CVD Petitioner Challenges Commerce's Position That Respondents Didn't Use China's EBCP

The Commerce Department erred when it found that two countervailing duty review mandatory respondents did not use China's Export Buyer's Credit Program in a countervailing duty investigation, the CVD petitioner, Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment, said in a Feb. 8 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Coalition of American Manufacturers of Mobile Access Equipment v. United States, CIT #22-00002).

The case concerns the CVD investigation into mobile access equipment and subassemblies thereof from China. As has been its practice, Commerce asked the Chinese government for two pieces of information to verify that the respondents, and their U.S. customers didn't use the program. The Chinese government failed to produce the information, so Commerce preliminarily hit the respondents, Lingong Group Jinan Heavy Machinery Co. and Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., with adverse facts available.

The trade court previously struck down Commerce's application of adverse facts available in such circumstances. However, in this case, Commerce said that the respondents didn't use the EBCP during the period of investigation.

The result of the investigation, though, even without the AFA from the EBCP were CVD rates of 18.58% for LGMG, 11.97% for Dingli, 448.80% for several Chinese producers and 12.98% for all other Chinese producers. The petitioner is also challenging Commerce's decision to use Dingli's consolidated sales instead of its unconsolidated sales as the denominator for its subsidy rate calculation and the agency's calculation of LGMG's denominator.