Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass Co. v. United States
Loading PDF...
Slip Op. 07-118
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
______________________________
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES,
:
:
Defendant,
:
:
and
:
:
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., :
:
Deft.-Ints.
:
______________________________:
CHANGCHUN PILKINGTON SAFETY
GLASS CO., LTD., ET AL.,
Before:
Richard K. Eaton,
Judge
Consol. Court No. 02-00312
JUDGMENT
Before the court are the Final Results of Redetermination
Pursuant to Court Remand (âFourth Remand Resultsâ) in Fuyao Glass
Industry Group Co. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 02-002821
(Orders of Nov. 2, 2006 & Dec. 19, 2006) (âFuyao IVâ); the
comments of Shenzhen CSG Autoglass Co., Ltd. (âCSGâ), the
successor company to plaintiff Benxun Automotive Glass Co., Ltd.
(âBenxunâ); the comments of plaintiffs Changchun Pilkington
Safety Glass Co., Ltd., Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd.
and Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (âPilkington
Plaintiffsâ); and the United Statesâ response to CSGâs and the
1
On January 8, 2007, the court severed Court Nos. 0200282 and 02-00321 from the consolidated action, and designated
Court No. 03-00312 as the lead case, under which Court No. 02-319
and Court No. 02-00320 were consolidated.
Consol. Court No. 02-00312
Page 2
Pilkington Plaintiffsâ comments.
In Fuyao IV, the court remanded this matter to the United
States Department of Commerce (âCommerceâ) for the purpose of
devising a reasonable methodology to calculate an antidumping
margin for the Pilkington Plaintiffs and Benxun, taking into
consideration the zero margins assigned to Fuyao and Xinyi.
See
Order of 12/19/06.
On remand, Commerce identified the control numbers
(âCONNUMsâ)2 shared by the Pilkington Plaintiffs, Benxun, Fuyao
and Xinyi, as reported in their questionnaire responses, and
âimpute[d] Fuyaoâs and Xinyiâs CONNUM-specific margins to the
matching CONNUMs of [the Pilkington Plaintiffs] and Benxun.â
Fourth Remand Results at 8.
Commerce then weight-averaged those
CONNUM-specific margins, which resulted in the de minimis
antidumping margin of 1.47 percent for the Pilkington Plaintiffs
and Benxun.
Neither the Pilkington Plaintiffs nor CSG contest
the Fourth Remand Results.
In light of the foregoing, and Commerce having duly complied
with the courtâs directive in Fuyao IV, it is hereby
2
Commerce defined a CONNUM as a productsâs unique
combination of physical characteristics. See Fourth Remand
Results at 6.
Consol. Court No. 02-00312
Page 3
ORDERED that the Fourth Remand Results are sustained.
/s/ Richard K. Eaton
Richard K. Eaton
Dated:
August 3, 2007
New York, New York
