Shutter Component Importer Contents Decision Not to Open Changed Circumstances Review
U.S. importer Houston Shutters on Oct. 16 told the Court of International Trade that the Commerce Department improperly declined to open a changed circumstances review to exclude wood shutter components from the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on wood moldings and millwork products from China. Filing a complaint at the trade court, Houston Shutters said Commerce bucked its statutory mandate that the agency "shall conduct a review" (Houston Shutters v. U.S., CIT # 24-00193)
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.
Exporter Lanzhou Xinyoulian Industrial Co. requested during the AD/CVD investigations that Commerce exclude wood shutter components from the scope of the AD/CVD orders. The agency asked for information regarding these goods, which Lanzhou failed to submit. As a result, Commerce included the components under the scope of the orders.
After the investigations, Houston Shutters filed a changed circumstances review request looking to exclude the same goods from the orders, submitting the information Commerce previously requested from Lanzhou.
Petitioner Coalition of American Millwork Producers opposed the request, noting that it wants to keep the components subject to the orders. Houston Shutters said in rebuttal that the petitioner failed to acknowledge elements of the changed circumstances review request "that should have alleviated Petitioner concerns," emphasizing the "lack of an accompanying certification from" the petitioner.
Houston Shutters argued that Commerce violated its statutory mandate by not opening the review, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated the concept of Chevron deference. The importer said the mandate is "unambiguous," but even if it's not, "agencies are not entitled to deference when interpreting statutory provisions."
The importer said the agency failed to engage with the substance of its request, arguing that "Commerce was legally required to have initiated the CCR in order to evaluate the plethora of information provided by Plaintiff."