Pencil Company Says Commerce Improperly Said It Didn't Have Standing to Request AD Review
The Commerce Department improperly found that U.S. company Aloha Pencil didn't qualify as a domestic manufacturer, producer or wholesaler, which led to the recission of the 2023-24 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cased pencils from China, Aloha argued in a July 7 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Aloha Pencil Company v. United States, CIT # 25-00102).
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.
In January 2025, Commerce issued a notice initiating the AD review following a request from Aloha, "among others," the company said. In February, Aloha submitted its standing questionnaire response, which included information submitted in the "directly preceding review." The agency issued a supplemental questionnaire to Aloha a week later, to which the company replied in March.
In the 2022-23 review, Commerce found that Aloha didn't qualify as a domestic interested party, after which Aloha made a bid for reconsideration. After the agency submitted a notice of intent to rescind the review, Aloha argued that Commerce hadn't addressed its request for reconsideration. The agency nevertheless rescinded the review, "rejecting all of Aloha’s arguments on the basis that it had already considered all the information Aloha raised in its arguments when it issued the AR22-23 Standing Determination," Aloha said.
Aloha said the "same Commerce personnel" involved in the 2022-23 review were involved in the 2023-24 review. These same people came to the same conclusion regarding Aloha in the 2023-24 review, copying and pasting a "majority of the language" in the prior review in finding that Aloha didn't have standing to request a review, the complaint said.
Aloha brought its suit to contest the standing decision in the 2023-24 review.