Commerce Requests Remand to Review Non-Use Certifications of China's EBCP in CVD Case
The Commerce Department requested a voluntary remand to consider whether there is enough evidence to verify claims that countervailing duty respondent Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, the U.S. said in a Nov. 23 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. Senmao gave Commerce non-use declarations for all of its U.S. customers. Seeing as the trade court has in past decisions remanded CVD cases to consider whether information such as these declarations may be enough to verify non-use, the agency requested the chance to review this information (Evolutions Flooring v. United States, CIT Consol. #21-00591).
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 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, in which Riverside Plywood Corp. and Senmao served as mandatory respondents. The lawsuit, brought by a total of 18 plaintiffs, challenged the use of adverse facts available over the EBCP, Commerce's calculations for the provision of veneer and electricity for less than adequate remuneration, and the agency's decision to use a VAT rate that doesn't reflect what the respondent actually paid.
The EBCP is a program whereby China pays U.S. customers to buy goods exported by China. In the review, it was alleged that Riverside and Senmao benefitted from this program. To verify whether this claim is true, Commerce requested two pieces of information from China about how the program works: reforms to the program made a few years prior and which third-party banks participate in the program. The Chinese government did not respond, so the agency used AFA over the program, despite the respondent submitting verifications from its U.S. customers saying that they did not use the program.
The plaintiffs argued that Commerce's use of AFA over the EBCP has been repeatedly rejected by CIT. However, the trade court recently upheld the use of AFA over the EBCP (see 2209140029). Nevertheless, Commerce requested a voluntary remand to consider Senmao's non-use declarations from all of its U.S. customers. As for Riverside, since the respondent did not submit non-use certifications for all of its U.S. customers, Commerce will not reevaluate its position for the respondent.