Lumber Exporter Says Proposed Intervenor in Denied CCR Case Challenges Case That Doesn't Exist

The Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade Investigations or Negotiations should not be allowed to intervene in GreenFirst Forest Products' case contesting the Commerce Department's decision not to start a changed circumstances review, Greenfirst argued in an April 29 reply brief at the Court of International Trade. The intervention bid should be tossed since the committee ignores the action that is currently before the court and is arguing against a case that doesn't exist, the brief said (GreenFirst Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT #22-00097).

The case concerns the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada. During the investigation and the first three administrative reviews, Rayonier A.M. Canada was never individually examined but received a non-selected companies rate of 6.32%. In 2021, however, GreenFirst acquired all of RYAM's lumber and newsprint operations, leading GreenFirst to request a CCR. Commerce rejected the bid to open the review, citing its significant change practice.

The agency presumed there had been a change that could've affected the nature and level of subsidization. But GreenFirst said RYAM's rate was not based on its level of subsidization. GreenFirst then filed suit at CIT to contest the decision not to start a CCR (see 2203280058). The coalition then sought to intervene in that action, arguing that it has an interest in stopping GreenFirst from getting a lower cash deposit rate than the "all-others" cash deposit rate.

GreenFirst now contests that motion. "To be clear, GreenFirst believes it is entitled to a lower cash deposit rate because of its successor-in-interest status," the brief said. "However, that issue is not before the Court because Commerce did not reach it. Commerce refused to consider that issue when it arbitrarily refused to initiate a CCR. The only issue before this Court is whether Commerce should have initiated a CCR, and the relief GreenFirst has requested is that the Court order Commerce to initiate a CCR."

GreenFirst further argued that the coalition's intervention would cause an "unnecessary delay" in the proceeding. "As GreenFirst explained in its complaint, the longer it takes for Commerce to begin making the successor-in-interest determination, the longer GreenFirst must suffer the injury caused by Commerce’s arbitrary refusal to do so," the brief said.