AD Respondent Asks Court to Remand Wooden Cabinets Case

Separate rate antidumping duty respondent Dalian Hualing Wood moved for judgment, arguing that the Commerce Department violated the law when it carried out a bona fide analysis of Dalian, the company said in its June 22 motion. Commerce compounded the error by treating Hualing's sale as non-bona fide in the AD review while treating it as bona fide in the CVD review, Hualing said. "The same sale cannot be bona fide in one proceeding and not the other -- statutory criteria apply to both ADD and CVD proceedings" (Dalian Hualing Wood Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00334).

The case concerns the first administrative review of the AD order on wooden cabinets and vanities from China. Hualing had participated in that review as a separate rate respondent while serving as a mandatory respondent in the CVD review. Hualing was assigned a 2.78% CVD rate based on the same sale included in the AD review, where Commerce had said that it was not bona fide.