Agricultural Training Stakes Covered by AD Duties on Chinese Rebar, CIT Confirms
Agricultural “training stakes” made from rebar are subject to antidumping duties on steel concrete reinforcing bar from China, the Court of International Trade said in a March 9 decision. Sustaining a scope ruling issued by the Commerce Department in 2016, the court also agreed with Commerce’s instructions that CBP “continue” to suspend liquidation of the training stakes, rather than require payment of AD duties only on entries after the scope ruling.
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.
Quiedan had imported the training stakes from a manufacturer that took four- to five-foot lengths of rebar and sharpened one end so they could be used to train grape vines and other plants and aid in their vertical growth and vitality. In its scope ruling request, Quiedan had argued the agricultural stakes are not subject to AD duties because they are angled at the tip and are no longer straight, and because they are further processed and no longer used to reinforce concrete.
CIT agreed with Commerce that the angle at the tip of the length of rebar does not mean it is no longer straight. The training stakes are not further processed by bending or coating, the two processes identified in the scope as granting exemptions. And though the training stakes are not meant to reinforce concrete, reports from the International Trade Commission say rebar is “primarily” used for reinforcement of concrete structures, so the training stakes are not exempt based only upon their use as farming equipment, CIT said.
Commerce was also justified in including training stakes entered prior to the final scope ruling under suspension of liquidation and cash deposit instructions sent to CBP. Commerce can’t suspend liquidation prior to a scope ruling if the scope’s application to a given product is ambiguous, CIT said. But the language of the scope of rebar duties clearly and unambiguously applied to Quiedan’s training stakes, the court said.
(Quiedan Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 18-19, CIT # 16-00275, Judge Choe-Groves)