CIT 拒绝 Commerce 延期请求，确认两家中国企业排除于中国硬木胶合板反倾销令
Linyi Chengen Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States
CIT 在 Slip Op. 26–120（Consol. Court No. 18-00002）中驳回美国政府要求延长 Commerce 提交发回重审结果期限的动议，并命令 Commerce 将 Xuzhou Jiangyang Wood Industries Co., Ltd. 与 Zhejiang Dehua TB Import & Export Co., Ltd. 排除于中国硬木胶合板反倾销令之外，不得对两家公司征收任何反倾销税保证金。
Slip Op. 26–120
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
LINYI CHENGEN IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
and
CELTIC CO., LTD., JIAXING GSUN IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD., SUQIAN HOPEWAY INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD., ANHUI HODA WOOD CO., LTD., SHANGHAI FUTUWOOD TRADING CO., LTD., LINYI EVERGREEN WOOD CO., LTD., XUZHOU JIANGYANG WOOD INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., XUZHOU TIMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO. LTD., LINYI SANFORTUNE WOOD CO., LTD., LINYI MINGZHU WOOD CO., LTD., XUZHOU ANDEFU WOOD CO., LTD., SUINING PENGXIANG WOOD CO., LTD., XUZHOU SHENGPING IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD., XUZHOU PINLIN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO. LTD., LINYI GLARY PLYWOOD CO., LTD., LINYI LINHAI WOOD CO., LTD., LINYI HENGSHENG WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., SHANDONG QISHAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD., SUZHOU ORIENTAL
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Consol. Court No. 18-00002 DRAGON IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD., LINYI HUASHENG YONGBIN WOOD CO., LTD., QINGDAO GOOD FAITH IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD., LINYI JIAHE WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., JIAXING HENGTONG WOOD CO., LTD., XUZHOU LONGYUAN WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., FAR EAST AMERICAN, INC., ZHEJIANG DEHUA TB IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD., HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES INC., JIASHAN DALIN WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., HAPPY WOOD INDUSTRIAL GROUP CO., LTD., JIANGSU HIGH HOPE ARSER CO., LTD., SUQIAN YAORUN TRADE CO., LTD., YANGZHOU HANOV INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., G.D. ENTERPRISE LIMITED, DEQING CHINA- AFRICA FOREIGN TRADE PORT CO., LTD., PIZHOU JIN SHENG YUAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD., XUZHOU SHUIWANGXING TRADING CO., LTD., COSCO STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., LINYI CITY DONGFANG JINXIN ECONOMIC & TRADE CO., LTD., LINYI CITY SHENRUI INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD., JIANGSU QIANJIUREN INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD., QINGDAO TOP P&Q INTERNATIONAL CORP., TARACA PACIFIC, INC., CANUSA WOOD PRODUCTS LTD., FABUWOOD CABINETRY CORPORATION, HOLLAND SOUTHWEST INTERNATIONAL INC., LIBERTY WOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., NORTHWEST HARDWOODS, INC., RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC, USPLY LLC, SHANDONG DONGFANG BAYLEY WOOD CO., LTD., CONCANNON CORPORATION D/B/A CONCANNON LUMBER COMPANY,
Consolidated Plaintiffs,
and
TARACA PACIFIC, INC., CANUSA WOOD PRODUCTS LTD., CONCANNCON CORPORATION D/B/A CONCANNON LUMBER COMPANY, FABUWOOD CABINETRY CORPORATION, HOLLAND SOUTHWEST INTERNATIONAL INC., LIBERTY WOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., NORTHWEST HARDWOODS, INC., RICHMOND INTERNATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS, LLC, USPLY LLC, CELTIC CO., LTD., JIAXING GSUN IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD., ANHUI HODA WOOD CO., LTD., JIAXING HENGTONG WOOD CO., LTD., LINYI EVERGREEN WOOD CO., LTD., LINYI GLARY PLYWOOD CO., LTD., LINYI HENGSHENG WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., LINYI HUASHENG YONGBIN WOOD CO., LTD., LINYI JIAHE WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., LINYI LINHAI WOOD CO., LTD., LINYI MINGZHU WOOD CO., LTD., LINYI SANFORTUNE WOOD CO., LTD., QINGDAO GOOD FAITH IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD., SHANDONG QISHAN INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD., SHANGHAI FUTUWOOD TRADING CO., LTD., SUINING PENGXIANG WOOD CO., LTD., SUQIAN HOPEWAY INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD., SUZHOU ORIENTAL DRAGON IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD., XUZHOU ANDEFU WOOD CO., LTD., XUZHOU JIANGYANG WOOD INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., XUZHOU LONGYUAN WOOD INDUSTRY CO., LTD., XUZHOU PINLIN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD., XUZHOU SHENGPING IMPORT AND EXPORT CO., LTD., XUZHOU TIMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant, and
COALITION FOR FAIR TRADE IN HARDWOOD PLYWOOD,
Defendant-Intervenor.
OPINION AND ORDER
[Denying Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time for the Department of Commerce to File Remand Results in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion and mandate in Linyi Chengen Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, 174 F.4th 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2026).]
Dated: October 5, 2026
Choe-Groves, Judge: Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for an
Extension of Time for the Department of Commerce to File Remand Results
(“Defendant’s Motion” or “Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 265. Defendant United States
(“Defendant”) seeks an extension of time for the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) to individually examine Consolidated Plaintiffs Xuzhou Jiangyang
Wood Industries Co., Ltd. (“Jiangyang Wood”) and Zhejiang Dehua TB Import &
Export Co., Ltd. (“Dehua TB”) (collectively, “Consolidated Plaintiffs”), following
the appeal of this Court’s decision in Linyi Chengen Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United
States (“Linyi I”), 47 CIT __, 658 F. Supp. 3d 1347 (2023), and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (“CAFC”) decision in Linyi Chengen Imp. &
Exp. Co. v. United States (“Linyi II”), 174 F.4th 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2026). Def.’s Mot. at 3–4. The Court issued an Order on September 4, 2026 granting
Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. 266, and then stayed the Order pending further
briefing, ECF No. 267. Jiangyang Wood filed an Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for an Extension of Time for the Department of Commerce to File Remand
Results and Motion to Deny Defendant’s Request for an Extension of Time on
September 18, 2026 (“Jiangyang Wood’s Opp.”), ECF No. 269. Dehua TB filed a
Notice of Joinder in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time
for the Department of Commerce to File Remand Results and Motion to Deny
Defendant’s Request for an Extension of Time (“Dehua TB’s Opp.”), ECF No.
270.
DISCUSSION
Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB contend that the CAFC mandated that these
two companies should be excluded from the Antidumping Duty Order on
Hardwood Plywood from China. Jiangyang Wood’s Opp. at 2; Dehua TB’s Opp.
at 1–2.
In the Linyi II decision, the CAFC stated that, “[t]he Trade Court approved
Commerce’s exclusion of two non-mandatory respondents, Jiangyang Wood and
Dehua TB, from the all-others rate based on those entities achieving voluntary
respondent status. So do we.” 174 F.4th at 1367. The CAFC noted that,
“Commerce granted the individual rate requests of Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB. The Trade Court affirmed its decision to do so, stating, ‘Commerce provided
a reasonable explanation to justify its exclusion from the Order the voluntary
applicants who submitted timely requests for voluntary respondent treatment with
hundreds of pages of questionnaire responses and supporting documentation,
providing the same information that mandatory respondents submitted by the same
deadline in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1677m (a).” Id.
Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB assert that this case is similar to Changzhou
Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States, 42 CIT __, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1317 (2018), in
which the Court directed Commerce to exclude the voluntary respondents from the
Order, based on the fact that Commerce refused “to conduct any voluntary
examinations, preventing the Voluntary Applicants from demonstrating directly
their own evidence of fair trading.” Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., 42 CIT at __,
324 F. Supp. 3d at 1327; Jiangyang Wood’s Opp. at 6–7.
Similarly, Commerce did not conduct any voluntary examinations in this
case, despite Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB achieving voluntary respondent
status as assessed by Commerce, this Court, and the CAFC. In the Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, ECF No. 221-1 (“Fifth Remand
Redetermination”), Commerce specifically determined that Jiangyang Wood and
Dehua TB would be excluded from the Antidumping Duty Order and issued rates of zero to both companies based on their submission of voluminous records on a
voluntary basis. Fifth Remand Redetermination at 21–22.
This Court sustained, and the CAFC affirmed. See Linyi I, 47 CIT at __,
658 F. Supp. 3d at 1364; Linyi II, 174 F.4th at 1368. Because this issue was not
appealed, the Court agrees with Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB that res judicata
applies and the issue is final. See Jiangyang Wood’s Opp. at 2, 8–10; Dehua TB’s
Opp. at 1–2.
Defendant filed a motion for extension of time, explaining that on remand,
“Commerce should grant Jiangyang [Wood] and Dehua TB voluntary respondent
status and calculate individually investigated rates for both companies.” Def.’s
Mot. at 4. This approach contradicts Commerce’s prior approach that was stated in
the Fifth Remand Redetermination as follows: “In addition, we intend to exclude
from the Order the exporter/producer combinations assigned to the two companies
[Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB] that provided all information required to be
eligible for consideration as voluntary respondents[.]” Fifth Remand
Redetermination at 21–22.
Pursuant to the CAFC’s decision in Linyi II, 174 F.4th at 1367, it is apparent
to the Court that Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB are excluded from the
Antidumping Duty Order on Hardwood Plywood from China. See Certain
Hardwood Plywood Products from the People’s Republic of China, 82 Fed. Reg.
53,460 (Dep’t of Commerce Nov. 16, 2017) (final determination of sales at less
than fair value, and final affirmative determination of critical circumstances, in
part), as amended, 83 Fed. Reg. 504 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 4, 2018) (amended
final determination of sales at less than fair value and antidumping order)
(“Antidumping Duty Order on Hardwood Plywood from China”). The Court
concludes that it would not be in accordance with law for Commerce to now
reopen the record on remand and investigate Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB to
calculate individual rates, after the CAFC already affirmed this Court’s sustaining
of Commerce’s determination that these two companies should be excluded from
the Antidumping Duty Order on Hardwood Plywood from China and should
receive duty rates of zero.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion, ECF No.
265, for an extension of time to reopen the record to calculate individual rates for
Jiangyang Wood and Dehua TB.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. 265, and all other
papers and proceedings in this action, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion, ECF No. 265, is denied; and it is
further ORDERED that the U.S. Department of Commerce shall exclude Jiangyang
Wood and Dehua TB from the Antidumping Duty Order on Hardwood Plywood
from China and shall not impose any antidumping duty margins on Jiangyang
Wood and Dehua TB; and it is further
ORDERED that this case will proceed in accordance with the following
schedule:
1. The remand redetermination shall be filed on or before October 26,
2026;
2. The administrative record shall be filed on or before October 30,
2026;
3. Comments in opposition to the remand redetermination shall be filed
on or before November 9, 2026;
4. Comments in support of the remand redetermination shall be filed on
or before November 23, 2026; and
5. The joint appendix shall be filed on or before November 23, 2026.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: October 5, 2026 New York, New York
来源：CIT · Slip Opinions · cit.uscourts.gov