Repwire LLC, Jin Tiong Electrical Materials Manufacturer Pte. Ltd. v. United States, Southwire Company, LLC

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
REPWIRE LLC, JIN TIONG ELECTRICAL
MATERIALS MANUFACTURER PTE. LTD.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES, SOUTHWIRE COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
ENCORE WIRE CORPORATION
Defendant
______________________
2023-1933
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in Nos. 1:22-cv-00016-JCG, 1:22-cv-00023-JCG,
Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves.
______________________
Decided: August 19, 2025
______________________
D AVID J. C RAVEN , Craven Trade Law LLC, Chicago, IL,
for plaintiffs-appellants.
K ELLY G EDDES , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 1 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 1 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 2
represented by REGINALD THOMAS B LADES , JR., BRIAN M.
BOYNTON , PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY; SPENCER N EFF, Office
of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compli-
ance, United States Department of Commerce, Washing-
ton, DC.
SYDNEY H. M INTZER, Mayer Brown, LLP, Washington,
DC, for defendant-appellee Southwire Company, LLC.
______________________
Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN , Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Appellants Repwire LLC and Jin Tiong Electrical Ma-
terials Manufacturer PTE. Ltd. appeal the judgment of the
U.S. Court of International Trade sustaining determina-
tions reached by the U.S. Department of Commerce in an
annual administrative review of an antidumping duty or-
der covering U.S. imports of certain aluminum wire and
cable from the People’s Republic of China. The principal
issue Appellants raise involves Commerce’s use of various
procedures and agency practices in antidumping duty mat-
ters involving non-market economies, such as China. We
affirm the Trade Court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff-Appellant Repwire LLC (“Repwire”) is a U.S.
importer of aluminum wire and cable from the People’s Re-
public of China. The wire and cable that Repwire imports
are subject to an outstanding antidumping duty order. See
Aluminum Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of
China: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 84
Fed. Reg. 70,496 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 23, 2019) (“Anti-
dumping Duty Order”). Plaintiff-Appellant Jin Tiong Elec-
trical Materials Manufacturer PTE. Ltd. (“Jin Tiong”) is a
foreign exporter that supplies the wire and cable imported
by Repwire.
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 2 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 2 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 3
On December 31, 2020, Repwire requested that Com-
merce conduct an administrative review of the Antidump-
ing Duty Order. Commerce published a notice of initiation
on February 4, 2021, naming two companies as respond-
ents subject to the review, Jin Tiong and another com-
pany.1 Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 86 Fed. Reg. 8,166 (Dep’t of Com-
merce Feb. 4, 2021) (“Notice of Initiation”), at J.A. 92–102.
The Notice of Initiation informed the respondents that, in
order to obtain a separate, individual antidumping duty
rate, they must file a separate rate application (“SRA”) or
certification within 30 days from the date of publication of
the Notice of Initiation. The Notice of Initiation further
provided that “[f]or exporters and producers who submit
[an SRA] or Certification and subsequently are selected as
mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers
will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless
they respond to all parts of the [antidumping] question-
naire as mandatory respondents.” Jin Tiong was required
to submit an SRA, as opposed to a certification, because it
did not currently have a separate rate in the proceeding.2
1 The other company is not a party to this appeal.
2 The Notice of Initiation explains that “[e]ntities
that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed
segment of the proceeding should timely file [an SRA] to
demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceed-
ing.” Notice of Initiation, at J.A. 93. “Such entities include
entities that have not participated in the proceeding, enti-
ties that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any
currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an on-
going administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and
entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding in which they partic-
ipated.” Id. at J.A. 93 n.3.
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 3 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 3 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 4
The SRA was due on March 16, 2021. Jin Tiong did not file
an SRA before the March 16, 2021, deadline.
On July 15, 2021, Commerce issued Jin Tiong a non-
market economy (“NME”) antidumping questionnaire.
Two weeks later, Commerce informed Jin Tiong that it had
mistakenly issued the questionnaire and that it was re-
scinding the questionnaire. Commerce explained that it
rescinded the questionnaire because Jin Tiong had “failed
to establish its eligibility for a separate rate” in the admin-
istrative review when it failed to submit a timely SRA. Jin
Tiong objected to the rescission of the questionnaire.
On August 5, 2021, Jin Tiong submitted a response to
Section A of the questionnaire. Section A is directed to-
ward gathering general corporate information used to as-
sess whether a respondent in an NME operates
independent of government control. Because Jin Tiong
submitted a Section A response after Commerce had re-
scinded the questionnaire, Commerce rejected the submis-
sion as unsolicited. Subsequently, in the Final Results,
Commerce assigned Jin Tiong the country-wide antidump-
ing duty rate of 52.79% ad valorem, which was the rate es-
tablished in the final affirmative determination in the
underlying antidumping duty investigation. Aluminum
Wire and Cable from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 86
Fed. Reg. 73,251 (Dep’t of Commerce Dec. 27, 2021) (“Final
Results”), at J.A. 334–35.
Repwire and Jin Tiong appealed Commerce’s Final Re-
sults to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“Trade
Court”), asserting that the withdrawal of the questionnaire
and subsequent assignment of the China-wide entity rate
was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and
unsupported by substantial evidence. The Trade Court
sustained Commerce’s Final Results, finding that Com-
merce’s determinations were reasonable and supported by
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 4 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 4 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 5
substantial evidence. Repwire LLC v. United States, 628
F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1294 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2023).
Repwire and Jin Tiong timely appealed to this court.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
S TANDARD OF R EVIEW
We review decisions of the Trade Court de novo, step-
ping into the Trade Court’s shoes and applying the same
standard of review that it applies in reviews of Commerce’s
final antidumping duty determinations. JTEKT Corp. v.
United States, 642 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We
will uphold Commerce’s determinations if they are sup-
ported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance
with law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). Substantial evi-
dence means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Consol.
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
D ISCUSSION
Appellants’ appeal primarily focuses on a single issue:
Whether Commerce erred in withdrawing the question-
naire, rejecting the Section A questionnaire response, and
issuing Jin Tiong a country-wide antidumping duty rate.
Appellants’ Br. 4. We conclude Commerce’s actions were
reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
I.
The disputed administrative review conducted by Com-
merce is an NME antidumping duty proceeding.3 In an
3 The Tariff Act defines an NME country as “any for-
eign country that the administering authority 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.
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 5 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 5 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 6
NME antidumping proceeding, Commerce “presumes that
all companies within the country are subject to governmen-
tal control and should be assigned a single antidumping
duty rate unless an exporter demonstrates the absence of
both de jure and de facto governmental control over its ex-
port activities. If an exporter demonstrates this independ-
ence in its export activities, it is eligible for a rate that is
separate from the NME-wide rate. This separate rate is
usually an individually calculated rate or a weighted-aver-
age of the rates of the investigated companies, excluding
any rates that were zero, de minimis, or based entirely on
facts available.” Separate-Rates Practice in Antidumping
Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economy Countries,
69 Fed. Reg. 77,722 (Int. Trade Admin. Dec. 28, 2004) (ci-
tation omitted). Both the NME presumption and the re-
quirement for demonstrating sufficient independence from
government control are expressly stated in the Notice of
Initiation. The Notice of Initiation further specifies that
entities “that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the
administrative reviews involving NME countries must
complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application
or certification[.]” Notice of Initiation, at J.A. 93 (emphasis
added).
There is no dispute that Jin Tiong did not file an SRA
before the due date. This court has held that if an exporter
in an NME country “fails to rebut the presumption of gov-
ernment control, Commerce may permissibly apply the
country-wide NME entity rate.” See China Mfrs. All., LLC
v. United States, 1 F.4th 1028, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coal. v. United States, 866 F.3d
1304 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Because Jin Tiong failed to file an
SRA, Commerce was within its discretion to determine Jin
Tiong failed to rebut the presumption of government
§ 1677(18)(A). For purposes of this review, China was
deemed an NME country.
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 6 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 6 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 7
control. Accordingly, Commerce’s assignment of the
China-wide rate to Jin Tiong, despite that only two re-
spondents were under review, was reasonable and sup-
ported by substantial evidence.4
II.
Jin Tiong argues that Commerce erred when it with-
drew the Section A questionnaire. Appellants’ Br. 4, 20.
We disagree. It is well established that Commerce has
broad discretion to set and enforce its regulatory proce-
dures and deadlines. See, e.g., Dongtai Peak Honey Indus-
try Co. v. United States, 777 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2015); see also NTN Bearing Corp. v. United States,
74 F.3d 1204, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Section 351.301 per-
mits Commerce to reject untimely or unsolicited question-
naire responses, 19 C.F.R. § 351.301(c)(1), and
Section 351.302 confirms that such responses will not be
“consider[ed] or retain[ed] in the official record of the pro-
ceeding,” 19 C.F.R. § 351.302(d). Here, again, it is undis-
puted that Commerce rescinded the questionnaire because
Jin Tiong did not file an SRA, and that Jin Tiong submitted
its response after Commerce withdrew the questionnaire.
Jin Tiong’s response was therefore unsolicited, and Com-
merce had the discretion to withdraw the questionnaire
4 It is well established that, in these circumstances,
the country-wide entity rate may nonetheless constitute an
“individual weighted average dumping margin” under
§ 1677f-1(c), which sets forth the rules for determining
dumping margins in various proceedings, including an ad-
ministrative review. Jilin Forest Indus. Jinqiao Flooring
Grp. Co. v. United States, No. 2023-2245,
2025 WL 2100233, at *3–5, *5 n.5 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025)
(explaining the history of this principle as set forth in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir.
1997), and China Mfrs., 1 F.4th 1028).
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 7 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 7 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 8
based on Jin Tiong’s failure to comply with its procedural
requirement of filing a timely SRA.
Appellants cite Cast Iron Soil Pipe to support their ar-
gument that Commerce acted arbitrarily in this case. Ap-
pellants’ Br. 16–18 (citing Cast Iron Soil Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Deter-
mination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postpone-
ment of Final Determination, 83 Fed. Reg. 44,567 (Dep’t of
Commerce Aug. 31, 2018) (“Cast Iron Soil Pipe”)). In Cast
Iron Soil Pipe, Commerce issued a questionnaire and even-
tually applied an individual company-specific dumping
rate to an entity, HengTong Casting, despite the entity not
filing an SRA. See Decision Memorandum for the Prelimi-
nary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investiga-
tion of Cast Iron Soil Pipe from the People’s Republic of
China (Dep’t of Commerce Aug. 24, 2018) (“Cast Iron Deci-
sion Memorandum”).5 The parties do not dispute this fact.
Appellants’ Br. 16–17; see also Government Br. 17–18.
Commerce’s actions, however, were made under the mis-
taken belief that the entity had submitted an SRA. See
Cast Iron Decision Memorandum, at 8 (Commerce mistak-
enly noting that it had “received SRAs from 14 entities, in-
clusive of the mandatory respondent[] HengTong[.]”). This
is not the case in this appeal.
In the Final Results, Commerce cites multiple cases
where it has consistently enforced its rule that failing to
submit a timely SRA will result in Commerce assigning the
country-wide entity rate. See Issues and Decision Memo-
randum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin-
istrative Review: Aluminum Wire and Cable from the
People’s Republic of China (Dep’t of Commerce
Dec. 20, 2021), at J.A. 327–33 (citing Crystalline Silicon
Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into
5 Available at https://access.trade.gov/Resources
/frn/summary/prc/2018-18968-1.pdf.
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 8 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 8 of 9 --

REPWIRE LLC v. US 9
Modules, From the People’s Republic of China: Final Re-
sults of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Fi-
nal Determination of No Shipments, 80 Fed. Reg. 40,998
(Dep’t of Commerce Jul. 14, 2015), and Hydrofluorocarbon
Blends From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 86
Fed. Reg. 49,516 (Dep’t of Commerce Sep. 3, 2021)). In any
event, we disagree that a single, erroneous, and incon-
sistent action undermines the reasonableness of Com-
merce’s requirement for an SRA. Shandong Huarong
Mach. Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1282 n.23
(Ct. Int’l Trade 2006) (“[T]wo prior determinations are not
enough to constitute an agency practice that is binding on
Commerce.”).
Accordingly, Commerce’s decision to withdraw the
questionnaire, refusal to consider Jin Tiong’s unsolicited
response, and determination to assign Jin Tiong the coun-
try-wide rate were reasonable and supported by substan-
tial evidence.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Appellants’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons provided, we
affirm the Trade Court’s judgment sustaining Commerce’s
Final Results.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Costs against Appellants.
Case: 23-1933 Document: 82 Page: 9 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 9 of 9 --