Commerce Flips AD/CVD Circumvention Ruling for Certain Hardwood Plywood After Remand
The Commerce Department flipped its affirmative antidumping and countervailing duty circumvention rulings on certain hardwood plywood products from China following remand instructions from the Court of International Trade. In its May 10 remand redetermination filing, Commerce reconsidered evidence it initially determined to be untimely submitted and found that certain hardwood plywood products were not developed after Dec. 8, 2016, AD/CVD orders (Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc., et al. v. U.S., CIT # 19-00212). The hardwood plywood in question had three qualities: 1) contained face and back veneers of radiata or agathis pine, 2) had a Toxic Substances Control Act or California Air Resources Board label certifying compliance with TSCA/CARB requirements, and 3) was made with a resin, the majority of which is composed of urea-formaldehyde, polyvinyl acetate or soy.
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 its initial investigation into whether the subject hardwood plywood products were circumventing the orders by being developed after the orders' imposition, importer Shelter Forest International Acquisition Inc. served as a voluntary respondent to the case. Commerce determined that Shelter Forest sold its goods before Dec. 8, 2016, and that its goods embodied two of the required characteristics but were not made with a resin the majority of which was composed of urea-formaldehyde. In the investigation, Commerce rejected a letter from the importer that attempted to prove its glue was indeed made with urea-formaldehyde, claiming that it was untimely filed. Shelter Forest said it submitted the letter as untimely only because it was previously unaware that Commerce had an issue with its glue composition.
In a Feb. 18 decision, Judge Jane Restani ruled that Commerce's rejection of the letter "was an abuse of discretion" because the agency never notified Shelter Forest of deficiencies in its responses (see 2102180040). On remand, Commerce considered the letter in its investigation, found that the importer's pre-order resin was made primarily of urea-formaldehyde, and reversed its affirmative circumvention ruling.
Also in the remand order, Restani instructed Commerce to reconsider a number of other factors in its circumvention ruling. Throughout the process, Commerce took issue with a number of elements of the respondents' submitted information attempting to show that their hardwood plywood products were not later-developed. For instance, mandatory respondent Lianyungang Yuantai International Co. had a translation error in a purchase contract that attempted to show that it sold the hardwood plywood products in question before Dec. 8, 2016. Commerce rejected the purchase order due to this error, a decision that Restani found unsupported by substantial evidence. In the remand determination, Commerce ultimately refused to reconsider the additional concerns ordered by Restani since it reversed the affirmative circumvention ruling based solely on Shelter Forest's case.