AD Rates Could Change for 4 Chinese Cos. as CIT Remands 2009-10 Wooden Bedroom Furniture Review
The Court of International Trade remanded the final results of the 2009-10 antidumping administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-552-802) for several reasons, including the International Trade Administration’s use of surrogate values, wage rate calculations, financial statements, decision not to calculate combination AD rates, and zeroing.
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.
In the final results at issue, the ITA calculated an AD rate of 41.75 percent for sole mandatory respondent Huafeng. Fifteen separate rate respondents were assigned the same rate. Defendant-intervenors American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Fair Trade argued that if Huafeng’s AD rate changes, then so should AD rates for all of the other separate rate companies. CIT, however, agreed with the ITA that any recalculated rates will only apply to companies subject to injunction, which in this case are Huafeng, Dongguan Liaobushangdun, Great Rich (HK) Enterprise, and Nanhai Baiyi. According to CIT, AFMC had the opportunity to request injunctions enjoining liquidation for the other separate rate companies, but did not do so.
(Home Meridian Int’l Inc. v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 12-120, dated Sept. 19, Judge Restani)
(Attorneys: Kristin Mowry of Mowry & Grimson for plaintiffs Home Meridian and consolidated plaintiffs Great Rich and Dongguan Liaobushangdun; Ned Marshak of Grunfeld Desiderio for consolidated plaintiff Nanhai Baiyi; Lizbeth Levinson for consolidated plaintiff Dalian Huafeng; Joshua Kurland for defendant U.S. government; Michael Taylor of King & Spalding for intervenor defendants AFMC and Vaughan-Basset)