Chinese Wood Flooring Exporter Alleges Host of Commerce Errors in CVD Review
The Commerce Department committed a host of errors in its 2020 review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, mandatory respondent Riverside Plywood Corp. and its cross-owned affiliate Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. said in a July 31 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The result of the review was a 17.06% CVD rate for the companies (Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00136).
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 four-count complaint contested the data Commerce relied on to value the plywood benchmark, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheadings used to set benchmarks for glue and paint, and the use of adverse facts available. On the use of AFA, the agency considered all of Riverside's input suppliers to be government authorities, thus countervailing all input purchases from the entities, and it said the Chinese government failed to fully cooperate regarding the Export Buyer's Credit Program, prompting the use of AFA.
In making these determinations, Riverside said Commerce "ignored record evidence that certain of Plaintiffs' suppliers that were wholly owned by individuals were not government authorities," which makes the use of AFA unsupported. While the exporter discussed the use of AFA in relation to the EBCP, it did not include a separate count in the complaint specifically discussing the use of AFA in this way.
In the review, and now at CIT, Riverside said Commerce should adjust the benchmark for plywood and veneers using only International Tropical Timber Organization grade prices and not a combination of these prices and UNComtrade data, but the agency rejected this position. The exporter at the trade court now says Commerce "did not appropriately consider substantial record evidence that Plaintiffs only purchased and used grade C/D plywood," so the agency should have compared the ITTO grade specific prices to the company's purchases rather than using UNComtrade data which had "all different grades of plywood." The move conflicts with the agency's practice of using the most "product-specific world price possible."
Riverside also objected to the benchmarks for glue and paint, which used UNComtrade export data for subheadings 3909.10, 3909.40 and 3906.10; and 3208.10, 3208.20, 3208.90, 3209.10, 3209.90, 3906.90 and 2914.13, respectively. The exporter said Commerce did not consider evidence that the company did not buy any glue similar to subheading 3906.10 nor any paint similar to subheadings 3208.10, 3208.90 and 3209.90.