Recalculating AD Rate for Sole Respondent Should Result in Separate-Rate Changes, Exporters Argue
If the antidumping rate on activated carbon from China is lowered on Chinese exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals, Commerce should recalculate and re-assign the rates assigned to separate rate respondents Cherishmet and Yunguang, the two companies argued in a June 8 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00336).
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.
Both individual-rate respondents received a rate of $0.62/kg based upon the calculated weighted-average dumping margin for the mandatory respondent, Jilin Bright. The two plaintiff-intervenors incorporated arguments from Jilin Bright's May 25 motion for judgment, where it argued that Commerce incorrectly valued imported coal and failed to use the best data for inputs of coal tar pitch during the 14th administrative review of the antidumping order (see 2305260050).
Jilin Bright argued that Commerce ignored its concern that the average unit values of the Malaysian imports under subheading 2701.12 were not product-specific and showed the exact opposite price correlation from that of Malaysian subheading 2701.19, which covers only non-caking coal. The statute requires Commerce to use the "the best available information," which Commerce failed to do by selecting a less specific product category, Jilin Bright said.