Multiple Parties Protest Multiple Motions for Judgment in Imported Quartz Countertops AD Rate Case

A domestic petitioner and Indian exporters argued over how an adverse facts available antidumping duty rate for one respondent should factor into the rate for non-individually examined respondents in the Commerce Department's 2020 administrative review on quartz surface products from India (Cambria Company v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 23-00007).

Domestic petitioner Cambria, a U.S.-based home goods manufacturer, and Antique Group, one of the mandatory respondents in Commerce's last administrative review of the exporters, were consolidated as plaintiffs into one case against the U.S. as both challenge different results of said review. Antique Group is joined by importers Arizona Tile, M S International and PNS Clearance, who also have intervened as defendants.

Antique Group is challenging the 323.12% AFA rate it was hit with after it missed a deadline by several hours; Cambria wants Antique Group’s AFA rate to be included in the calculation of the non-examined respondents’ duties. After the administrative review, CBP chose to set non-examined respondents’ duties at 3.19% using a prior all-others rate from its investigation rather than at 161.65% using the expected method (see 2302100067).

Defendant-intervenors Arizona Tile, M S International and PNS Clearance said in their opposition to Cambria’s motion for summary judgment that, in a more recent administrative review, Commerce set a zero AD rate for multiple Indian countertop exporters. They said this new review indicates how unreasonable Antique Group’s rate and the potential 161.65% non-examined respondents’ rates were.

“Not only is the non-selected respondents rate in the review astronomically higher than its equivalent in the investigation, it is similarly much larger than any other AD rate calculated by Commerce with respect to India,” the defendant-intervenors said in their opposition.

Cambria said in its motion for judgment that the 161.65% rate was the correct application of Commerce’s first administrative review.

Defendant-intervenor Federation of Indian Quartz Surface Industry argued in a separate filing that Commerce acted reasonably and in line with precedent when it applied its investigation’s 3.19% all-others rate to the non-examined respondents. It said Cambria is citing a case that was reversed upon appeal. It also said Cambria’s arguments shouldn't even be heard because the company failed to exhaust its other administrative remedies before coming to court.

Cambria likewise opposed two June 30 motions for judgment: one filed by plaintiff Antique Group and one by plaintiffs Arizona Tile, M S International and PNS Clearance.

Cambria once again argued that Antique Group didn't cooperate to the best of its ability when acting as a mandatory respondent (see 2311300052). Antique Group’s second questionnaire response, which the exporter had filed five hours late, had only been necessary because the exporter failed to address critical issues in its first, Cambria said. It said those issues ranged from the exporter not explaining discrepancies in its prior filings to it not answering questions about its reported sales expense adjustments.

Cambria also again argued that Antique Group’s failure to cooperate and subsequent receipt of an AFA rate was representative of the non-examined respondent exporters as well, thus justifying use of the 161.65% rate.

Cambria previously filed a motion to remand Commerce’s decision on the non-examined respondents’ rate to the agency for further review (see 2307050050).