentȱcontrolȱand,ȱ therefore,ȱauthorities.ȱȱAsȱdefendantȱexplained,ȱ“theȱGOC’sȱnoncooperationȱresultedȱinȱ aȱgapȱofȱrecordȱinformation,ȱwhichȱisȱnecessaryȱforȱCommerce’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱ Yama’sȱinputȱsuppliersȱareȱindependentȱfromȱgovernmentȱcontrol,ȱandȱwhichȱcouldȱnotȱ beȱovercomeȱbyȱYama’sȱpartialȱinformation.”ȱȱDef.’sȱResp.ȱatȱ9.ȱȱCommerceȱactedȱwithinȱ itsȱauthorityȱinȱconcludingȱthatȱ“[a]sȱAFA,ȱweȱęndȱthatȱCCPȱoĜcialsȱareȱpresentȱinȱeachȱ ofȱYama’sȱprivatelyȬownedȱinputȱsuppliersȱasȱindividualȱowners,ȱmanagers,ȱandȱ membersȱofȱtheȱboardsȱofȱdirectors,ȱandȱthatȱthisȱgivesȱtheȱCCP,ȱasȱtheȱgovernment,ȱ meaningfulȱcontrolȱoverȱtheȱcompaniesȱandȱtheirȱresources.”ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ17.ȱȱOnȱ theȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱnoncooperationȱofȱtheȱChineseȱgovernment,ȱtheȱ Department’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱYama’sȱinputȱsuppliersȱwereȱauthoritiesȱmustȱbeȱ sustained.ȱ 2.ȱȱTheȱAdverseȱInferencesȱthatȱtheȱMarketsȱforȱSyntheticȱYarnȱandȱCausticȱSodaȱWereȱ SignięcantlyȱDistortedȱbyȱGovernmentȱInvolvementȱ ȱ TheȱTariěȱActȱdirectsȱCommerceȱtoȱdetermineȱ“theȱadequacyȱofȱremunerationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ inȱrelationȱtoȱprevailingȱmarketȱconditionsȱforȱtheȱgoodȱorȱserviceȱbeingȱprovidedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱ theȱcountryȱwhichȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱinvestigationȱorȱreview.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5)(E)(iv).ȱȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ17ȱ

Addressingȱtheȱstatutoryȱreferenceȱtoȱ“prevailingȱmarketȱconditions”ȱinȱtheȱsubjectȱ country,ȱtheȱDepartment’sȱregulationȱdirectsȱtheȱCommerceȱSecretaryȱtoȱconsider,ȱęrst,ȱ aȱ“tierȬone”ȱanalysis,ȱunderȱwhichȱ“[t]heȱSecretaryȱwillȱnormallyȱseekȱtoȱmeasureȱtheȱ adequacyȱofȱremunerationȱbyȱcomparingȱtheȱgovernmentȱpriceȱtoȱaȱmarketȬdeterminedȱ priceȱforȱtheȱgoodȱorȱserviceȱresultingȱfromȱactualȱtransactionsȱinȱtheȱcountryȱinȱ question.”ȱȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.511(a)(2)(i).ȱȱTheȱregulationȱprovides,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱ“[i]fȱthereȱ isȱnoȱuseableȱmarketȬdeterminedȱpriceȱwithȱwhichȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱcomparison,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱ Secretaryȱwillȱseekȱtoȱmeasureȱtheȱadequacyȱofȱremunerationȱbyȱcomparingȱtheȱ governmentȱpriceȱtoȱaȱworldȱmarketȱpriceȱwhereȱitȱisȱreasonableȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱsuchȱ priceȱwouldȱbeȱavailableȱtoȱpurchasersȱinȱtheȱcountryȱinȱquestion.”ȱȱId.ȱ §ȱ351.511(a)(2)(ii).ȱȱAsȱdiscussedȱbelow,ȱYamaȱcontestsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱresortȱtoȱ §ȱ351.511(a)(2)(ii),ȱi.e.,ȱitsȱresortȱtoȱaȱ“tierȬtwo”ȱanalysis.ȱ Inȱtheȱpreambleȱaccompanyingȱtheȱ1998ȱpromulgationȱofȱtheȱregulation,ȱ Commerceȱdiscussedȱtheȱissueȱofȱwhenȱitȱwouldȱconsiderȱ“marketȬdetermined”ȱpricesȱ toȱbeȱavailableȱandȱusableȱforȱaȱtierȬoneȱanalysisȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱ“governmentȱ distortionȱofȱtheȱmarket,”ȱexplainingȱasȱfollows:ȱ Weȱnormallyȱdoȱnotȱintendȱtoȱadjustȱsuchȱpricesȱtoȱaccountȱforȱ governmentȱdistortionȱofȱtheȱmarket.ȱȱWhileȱweȱrecognizeȱthatȱ governmentȱinvolvementȱinȱaȱmarketȱmayȱhaveȱsomeȱimpactȱonȱtheȱpriceȱ ofȱtheȱgoodȱorȱserviceȱinȱthatȱmarket,ȱsuchȱdistortionȱwillȱnormallyȱbeȱ minimalȱunlessȱtheȱgovernmentȱproviderȱconstitutesȱaȱmajorityȱor,ȱinȱ certainȱcircumstances,ȱaȱsubstantialȱportionȱofȱtheȱmarket.ȱȱWhereȱitȱisȱ reasonableȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱactualȱtransactionȱpricesȱareȱsignięcantlyȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ18ȱ

distortedȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱtheȱgovernment’sȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱmarket,ȱweȱ willȱresortȱtoȱtheȱnextȱalternativeȱinȱtheȱhierarchy.ȱ ȱ CountervailingȱDuties,ȱ63ȱFed.ȱReg.ȱ65,348,ȱ65,377ȱ(Nov.ȱ25,ȱ1998).ȱ Inȱtheȱeighthȱreview,ȱCommerceȱusedȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱadverseȱ inferences,ȱpursuantȱtoȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e,ȱtoȱdetermineȱthatȱtheȱmarketsȱforȱsyntheticȱ yarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱwereȱsignięcantlyȱdistortedȱbyȱinvolvementȱofȱtheȱChineseȱ governmentȱinȱthoseȱmarketsȱand,ȱaccordingly,ȱthatȱaȱtierȬoneȱanalysisȱunderȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ §ȱ351.511(a)(2)(i)ȱwasȱnotȱfeasible.ȱȱFinalȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ14.ȱȱCommerceȱresortedȱ“toȱtheȱ nextȱalternativeȱinȱtheȱhierarchy,”ȱi.e.,ȱaȱ“worldȱprice”ȱanalysisȱunderȱtierȱtwo,ȱ §ȱ351.511(a)(2)(ii).ȱȱExplainingȱthatȱitȱreceivedȱnoȱ“benchmark”ȱdataȱfromȱanyȱinterestedȱ partyȱfromȱwhichȱtoȱdetermineȱaȱworldȱpriceȱforȱeachȱofȱtheseȱproducts,ȱCommerceȱ “reliedȱonȱtheȱ2017ȱaverageȱworldȱmarketȱprice”ȱfromȱtheȱ2017ȱadministrativeȱreviewȱofȱ theȱOrder,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱpreviousȱreview,ȱtoȱdetermineȱworldȱpricesȱforȱtheȱinputs,ȱwhichȱitȱ adjustedȱforȱinĚation.ȱȱPreliminaryȱI&DȱMem.ȱatȱ21—22.ȱȱComparingȱtheseȱpricesȱtoȱtheȱ pricesȱYamaȱpaidȱforȱitsȱinputs,ȱCommerceȱcalculatedȱsubsidyȱratesȱofȱ27.74%ȱandȱ0.27%ȱ forȱYama’sȱpurchasesȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda,ȱrespectively.ȱ YamaȱcontestsȱtheȱdeterminationsȱCommerceȱreachedȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677eȱ thatȱtheȱdomesticȱmarketsȱinȱChinaȱforȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱwereȱ“distorted”ȱ byȱgovernmentȱinvolvement.ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ40—44.ȱȱYamaȱargues,ȱęrst,ȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱ evidenceȱrefutesȱthisȱdeterminationȱand,ȱsecond,ȱthatȱtheȱadverseȱinferencesȱofȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ19ȱ

signięcantȱmarketȱdistortionȱinȱtheȱtwoȱmarketsȱwereȱunlawfulȱbecauseȱtheȱChineseȱ governmentȱdidȱnotȱfailȱtoȱcooperateȱinȱrespondingȱtoȱtheȱDepartment’sȱinquiries.ȱ Inȱsupportȱofȱitsȱfactualȱcontention,ȱYamaȱpointsȱtoȱrecordȱevidenceȱfromȱtheȱ governmentȱofȱChina’sȱquestionnaireȱresponsesȱthatȱonlyȱaȱsmallȱpercentageȱofȱ syntheticȱyarnȱproducersȱareȱmajorityȬgovernmentȬownedȱandȱthatȱtheseȱcompaniesȱ produceȱevenȱaȱsmallerȱpercentageȱofȱtheȱtotalȱproduction,ȱarguingȱthatȱthisȱlevelȱofȱ governmentȱownershipȱandȱproductionȱcannotȱcontrolȱpricesȱinȱtheȱmarketplace.ȱȱId.ȱ atȱ41.ȱȱYamaȱmakesȱaȱsimilarȱargumentȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱcausticȱsodaȱproducers.ȱȱId.ȱȱYamaȱ argues,ȱfurther,ȱthatȱ“theȱGOCȱstatedȱthatȱpricesȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱrawȱmaterialsȱareȱdictatedȱ byȱtheȱmarket,ȱnotȱtheȱgovernment”ȱandȱthatȱ“[t]hereȱareȱnoȱpriceȱcontrols.ȱȱNorȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱanyȱ exportȱcontrols,ȱexportȱlicensingȱrestrictions,ȱorȱexportȱtariěs.”ȱȱId.ȱȱYamaȱaddsȱthatȱ “[t]hereȱareȱnoȱgovernmentȱlimitationsȱonȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱrawȱmaterials”ȱandȱthatȱ “[p]roducersȱareȱfreeȱtoȱsellȱtoȱanyȱcustomer,ȱdomesticȱorȱforeign.”ȱȱId.ȱ(citingȱGOCȱ InitialȱQuestionnaireȱResp).ȱȱInȱsummary,ȱYamaȱsubmitsȱthatȱ“[t]hereȱisȱnotȱevenȱaȱ scintillaȱofȱevidence,ȱmuchȱlessȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱtoȱsupportȱaȱęndingȱ ofȱdistortionȱinȱtheseȱtwoȱmarkets.”ȱȱId.ȱ Yama’sȱargumentȱthatȱtheȱrecordȱlackedȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱtoȱsupportȱaȱęndingȱ ofȱsignięcantȱmarketȱdistortionȱisȱunavailing.ȱȱItȱwasȱapparentȱtoȱCommerceȱthatȱ governmentȱcontrolȱcouldȱtakeȱformsȱotherȱthanȱmajorityȱownership,ȱsuchȱasȱaȱ signięcant,ȱalbeitȱminority,ȱownershipȱshareȱorȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱgovernmentȱoĜcialsȱonȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ20ȱ

boardsȱofȱdirectorsȱorȱinȱseniorȱmanagement.ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ11.ȱȱCommerceȱ reasonablyȱsoughtȱinformationȱonȱtheseȱotherȱformsȱofȱgovernmentȱinvolvementȱtoȱ determineȱwhetherȱitȱcouldȱconductȱaȱtierȬoneȱinquiryȱunderȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.511(a)(2)(i).ȱ Commerceȱdidȱnotȱobtainȱtheȱinformationȱitȱsought.ȱȱDirectingȱtheȱChineseȱ governmentȱtoȱtwoȱcompaniesȱinȱaȱFirstȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaire,ȱCommerceȱaskedȱ theȱgovernmentȱtoȱ“traceȱtheȱcompanies’ȱownershipȱbackȱtoȱtheȱultimateȱindividualȱorȱ stateȱowners.”ȱȱ2018ȱCountervailingȱDutyȱAdministrativeȱReviewȱofȱNarrowȱWovenȱRibbonsȱ withȱWovenȱSelvedgeȱfromȱtheȱPeople’sȱRepublicȱofȱChina:ȱFirstȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaireȱ atȱ5ȱ(Aprilȱ2,ȱ2020),ȱP.R.ȱDocȱ138.ȱȱTheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱrespondedȱthatȱneitherȱofȱ theseȱcompaniesȱ“areȱregisteredȱinȱmainlandȱChina.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱGOCȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱ accessȱtoȱtheȱcompanyȱregistrationȱinformation.”ȱȱGOCȱFirstȱSuppl.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱatȱ 7.ȱȱInȱaȱSecondȱSupplementalȱQuestionnaire,ȱCommerce,ȱagainȱreferringȱtoȱproducersȱinȱ theȱmarketȱsectorsȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda,ȱaskedȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱ forȱ“aȱlistȱofȱtheȱcompanies”ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱChineseȱGovernmentȱmaintainsȱaȱmajorityȱ ownershipȱorȱcontrollingȱmanagementȱinterestȱ“eitherȱdirectlyȱorȱthroughȱotherȱ Governmentȱentities”ȱasȱwellȱasȱ“aȱlistȱofȱtheȱcompanies”ȱwhereȱtheȱgovernment’sȱ interestȱ“isȱlessȱthanȱ50ȱpercent.”ȱȱGOCȱSecondȱSuppl.ȱQuestionnaireȱatȱ8.ȱȱTheȱChineseȱ governmentȱinformedȱCommerceȱthatȱitȱdoesȱnotȱ“maintainȱtheȱinformationȱrequested.”ȱȱ GOCȱSecondȱSuppl.ȱQuestionnaireȱResp.ȱatȱ11.ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ21ȱ

TheȱTariěȱActȱallowsȱCommerceȱtoȱuseȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱ“inȱselectingȱfromȱ amongȱtheȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailable”ȱwhenȱ“anȱinterestedȱpartyȱhasȱfailedȱtoȱcooperateȱ byȱnotȱactingȱtoȱtheȱbestȱofȱitsȱabilityȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱaȱrequestȱforȱinformation.”ȱȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677e(b).ȱȱBecauseȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱmadeȱnoȱmeaningfulȱeěortȱtoȱ obtainȱtheȱrequestedȱinformation,ȱwhichȱwasȱdirectlyȱrelevantȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱsignięcantȱ marketȱdistortionȱbyȱgovernmentȱinvolvement,ȱCommerceȱjustięablyȱusedȱadverseȱ inferencesȱthatȱsignięcantȱmarketȱdistortionȱaěectedȱtheȱtwoȱmarketȱsectors.ȱȱWhileȱ Commerceȱshouldȱavoidȱanȱinferenceȱadverseȱtoȱaȱcooperatingȱpartyȱ(suchȱasȱYama)ȱ basedȱonȱnonȬcooperationȱbyȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱtheȱexportingȱcountryȱwhereȱtheȱ necessaryȱinformationȱisȱpresentȱelsewhereȱonȱtheȱrecord,ȱseeȱChangzhouȱTrina,ȱ42ȱCITȱ __,ȱ__,ȱ352ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1316,ȱ1325ȱ(2018),ȱtheȱspecięcȱinformationȱCommerceȱsoughtȱwasȱ notȱonȱtheȱrecordȱofȱtheȱeighthȱreview.ȱȱYamaȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱonȱtheȱ limitedȱgovernmentȱmajorityȱownershipȱofȱcompaniesȱinȱtheȱindustryȱsectors,ȱbutȱthisȱ evidence,ȱwhileȱrelevant,ȱwasȱnotȱsuĜcientȱtoȱestablishȱthatȱgovernmentȱinvolvementȱ didȱnotȱdistortȱtheȱdomesticȱmarketsȱforȱtheseȱproducts.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱconcludes,ȱtherefore,ȱ thatȱCommerceȱpermissiblyȱinvokedȱitsȱ“adverseȱinference”ȱauthorityȱunderȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ §ȱ1677e(b)ȱtoȱdetermineȱthatȱtheȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱmarketsȱinȱChinaȱwereȱ signięcantlyȱdistortedȱbyȱgovernmentȱinvolvement.ȱȱThatȱdeterminationȱsuĜcedȱtoȱ supportȱaȱdecisionȱtoȱresortȱtoȱaȱtierȬtwoȱanalysisȱunderȱ19ȱC.F.R.ȱ§ȱ351.511(a)(2)(ii),ȱ underȱwhichȱCommerceȱbasedȱitsȱsubsidyȱratesȱonȱworldȱpriceȱinformationȱplacedȱonȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ22ȱ

theȱrecordȱfromȱtheȱpreviousȱreview.ȱȱWhileȱcontestingȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱtoȱ conductȱaȱtierȬtwoȱanalysis,ȱYamaȱdidȱnotȱcontestȱtheȱsuitabilityȱofȱthisȱworldȱpriceȱ informationȱforȱuseȱasȱbenchmarksȱinȱitsȱdeterminationsȱthatȱYamaȱobtainedȱsyntheticȱ yarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱatȱpricesȱthatȱwereȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱremuneration.ȱ Finally,ȱcitingȱtheȱChineseȱ“CompanyȱLaw”ȱandȱtheȱCCPȱConstitution,ȱYamaȱ arguesȱthatȱevenȱifȱChineseȱgovernmentȱoĜcialsȱwereȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱprivateȱ companies,ȱtheyȱwouldȱbeȱlegallyȱprohibitedȱfromȱdictatingȱ“howȱeachȱcompanyȱisȱ run.”ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ42.ȱȱYamaȱdoesȱnotȱaddressȱtheȱconsequenceȱofȱtheȱChineseȱgovernment’sȱ failureȱtoȱcooperate,ȱwhichȱCommerceȱreasonablyȱfoundȱtoȱhaveȱprecludedȱitȱfromȱ makingȱfurtherȱinquiriesȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱgovernmentȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱmarketsȱforȱ syntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱand,ȱtherefore,ȱalsoȱprecludedȱaȱtierȬoneȱanalysis.ȱ 3.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱ“Specięcity”ȱDeterminationsȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ Commerceȱmayȱdetermineȱaȱsubsidyȱtoȱbeȱdeȱfactoȱspecięcȱifȱ“[t]heȱactualȱ recipientsȱofȱtheȱsubsidy,ȱwhetherȱconsideredȱonȱanȱenterpriseȱorȱindustryȱbasis,ȱareȱ limitedȱinȱnumber.”ȱȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)(iii)(I).4ȱȱInȱtheȱeighthȱreview,ȱCommerceȱ

ȱ ȱTheȱprovisionȱreadsȱasȱfollowsȱinȱtheȱentirety:ȱ ȱ WhereȱthereȱareȱreasonsȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱaȱsubsidyȱmayȱbeȱspecięcȱasȱaȱmaĴerȱofȱ fact,ȱtheȱsubsidyȱisȱspecięcȱifȱoneȱorȱmoreȱofȱtheȱfollowingȱfactorsȱexist:ȱ (I) Theȱactualȱrecipientsȱofȱtheȱsubsidy,ȱwhetherȱconsideredȱonȱ anȱenterpriseȱorȱindustryȱbasis,ȱareȱlimitedȱinȱnumber.ȱ (continuedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ23ȱ

determinedȱthatȱtheȱLTARȱsubsidiesȱitȱfoundȱforȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱwereȱdeȱ factoȱspecięcȱaccordingȱtoȱthisȱprovision.ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ20.ȱȱInȱresponseȱtoȱ theȱcourt’sȱorderȱinȱYamaȱI,ȱCommerceȱplacedȱtheȱ2015ȱNewȱSubsidyȱAllegationȱonȱtheȱ recordȱandȱreexaminedȱtheȱissueȱofȱspecięcityȱasȱtoȱbothȱinputs.ȱȱId.ȱȱOnȱremand,ȱ Commerce,ȱagainȱusingȱfactsȱotherwiseȱavailableȱandȱadverseȱinferences,ȱdeterminedȱ thatȱ“provisionȱofȱtheseȱinputsȱisȱdeȱfactoȱspecięcȱunderȱsectionȱ771(5A)(D)(iii)(I)ȱofȱtheȱ Act.”ȱȱId.ȱ AccordingȱtoȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination,ȱtheȱpetitioner,ȱinȱtheȱ2015ȱNewȱ SubsidyȱAllegation,ȱ“providedȱinformationȱdemonstratingȱthatȱsyntheticȱyarnȱisȱusedȱ solelyȱbyȱtheȱtextilesȱindustryȱinȱChina.”ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ19ȱ(Citingȱ2015ȱNewȱ SubsidyȱAllegationȱPartȱ1Fȱ(Feb.ȱ7,ȱ2017)ȱExhibitȱIIȱPȱ“HowȱYarnȱisȱMade”ȱP.R.R.ȱDocȱ7,ȱ (explainingȱthatȱ“[y]arnȱisȱusedȱtoȱmakeȱtextilesȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”)).ȱȱȱ

ȱ (II) Anȱenterpriseȱorȱindustryȱisȱaȱpredominantȱuserȱofȱtheȱ subsidy.ȱ (III) Anȱenterpriseȱorȱindustryȱreceivesȱaȱdisproportionatelyȱlargeȱ amountȱofȱtheȱsubsidy.ȱ (IV) Theȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱtheȱauthorityȱprovidingȱtheȱsubsidyȱ hasȱexercisedȱdiscretionȱinȱtheȱdecisionȱtoȱgrantȱtheȱsubsidyȱ indicatesȱthatȱanȱenterpriseȱorȱindustryȱisȱfavoredȱoverȱothers.ȱ Inȱevaluatingȱtheȱfactorsȱsetȱforthȱinȱsubclausesȱ(I),ȱ(II),ȱ(III),ȱandȱ(IV),ȱtheȱ administeringȱauthorityȱshallȱtakeȱintoȱaccountȱtheȱextentȱofȱdiversięcationȱofȱ economicȱactivitiesȱwithinȱtheȱjurisdictionȱofȱtheȱauthorityȱprovidingȱtheȱsubsidy,ȱ andȱtheȱlengthȱofȱtimeȱduringȱwhichȱtheȱsubsidyȱprogramȱhasȱbeenȱinȱoperation.ȱ ȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)(iii)ȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ24ȱ

Duringȱtheȱeighthȱreview,ȱCommerceȱrequestedȱthatȱtheȱChineseȱgovernment:ȱ “[p]rovideȱaȱlistȱofȱtheȱindustriesȱinȱChinaȱthatȱpurchaseȱsyntheticȱyarnȱdirectly.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱ Pleaseȱclearlyȱidentifyȱtheȱindustryȱinȱwhichȱtheȱcompaniesȱunderȱreviewȱareȱclassięed.”ȱȱ GOCȱInitialȱQuestionnaireȱatȱIIȬ7.ȱȱTheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱrespondedȱthatȱ“syntheticȱ yarnȱhasȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱuses,ȱincludingȱbutȱnotȱlimitedȱtoȱuseȱinȱtheȱnarrowȱribbonȱ industry.”ȱȱGOCȱInitialȱQuestionnaireȱResponseȱatȱ19.ȱȱInȱtheȱFirstȱSupplementalȱ Questionnaire,ȱCommerceȱagainȱaskedȱtheȱChineseȱGovernmentȱtoȱprovideȱaȱlistȱofȱtheȱ industriesȱinȱChinaȱthatȱpurchaseȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda,ȱandȱtheȱgovernmentȱ replied,ȱ“syntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱhaveȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱuses,ȱincluding,ȱbutȱnotȱ limitedȱto,ȱuseȱinȱtheȱnarrowȱwovenȱribbonȱindustry.”ȱȱGOCȱFirstȱSuppl.ȱQuestionnaireȱ Resp.ȱatȱ7.ȱ TheȱresponsesȱofȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱChinaȱdidȱnotȱcontradictȱtheȱevidenceȱinȱtheȱ NewȱSubsidyȱAllegationȱthatȱtheȱsoleȱuserȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱisȱtheȱtextileȱindustry.ȱȱ Yamaȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱtextileȱ“industry”ȱconsistsȱofȱmultipleȱindustries,ȱincludingȱ“theȱ ribbonsȱindustry,ȱtheȱthreadȱindustry,ȱtheȱunęnishedȱtextileȱindustry,ȱęnishedȱtextileȱ industry,ȱshirtȱindustry,ȱetc.”ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ47.ȱȱWhileȱtheȱ“textilesȱindustry”ȱinȱChinaȱ undoubtedlyȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱcomprisedȱofȱmultipleȱindustries,ȱasȱYamaȱargues,ȱ theȱspecięcityȱprovisionȱofȱtheȱTariěȱActȱinstructsȱthatȱ“anyȱreferenceȱtoȱanȱenterpriseȱorȱ industryȱisȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱforeignȱenterpriseȱorȱforeignȱindustryȱandȱincludesȱaȱgroupȱofȱ suchȱenterprisesȱorȱindustries.”ȱȱId.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)(iii)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱUnderȱthatȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ25ȱ

standard,ȱtheȱrecordȱevidenceȱsuĜcesȱtoȱsupportȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdeterminationȱthatȱ theȱsubsidyȱforȱtheȱsaleȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱatȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱremunerationȱisȱ “specięc”ȱasȱrequiredȱbyȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)(iii)(I).ȱ Theȱ2015ȱNewȱSubsidyȱAllegationȱassertedȱthatȱcausticȱsodaȱisȱusedȱbyȱaȱtotalȱofȱ sixȱindustries.ȱȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱatȱ20ȱ(SeeȱNewȱSubsidyȱAllegationȱPartȱ1Gȱ(Feb.ȱ7,ȱ 2017)ȱExhibitȱIIIȬHȱ“GPSȱSafetyȱSummaryȱSodiumȱHydroxide”ȱP.R.R.ȱDocȱ8,ȱlistingȱsixȱ industriesȱthatȱuseȱcausticȱsoda).ȱȱTheȱquestionnaireȱresponseȱofȱtheȱgovernmentȱofȱ Chinaȱreferredȱgenerallyȱtoȱ“aȱwideȱrangeȱofȱuses”ȱwithoutȱspecifyingȱindustriesȱinȱ additionȱtoȱthoseȱidentięedȱinȱtheȱ2015ȱNewȱSubsidyȱAllegation.ȱȱGOCȱInitialȱ QuestionnaireȱResponseȱatȱ27ȱ(“AsȱaȱgeneralȱmaĴer,ȱcausticȱsodaȱhasȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱuses,ȱ includingȱbutȱnotȱlimitedȱtoȱuseȱinȱtheȱnarrowȱribbonȱindustries.”).ȱȱCommerceȱ reasonablyȱconcludedȱfromȱtheȱuncontradictedȱevidenceȱinȱtheȱNewȱSubsidyȱAllegationȱ thatȱaȱlimitedȱnumberȱofȱindustries,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱsix,ȱusedȱcausticȱsodaȱandȱpermissiblyȱ determinedȱthatȱtheȱsubsidyȱforȱcausticȱsodaȱwasȱdeȱfactoȱspecięcȱwithinȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱ 19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)(iii)(I).ȱ 4.ȱȱYama’sȱContentionȱofȱtheȱAbsenceȱofȱaȱ“Program”ȱ YamaȱcontestsȱtheȱspecięcityȱęndingsȱonȱwhichȱCommerceȱreliedȱforȱitsȱLTARȱ subsidiesȱonȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsoda,ȱonȱtheȱgroundȱthatȱevidenceȱdoesȱnotȱ demonstrateȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱgovernmentȱ“program”ȱtoȱprovideȱeitherȱofȱtheseȱinputsȱ atȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱremuneration.ȱȱPl.’sȱBr.ȱ48ȱ(“CommerceȱstatesȱthatȱtheȱStatuteȱdoesȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ26ȱ

notȱrequireȱaȱ‘program’ȱbutȱmerelyȱaȱsubsidyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱaccurate.”).ȱȱPlaintiěȱbasesȱ itsȱargumentȱonȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)(iii)ȱ(“Inȱevaluatingȱtheȱfactorsȱsetȱforthȱinȱ subclausesȱ(I),ȱ(II),ȱ(III),ȱandȱ(IV),ȱtheȱadministeringȱauthorityȱshallȱtakeȱintoȱaccountȱtheȱ extentȱofȱdiversięcationȱofȱeconomicȱactivitiesȱwithinȱtheȱjurisdictionȱofȱtheȱauthorityȱ providingȱtheȱsubsidy,ȱandȱtheȱlengthȱofȱtimeȱduringȱwhichȱtheȱsubsidyȱprogramȱhasȱbeenȱ inȱoperation.”)ȱ(emphasisȱadded).ȱȱTheȱcourtȱisȱnotȱpersuadedȱbyȱthisȱargument.ȱ Asȱdiscussedȱpreviously,ȱCommerceȱusedȱworldȱpriceȱinformationȱtoȱconcludeȱ thatȱYamaȱpurchasedȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱforȱpricesȱatȱlessȱthanȱadequateȱ remuneration.ȱȱAsȱalsoȱmentioned,ȱYamaȱcontested,ȱunsuccessfully,ȱtheȱdecisionȱtoȱ conductȱaȱtierȬtwoȱanalysisȱbutȱdidȱnotȱcontestȱtheȱsuitabilityȱofȱthisȱinformationȱforȱuseȱ asȱworldȱpriceȱbenchmarksȱinȱdeterminingȱthatȱYamaȱobtainedȱbothȱinputsȱforȱlessȱthanȱ adequateȱremuneration.ȱȱMoreover,ȱtheȱrecordȱallowedȱCommerceȱtoȱuseȱfactsȱ otherwiseȱavailableȱandȱadverseȱinferencesȱtoȱdetermineȱthatȱYama’sȱsuppliersȱwereȱ “authorities”ȱandȱthatȱtheȱoverallȱChineseȱmarketȱforȱtheseȱinputsȱwasȱsignięcantlyȱ distortedȱbyȱgovernmentȱinvolvement.ȱȱFromȱtheseȱdeterminations,ȱCommerceȱ permissiblyȱusedȱanȱadverseȱinferenceȱtoȱdetermineȱthatȱtheȱChineseȱgovernmentȱhadȱ signięcantȱinvolvementȱinȱYama’sȱsuppliersȱandȱinȱtheȱentireȱsectorsȱofȱtheȱChineseȱ domesticȱmarketȱforȱtheseȱtwoȱproducts.ȱȱItȱwasȱreasonable,ȱtherefore,ȱforȱCommerceȱtoȱ considerȱthisȱinferredȱgovernmentȱinvolvementȱasȱconstitutingȱ“programs”ȱwithinȱtheȱ CourtȱNo.ȱ21Ȭ00402ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱPageȱ27ȱ

meaningȱofȱ19ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1677(5A)(D)(iii).ȱȱSeeȱYamaȱRibbonsȱandȱBowsȱCo.,ȱLtd.ȱv.ȱUnitedȱ States,ȱ46ȱCITȱ___,ȱ606ȱF.ȱSupp.ȱ3dȱ1345,ȱ1359ȱ(2022).ȱ III.ȱȱCONCLUSIONȱ TheȱcourtȱsustainsȱtheȱDepartment’sȱdecisionȱinȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱ notȱtoȱimposeȱcountervailingȱdutiesȱuponȱYamaȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱExportȱBuyer’sȱ CreditȱProgram.ȱ TheȱcourtȱconcludesȱthatȱtheȱRemandȱRedeterminationȱremediedȱtheȱdeęcienciesȱ theȱcourtȱidentięedȱinȱYamaȱIȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱandȱ reachedȱresultsȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱrecordȱevidence.ȱȱTheȱDepartment’sȱinclusionsȱ ofȱsubsidyȱratesȱforȱtheȱprovisionȱofȱsyntheticȱyarnȱandȱcausticȱsodaȱforȱlessȱthanȱ adequateȱremuneration,ȱtherefore,ȱwereȱsupportedȱbyȱsubstantialȱevidenceȱandȱinȱ accordanceȱwithȱlaw.ȱ TheȱcourtȱwillȱenterȱjudgmentȱsustainingȱtheȱRemandȱRedetermination.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ _/s/ȱTimothyȱC.ȱStanceuȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ TimothyȱC.ȱStanceu,ȱJudgeȱ Dated:ȱAugustȱ13,ȱ2024ȱ NewȱYork,ȱNewȱYorkȱ