Paper Plate Exporter Challenges SV Ratio, Input Picks in AD Investigation at CIT
The Commerce Department improperly used the financial statements of Indonesian company PT Suparma in the antidumping duty investigation on paper plates from Vietnam, respondent Go-Pak Vietnam argued in a May 17 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The respondent also challenged Commerce's decision to use a simple average of the average unit values from two different subheadings to value its paper input, despite evidence showing that the company's paper is classified under only one of the subheadings (Go-Pak Paper Products Vietnam Co. v. United States, CIT # 25-00070).
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.
Commerce opened the investigation last year, selecting Go-Pak and Xie Li Viet Nam International as the two mandatory respondents, though Xie Li withdrew from the investigation. Go-Pak submitted the 2023 financial statements from exporter Alkindo Naratama, an Indonesian manufacturer of paper bowls, cups, food boxes and other products, while the petitioner submitted the financial statements for Suparma, a manufacturer of tissue paper and kraft paper.
The agency ultimately decided to rely on an average of the financial ratios taken from the statements of both Alkindo and Suparma. In its complaint, Go-Pak said Commerce erred in using any information from Suparma, since it's "not a producer of comparable merchandise."
During the investigation, Go-Pak said it provided purchase documents showing that Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4810.92.90 was used to classify its imported paper inputs. The petitioner suggested Commerce should value the input under HTS subheading 4810.32.90. While preliminarily using the average unit value for subheading 4810.92.90 to value the input, the agency ultimately decided to use a simple average of the two subheadings.
In its complaint, Go-Pak said this decision was erroneous in light of record evidence showing the company's paper is classified under subheading 4810.92.90.