Domestic Producer Challenges AD Investigation on Chinese-Origin Brake Drums
In an Oct. 14 complaint, domestic brake drum producer Webb Wheel Products argued that the Commerce Department used the wrong surrogate value for a mandatory respondent’s “recarburizing agent” in its antidumping duty investigation on brake drums from China (Webb Wheel Products v. United States, CIT # 25-00207).
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 producer said Commerce should have used Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 3801.90 instead of subheading 3801.10. The former covers “preparations based on graphite,” while the latter covers artificial graphite.
The investigation’s record, it said, “contains extensive evidence” that mandatory respondent Shandong ConMet Mechanical Co.’s recarburizing agent was a graphite preparation, not artificial graphite.
The respondent filed its own complaint regarding the determination Oct. 14 challenging Commerce’s valuation of its inland freight costs and the department’s treatment of its scrap recycling process (see 2510100043).