US Defends CVD Rate on Chinese Ribbons After Remand, Says Exporter Waived Ability to Object

DOJ said an exporter waived its ability to object to the new results of an administrative review after remand, arguing it didn't adequately take advantage of its ability to comment on the review before the court (Yama Ribbons and Bows Co., Ltd. v. United States, CIT # 21-00402).

In a brief filed Dec. 11, The U.S. defended its unchanged determination, after remand, that countervailing duties would be applied to narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge exported by Chinese company Yama Ribbons and Bows Co. (see 2310250037). The remand gave Yama the opportunity to comment, but its comments were insufficient because they simply referred back to prior filings, DOJ said.

In a one-paragraph response for the remand, Yama said that “in the interest of not burdening the Court with repetitive arguments, [it] stands by its opening and reply briefs, as well as the comments submitted to the Department on September 14, 2023, pursuant to remand.”

Yama took the U.S. to the Court of International Trade in August 2021 to challenge a 2018 administrative review, for which it was a mandatory respondent, that applied a countervailing duty of 42.2% to its entries.

AFA was applied due to the company's use of the China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program and the provision of several of its products’ components, caustic soda and synthetic yarn, for less-than-adequate remuneration.

The CIT ruled that the use of AFA was “critically flawed,” as Commerce based its EBCP determination on the fact it was not provided certain information from the Chinese government that it never actually requested from China's government, the court said (see 2308280034). It remanded the administrative review to Commerce.

On remand, Commerce reversed its decision about Yama’s use of EBCP but upheld its findings about its receipt of component parts at less-than-adequate remuneration, lowering the company’s duty to 31.66%. It provided Yama the chance to comment, which it did by referring the court to its past filings.

In not commenting before the court on Commerce’s new final determination upon remand, DOJ said, Yama waived its ability to challenge that determination.

“As an overarching matter, while Yama states that it ‘stands by’ its prior submissions, that is, its briefing filed before the Court had remanded this issue to Commerce, each of these submissions plainly predated Commerce’s draft and final remand results submitted in this case,” DOJ said.