Nonselected Respondents Challenge Commerce's Input Calculations, AFA for EBCP in CVD Review

The Commerce Department's use of adverse facts available in a countervailing duty review over the respondents' alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program is not backed by sufficient evidence, nonselected respondent Evolutions Flooring and Struxtur said in a Dec. 20 complaint. Filing at the Court of International Trade, the companies also contested Commerce's calculations for various inputs' less-than-adequate remuneration programs (Evolutions Flooring v. U.S., CIT #21-00591).

The case concerns the 2018 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, in which Baroque Timber Industries served as a mandatory respondent. In the review, Baroque Timber and one of its cross-owned affiliates, Riverside Plywood, pointed out flaws in the CVD petitioner's proposed benchmark calculations for several inputs, the complaint said. The plaintiffs echoed these concerns, arguing that "Commerce’s calculations for the various inputs LTAR [less-than-adequate remuneration] programs was not supported by substantial evidence." The plaintiffs, who received an 8.27% dumping rate, also contested the use of AFA for the alleged use of China's Export Buyer's Credit Program.