Lumber Exporter Files Notice of Authority in Case Over Refusal to Start Successor-in-Interest CCR
Plaintiff GreenFirst Forest Products submitted a notice of supplemental authority in a Court of International Trade case over the Commerce Department's refusal to initiate a successor-in-interest changed circumstances review (CCR) in a countervailing duty case. In the notice, GreenFirst alerted the court to its filing of a CCR request to find that GreenFirst is the successor-in-interest to Rayonier A.M. Canada (RYAM) in a related antidumping case. After filing in the AD case, Commerce found that information submitted supports starting a successor-in-interest CCR for AD purposes (GreenFirst Forest v. U.S., CIT #22-00097).
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 case concerns the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. During the investigation and the first three administrative reviews, RYAM was never individually examined but received a non-selected companies rate of 6.32%. In 2021, however, GreenFirst acquired all of RYAM's lumber and newsprint operations, leading GreenFirst to request a CCR to get this non-selected company rate. Commerce rejected the bid to open the review, citing its significant change practice. The agency presumed there had been a change that could have affected the nature and level of subsidization.
Under the significant change practice, Commerce can decide not to initiate successor-in-interest CCRs when evidence shows significant changes that could affect the subsidy rate determined for the predecessor company. The practice is meant to stop a rate of subsidization calculated based on the unique facts of one company from being transferred to a new company without first looking at the new company's subsidy levels. GreenFirst took to the trade court to contest the decision not to open the review, arguing that the U.S. was wrong to claim that Commerce does not need to satisfy any criteria when refusing to start the CCR (see 2209200033).
GreenFirst filed the notice of supplemental review after Commerce agreed to start a successor-in-interest CCR for the antidumping duty order. "We recognize that the Department applies a different standard for initiating and reviewing an AD CCR which is distinct from the CVD standard at issue in the case at bar," the brief said. "GreenFirst counsel submits this subsequent authority simply to make the Court aware that the Department has now initiated an AD CCR with respect to GreenFirst."