CIT Finally Sustains Results of 2007 China Wooden Bedroom Furniture AD Review on Third Try
The Court of International Trade at last sustained the final results of the 2007 antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from China (A-570-890), after the International Trade Administration lowered Chinese company Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co.’s AD rate to 83.55 percent. The final results had been the subject of three court remands. During the administrative review, Orient withdrew from participation, so the ITA found the company to be non-cooperative and assigned it an adverse facts available AD rate. But CIT in 2011 found the ITA’s original AD rate of 216.01 percent to be unreasonably high. On remand, the ITA lowered the rate to 130.81 percent, but the court said the ITA cherry-picked data, and the rate still wasn’t realistic. This time CIT said the new 83.55 percent rate is justified.
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.
Domestic industry challenged the ITA’s 83.55 percent rate for Orient, saying it isn’t high enough to discourage non-cooperation in AD proceedings. But the court said the domestic challengers didn’t identify a statute or court precedent that sets a floor on how low the ITA can set an AD rate.
(Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 13-17, dated 02/05/13, Judge Restani)
(Attorneys: Kristin Mowry of Mowry & Grimson for plaintiffs Lifestyle Enterprise Inc. et al.; William Perry of Garvey Schubert Barer for consolidated plaintiff Dream Rooms Furniture; John Greenwald of Cassidy Levy Kent for consolidated plaintiff Yihua Timber; Nancy Noonan for intervenor plaintiff Orient; Stuart Delery for defendant U.S.; J. Michael Taylor of King & Spalding for intervenor defendants American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade, et al.)
(See ITT’s Online Archives 11021816 and 12040508 for summaries of the February 2011 first remand and the April 2012 second remand, respectively. See ITT’s Online Archives 12091002 for summary of the third remand in September.)