Rulings, remedies and court proceedings for customs and trade professionals

Chinese Exporters Say Commerce Improperly Rescinded AD/CVD Reviews

The Commerce Department improperly rescinded the antidumping and countervailing duty reviews on wood moldings and millwork products from China as to exporters China Cornici Co. and RaoPing HongRong Handicrafts Co., the two companies argued in a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade (China Cornici Co. v. United States, CIT # 23-00216, -00217).

TO READ THE FULL STORY
Start A Trial

The pair said that their U.S. importer, Larson-Juhl, entered the picture frame moldings as "Type 01" entries for consumption since they were "unaware of the scope coverage" of the ongoing AD/CVD cases. After learning the entries were covered, China Cornici and RaoPing submitted a prior disclosure letter to CBP asking their entries to be reset to "Type 03" as subject to the duties and to suspend liquidation pending instructions from Commerce. Although submitting over $2 million to cover the estimated duty rates, CBP did not reset the entries and liquidated them.

As a result, Commerce found that the companies didn't have subject entries for the 2021-21 AD/CVD reviews of the wood moldings and millwork products from China, rescinding the orders as to the two exporters. The companies were thus made ineligible for the separate AD/CVD rates and saddled with the 20.56% CVD rate and 220.87% AD rate. In their two complaints, China Cornici and RaoPing said the reviews were "improperly rescinded" and asked the court to suspend liquidation of their entries pending a final decision by the court in a separate case brought by the importer, Larson-Juhl US v. U.S., in which the importer is challenging CBP's failure to reset the types of the imports to Type 03.

In the AD review, Commerce rescinded the review for China Cornici and denied RaoPing's request for clarification, de facto denying it a separate rate, the brief said. The request asked Commerce to clarify that RaoPing's exports through its trading company Chen Chui are entitled to the separate rate because Commerce said RaoPing is eligible but its trading company is not. The agency said it has no basis to find that Chen Chiu is a trade name for RaoPing.