Exporters Contest Commerce's Plywood Benchmark Findings in CVD Review
The Commerce Department's findings with regard to the benchmark for plywood in a countervailing duty review are unsupported by record evidence, two Chinese exporters told the Court of International Trade in a Dec. 23 complaint. The two plaintiffs -- Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) and Riverside Plywood -- also argued against Commerce's "legal and factual errors" over its calculation of benefits from the sale of veneers for less than adequate remuneration (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) v. U.S., CIT #21-00600).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The case concerns the 2018 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China in which Riverside and Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry served as the two mandatory respondents. During the review, Commerce rejected the pair's arguments over the plywood benchmark calculation. The plaintiffs urged Commerce to rely only on grade C/CC ITTO data for the benchmark. Commerce instead weight-averaged ITTO data and UN Comtrade data for the plaintiffs' purchases of plywood for LTAR.
"In making this determination, the Department did not appropriately consider substantial record evidence that Baroque used only C/D grade plywood and that only the corresponding grade prices from ITTO should be used in calculating the benchmark," the complaint said. "... The Department’s findings and calculations with regard to the benchmark for plywood are unsupported by record evidence and not in accordance with the law."
In the review, Commerce also applied a VAT rate of 17% to all of the input program benchmark calculations, the plaintiffs said. This determination ignored the fact that the VAT rate in China was 16% for part of the year, making them therefore, unsupported by substantial evidence, the complaint said. The plaintiffs rounded out their complaint by tapping a nearly routine argument that Commerce was not justified when it hit the plaintiffs with adverse facts available due to the agency's inability to verify non-use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.