Government Argues Against Consolidation for Test Case in Plywood Imports Origin Case

The government is opposing the consolidation or test case designation of four cases involving hardwood plywood imported by Richmond International Forest Products (RIFP) at the Court of International Trade. In a motion filed May 27, the government said RIFP has already proved its products are not of Chinese origin in the case RIFP designated as a test case, but that the court would still need to consider the three other cases on an entry-specific basis (Richmond International Forest Products Inc. v. United States, CIT # 21-00063, 21-00178, 21-00318, 21-00319).

The cases involve 60 entries of imported hardwood plywood, which CBP classified as of Chinese-origin and assessed corresponding antidumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties and a merchandise processing fee. RFIP said the plywood is Cambodian-origin and filed a series of protests that CBP denied. RIFP brought its first of four complaints to CIT in April 2021, which covered only one entry.

RIFP said that it opted to file its first complaint on a lone entry because it would economize the court's time. The other cases, covering the remaining 59 entries, remained on the Customs Case Management Calendar until May 5, 2022, when RIFP filed those complaints and then moved to consolidate all four cases in a May 6 motion.

The government asked CIT for a judgment in favor of RIFP's first case in a separate motion, also on May 27, saying that RIFP has "substantiated its claim" that the country of origin for imported plywood is Cambodia and not subject to duties applicable to Chinese products. DOJ said consolidation of the other three cases under the first one is inappropriate because it is no longer opposing the proposed test case and premature because DOJ has not yet responded to the three other complaints.

"[A]lthough the cases involve the same issue," the motion said, "... the country of origin is determined based on the supporting evidence for each entry." DOJ argues that, just because RIFP has met its burden of proof with a case covering a single entry, that does not mean that the burden for the additional cases covering 59 entries of similar product purportedly from the same country will also be met.