Chinese Garlic Exporter Alleges Separate Rate Application Being Blocked by Other Exporter

A Chinese garlic exporter filed a complaint July 31 in the Court of International Trade claiming that the Commerce Department wrongly determined in an antidumping duty review that its U.S. sales were not bona fide and denied it a separate rate (Jining Huahui International Co. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00111).

Exporter Jining Huahui implied that this was because the largest domestic garlic association, Fresh Garlic Producers Association, has colluded with an established Chinese exporter, Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., “by withdrawing its requests for review of Harmoni.”

One of the group’s members, garlic company Christopher Ranch, was revealed in separate court litigation in 2016 to be one of Harmoni’s U.S. customers, it said.

On the other hand, petitioners and the garlic association have always fiercely resisted separate rate applications by new Chinese garlic exporters, it said.

“Over the last decade, garlic imports from China have been tainted by accusations in the Netflix food-industry documentary, “Garlic Breath,” of Chinese influence attempting to affect antidumping duty administrative reviews to subject Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice … to a recalculation of the $0.00/kg rate that was calculated for it in 2013,” exporter Jining Huahui International argued.

In the context of this “checkered history of garlic imports from China,” Huahui said it “sought only a fair opportunity to obtain a calculated rate” lower than the prohibitive China-wide rate of $4.71/kg.

It sought a review for a new rate, it said, but that review was rescinded because the Commerce Department determined that an analysis of Huahui’s prices, resales and payment timings, along with its likelihood of future sales and a few other factors, indicated its sales were not bona fide.

But this analysis “compared incomparable transactions,” made assumptions, ignored established practices and misapplied the law, the exporter said. It asked the trade court to order Commerce to reopen the review so it could seek "a determination consistent with the Court’s opinion, including the calculation of an antidumping duty margin for Plaintiff."