Plywood Exporter Defends Reliability of Its Log Purchase Info at CAFC
Mandatory antidumping duty respondent Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co., along with 25 plywood exporters, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to uphold the Court of International Trade's decision giving Chengen and the separate rate respondents a zero percent dumping margin in the AD investigation on hardwood plywood from China (Linyi Chengen Import and Export Co. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1258).
In a July 17 reply brief, Chengen defended the reliability of its "documentation on its log purchase volume." The company argued that, contrary to the government's claims, nothing found at verification "contradicted" its "statements about its log purchases prior to verification, as evidenced by the verification report that indicated no such discrepancies."
During the investigation, Commerce allegedly discovered multiple problems with Chengen's log data during verification. In one example, the agency discovered that Chengen's logs were "measured using the log diameter from the smaller end of the log, even though the logs were not uniform in size." The agency questioned "how the entire volume of the log could be accurately captured."
After verification, Commerce said it would apply the "intermediate input methodology and directly value the veneers instead." The exporter tried submitting information multiple times showing the conversion table and formula it relied on constituted the Chinese National Standard. The agency initially rejected these submissions as untimely, while Chengen said it was denied the chance to submit the information at verification.
CIT relied on Chengen's statements that it tried to submit the information to Commerce's staff at verification in remanding the agency's conclusion, ultimately leading to the agency accepting the exporter's submissions. On appeal, the government argued that the trade court erroneously relied on Chengen's submissions and that CIT exceeded its "limited judicial role" and usurped the agency's authority to "set and enforce its own procedures" (see 2405130033).
In response, Chengen argued that its production manager used the Chinese National Standard to "confirm the poplar log volume reported and delivered by the farmers," and that the "use of such standards" is "common and expected." The respondent said it had "no reason to report the use of this standard in advance of verification," since it's not a "production document."
The respondent also said its documentation is "accurate and reliable," emphasizing that his parties corroborate the documents. Chengen said the farmers who deliver the logs "bring their own delivery slips with the volume," which Chengen then confirms, creating a "warehouse in-slip." The respondent uses this slip to fill out Chinese VAT invoices. Copies of the invoices are used as an official record with the Chinese government and thus stand as corroborating evidence, the brief said.
The company said the "farmer would not accept payment for a volume different than the volume it delivered."
Importers Richmond International Forest Products and Taraca Pacific filed their own reply brief, arguing that Commerce eventually properly used Chengen's zero percent margin as the separate rate respondents' AD margin. The companies' arguments echo those made by the separate rate respondents in the review (see 2407170030).