CIT Remands Injury Determination Underlying China Wood Flooring AD/CV Orders
The Court of International Trade remanded the final injury determination from the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of multilayered wood flooring from China, finding the International Trade Commission failed to account for the effect of the housing downturn and financial crisis on the domestic wood flooring industry. The court also found fault with the ITC’s refusal to include domestic hardwood plywood producers in its injury investigation, and its lack of explanation of whether imports from China were the “but-for” cause of injury.
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 ITC found injury to domestic industry in December 2011, allowing the International Trade Administration to issue AD/CV duty orders on multilayered hardwood flooring from China. The ITA imposed AD duty rates ranging from 2.63 to 58.64 percent, and CV duty rates of 1.5 to 26.73 percent (see 11120719).
But according to CIT, the ITC failed to include domestic hardwood plywood producers as domestic industry in its injury investigation, in light of U.S. importers’ arguments that hardwood plywood is used as wood flooring. Also, the scope of the AD/CV duty orders include some hardwood plywood that is used as flooring, but the ITC didn’t investigate whether there was injury to those domestic producers, it said.
Furthermore, the ITC failed to account for the fact that the period of investigation took place in the middle of the economic downturn caused by the financial crisis, the court said. This may have been a contributing factor to the economic hardships of the domestic plywood industry, given the negative effects on the housing market, and indeed was the reason for two dissenting votes on the commission.
Finally, the ITC didn’t conduct its required analysis of whether injury would not have occurred “but for” the imports of Chinese wood flooring, said CIT. In other words, the ITC was required to examine whether domestic industry would have been profitable if not for Chinese imports, the court said.
(Swiff-Train Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 13-38, dated 04/02/13, Judge Musgrave)
(Attorneys: William Perry of Dorsey & Whitney for plaintiffs Swiff-Train Co., Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc., BR Custom Surface, Real Wood Floors, LLC, Galleher Corp, and DPR International, LLC; Mary Alves for defendant International Trade Commission; Jeffery Levin of Levin Trade Law for defendant-intervenor Coalition for American Hardwood Parity)