DOJ, Wooden Cabinet Importer Make Post-Argument Submissions in Surrogate Country AD Challenge
In dueling submissions to the Court of International Trade following oral arguments on April 19, DOJ and Ancientree made their final cases for the best surrogate country pick in the antidumping investigation on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. In a feud over whether Commerce should have picked Malaysia or Romania, the main contention was detailed financial statements versus more comparable producers in quantity and quality of product.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In the investigation, Commerce elected to pick Romania, for its alleged comparable level of economic development, standing as a significant producer of comparable merchandise and detailed financial statements. Ancientree, taking exception to this choice, launched the lawsuit in CIT, claiming Malaysia was a much more indicative surrogate country for wooden cabinets and vanities since they actually produced the same types of products using similar inputs and at similar levels as China.
Commerce said that one of the ultimate factors leading to the selection of Romania was that the Romanian surrogate company, Sigstrat, had more detailed financial statements that “broke out” energy costs separately. The level of detail in the financial statements for Commerce, DOJ explained, is one of the most important considerations when deciding between two likely surrogate nations. “The short answer is that yes; Commerce has a preference for more specific financial statements, which it applied here,” the post-argument submission said. DOJ also attacked Ancientree's notion that the Malaysian companies produced more similar amounts and types of wooden products. The Malaysian companies did not provide enough data to discern the costs and revenues of its different business units of which furniture production was only one part, DOJ said.