Plywood Exporter Says Commerce Unlawfully Applied AFA and Used Distortive Data

In April 2025, CIT remanded Commerce’s use of UN Comtrade data in two countervailing duty administrative reviews on hardwood plywood from China, and Judge Timothy Reif said the agency “did not address adequately the information in the record demonstrating that the UN Comtrade data are overbroad and, on that basis, may not be comparable for purposes of the plywood benchmark calculation” (see 2504030070).

However, according to the Chinese plywood exporter's comments, Commerce “refused in its Remand to change its findings from the challenged review,” and argued it's “speculative” to claim UN Comtrade data is distortive because the grades of the plywood included in the benchmark are unknown.

Baroque argued that the grade of plywood “has a significant impact on price” and “has been recognized as a significant price factor in other AD/CVD proceedings” (see 2506170036). Thus, because UN Comtrade data doesn't include information about the grade of the plywood included in its data, Baroque said, “UN Comtrade data becomes not comparable because it leads to distortive results caused by product quality issues.”

The exporter argued Commerce should instead use data from the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) that is “grade specific” and enables Commerce to be “sure it is making a comparison at a comparable level that avoids large possible differences in prices caused by product mix.”

“In failing to use the most specific commercially available world market prices on the record for both plywood and veneer, Commerce here has calculated benefits for Baroque which are due to differences in product quality and not benefits caused by government interference,” the exporter said in its comments. “This is unlawful.”

Additionally, the exporter argued "there is no gap in the record" about whether Baroque's suppliers were government officials or Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials. In its remand results, Commerce used AFA against Baroque on the grounds that the Chinese government wasn't able to provide "government documentation" to prove the company's managers, directors or owners weren't government officials or CCP officials.

Baroque argued that there's no national database of all CCP members and said it provided alternate information, such as "statements from suppliers that they do not have a primary party organization," which requires three party members, and "the internal work plans of each company and confirmation that there was no outside intervention in those plans or decision making."

The exporter said Commerce failed to explain why "official company human resource records that identify CCP membership would be insufficient to establish government control." If none of the company's employees were CCP members, "then there could be no CCP officials and no control," the brief said.

Baroque likened Commerce's approach to the use of AFA here to the "long history of the Export Buyer's Credit Program." In the EBCP saga, the Chinese government failed to provide certain information about the program, leading Commerce to use AFA, rather than accept alternative information the government provided. Baroque said that CIT "repeatedly found that Commerce must accept this alternative information," and that while using AFA “may be permissible (against the government respondent), doing so when it collaterally affects a cooperating party is disfavored,” explaining [in one case] that Commerce “should ‘seek to avoid such impact if relevant information exists elsewhere on the record.’” (In the course of the cases on EBCP playing out, the agency has adopted a policy of dropping the use of AFA where it's able to verify that none of a respondent's U.S. customers use the program.)

Baroque said that in this case, “Commerce should have accepted the alternative, verifiable information” from the Chinese government, even if it technically didn't fit the definition of the type of information it was seeking.