US Says Commerce Properly Found Exporter Ineligible to Take Part in Certification Process
The Commerce Department properly found that exporter Universal Quartz was ineligible to participate in the agency's certification process for verifying that quartz surface products from Malaysia weren't subject to the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on the same goods from China, the U.S. argued. Filing a reply to importer AM Stone & Cabinets' motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade, the government also said that despite AM Stone's claim that Commerce impermissibly used adverse facts available, the agency didn't apply AFA (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00241).
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.
AM Stone filed a pair of lawsuits in late 2024 to contest the 2021-23 AD administrative review and the 2021-22 CVD administrative review of the orders on quartz surface products from China (see 2501170048). The company argued that its products were unlawfully found to have been made in China based on AFA, despite the importer's full cooperation.
In 2022, Commerce found that quartz slab made in China and processed in Malaysia is covered by the AD/CVD orders on Chinese quartz surface products. As part of this finding, the agency implemented a "certification requirement" for all quartz surface products from Malaysia, additionally finding that Universal Quartz, among other exporters, wasn't eligible for the certification process, since "they did not fully participate in the proceeding."
Commerce said the ineligible companies could request reconsideration of their exclusion from the certification process in "future segments of the proceeding, including by means of an administrative review." AM Stone asked Commerce for a review of its imports from Universal Quartz. The agency found that Universal Quartz "continued to be ineligible to participate in the certification process," since AM Stone didn't provide the full universe of the exporter's entries during the review period or complete documentation of the production process of manufacturer Resstone Manufacturing.
AM Stone filed suit, contesting what it dubbed to be Commerce's use of AFA against the importer.
In response, the U.S. defended the agency's finding that Universal Quartz remained ineligible to take part in the certification process. The government said the burden was on AM Stone to "rebut the presumption that Universal Quartz did not use Chinese-origin quartz slab in its entries," adding that the importer "failed to provide such information to overcome this presumption."
Specifically, the U.S. said Commerce requested that the importer provide Universal Quartz's entries made during the review period and the "corresponding manufacturer’s production of these quartz surface product." In addition, the agency asked for the universe of the exporter's U.S. sales; the agency asked for information related to the exporter's and manufacturer's "operational and legal structures, as well as their accounting practices"; and asked for the "manufacturer’s production process and how it tracked the country of origin of the quartz slab it used."
Commerce asked for an Excel spreadsheet for each review period entry of subject goods from Universal Quartz. While AM Stone said it provided such a worksheet, the government said the "worksheet submitted only covered shipments that Universal Quartz exported to AM Stone, a fact that AM Stone admits in its questionnaire responses." Thus, AM Stone "failed to provide the full universe of Universal Quartz's" entries, "as requested," the brief said.
AM Stone also failed to turn over all the requested information regarding Resstone. "While AM Stone provided a narrative description of Resstone’s role in the manufacturing process and several photos of Resstone’s factory, it did not provide production records linked to its imports demonstrating that the merchandise was specifically produced in Malaysia," among other requested details, the brief said. The importer also failed to provide information concerning "Universal Quartz's corporate structure," the U.S. noted.
While AM Stone spends "much of its brief" contesting Commerce's supposed use of AFA, the U.S. said, AFA wasn't in fact used against the company. While Universal Quartz's initial ineligibility to take part in the certification process was based on AFA, AM Stone doesn't challenge the initial scope ruling, the brief said.