DOJ, CVD Petitioner Urge CIT to Back Findings on Subsidies in Wood Mouldings CVD Review

Sufficient evidence exists to back the Commerce Department's contentions on a countervailing duty review of wood mouldings and millwork products from China, both the Department of Justice and CVD petitioner Coalition of American Millwork Producers said in a pair of reply briefs. The defendant and defendant-intervenor pushed the court to accept Commerce's arguments that it properly countervailed respondent Yinfeng's purchases of acrylic polymer and alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program, along with its benchmarks for the provision of plywood and sawn wood for less than adequate remuneration and land-use rights for LTAR (Fujian Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co. v. U.S., CIT #21-00088).

In the underlying petition, it was alleged that Yinfeng received inputs from the Chinese government in the provision of acrylic primer for LTAR. Yinfeng now contends that Commerce's inclusion of acrylic polymer in the primer program "unlawfully expanded the scope of the primer program." The petitioner "never alleged, and Commerce 'never initiated on a program including acrylic polymer; therefore [Commerce] lacks the authority to determine that a Chinese Government "authority" conferred a benefit for purchases of acrylic polymer,'" the respondent argued.

Commerce's inclusion of acrylic polymer in the provision of primer, including gesso, a white paint mixture, for the LTAR program is backed by sufficient evidence, DOJ countered. "Examining whether acrylic polymer could be considered or used as a primer input is not an unlawful expansion of the primer program because Commerce has the authority to examine the scope of inputs for a program during its investigation," the brief said. Further, the petitioner did in fact file a new subsidy allegation on the provision of "primer, including gesso," DOJ pointed out.

"Simply because Commerce initiated an investigation on the provision of primer for less than adequate remuneration based on the petitioner’s allegation without specific identification of acrylic polymer as a primer input, did not preclude Commerce from determining, during its investigation, that the scope of inputs for that program includes acrylic polymer," the brief said. "Nor does it render Commerce’s examination of acrylic polymer to make this determination an unlawful expansion of the primer program."