CIT: No Byrd Amendment Funds to Co. that Opposed China Wood Furniture AD Order
Furniture Brands International, Inc. filed questionnaire responses for the International Trade Commission in 2005 opposing the issuance of an AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China, but later sought a share of AD duties resulting from the order, under the Byrd Amendment (aka the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The company challenged the denial by the International Trade Commission to grant it “affected domestic producer” or ADP status and the refusal by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to pay it a share of duties collected, but the Court of International Trade upheld the denials, and reaffirmed the constitutionality of the CDSOA stipulation limiting distributions to companies that actively supported AD petitions, citing precedent from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
(Slip Op. 11-132, dated 10/20/11)