AD/CVD Court Decisions in Second Half of September 2010

The Court of International Trade (CIT) made the following antidumping law determinations in the second half of September 2010.

Circumvention Means no AD Order Revocation for Chinese Furniture Maker

A Chinese producer of folding metal tables and chairs, Feili Group (Fujian) Co., had zero or de minimis dumping margins for three consecutive reviews, but the ITA refused to revoke its AD duty order. The CIT upheld the ITA’s refusal, based on a scope (anticircumvention) determination that the company’s unreported shipments of folding tables with cross-bars represented covered merchandise that was not reviewed. The court also found that the ITA was within its rights to take almost three years to complete its scope inquiry, and to pursue that inquiry on a separate timetable from the AD administrative review. (The court noted that the ITA may choose to complete the two kinds of review in tandem, but is not obligated to do so.) (Slip Op. 10-107, dated 09/23/10).

2006-07 China Pencil AD Results Remanded on Labor, Materials

Three Chinese producers objected to the ITA’s use of allegedly inappropriate labor rates and raw material values in the AD administrative review of certain cased pencils from China for the period of December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007. The CIT issued a remand for the labor rate issue, since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) already ruled the labor valuation method at issue to be unlawful. The CIT also ordered the ITA to recalculate the value of pencil cores and to use different, more appropriate published wood values. (See ITT’s Online Archives or 08/02/10 news, 10080201, for BP summary of the CAFC’s labor rate ruling.) (Slip Op. 10-110, dated 09/23/10)

Pipe Fittings for Structural Uses not Covered by China AD Order

King Supply Co. contested an ITA scope ruling that pipe fittings for structural uses, rather than for piping systems, were included in the scope of the AD duty order on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from China. Because the AD order refers to fittings “used to join sections in piping systems,” the CIT found that the ITA’s conclusion that King’s fittings were covered by the order was unsupported and unlawful. The court ordered the ITA to issue a new scope determination consistent with its opinion. (Slip Op. 10-111, dated 09/30/10).