Separate Rate Respondent Hits at Commerce's Bona Fides Analysis in Wooden Cabinets AD Review
The Commerce Department violated the law when it carried out a bona fides analysis of separate rate respondent Dalian Hualing Wood Co. in an antidumping duty review, the exporter argued in a Jan. 9 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The move "was contrary to its precedent, practice, was arbitrary" and not supported by evidence, the brief said. Commerce further erred by treating Hualing's sale as non-bona fide in the antidumping duty review while treating it as bona fide in the countervailing duty review (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00334).
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 first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Hualing participated in the AD review as a separate rate respondent while serving as a mandatory respondent in the countervailing duty review. The exporter was assigned a 2.78% CVD rate based on the same sale included in the antidumping duty review. However, in the AD review, Commerce said that Hualing's sale was not bona fide even though the agency said it was in the CVD review.
Administratively, the respondent said that Commerce's bona fides analysis of a separate rate respondent cut against its past practice and was arbitrary. Hualing took to the trade court to claim the same thing, among other claims. "The Department’s bona fides analysis in [the first review] concerning the price and quantity of the sale, the timing of the sale, the resale price and profit, and other relevant factors was contrary to its precedent and practice, arbitrary, not supported by substantial evidence and otherwise not in accordance with law," the brief said.