A group of Chinese engineered wood flooring exporters lost their legal challenge of U.S. antidumping tariffs, which imposed 17.37 percent tariffs on Chinese engineered flooring that entered the U.S. market between Dec. 1, 2013, and Nov. 30, 2017, according to Bloomberg Law.
The case goes back to 2010, when the U.S. Department of Commerce opened in an investigation and determined that Chinese producers and exporters were dumping multilayered wood flooring in the U.S. at a less than fair value, eventually prompting margin adjustments in 2015. Because China is considered a nonmarket economy, the Commerce Department selected Romania as a surrogate market economy to value the factors of production of the imports and determine the margin adjustments for companies in China.
Fine Furniture and Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Chinese exporters, challenged the 17.37 percent dumping duty rate in September 2016, arguing that the surrogate data used to calculate the adjustment was incorrect. Additional plaintiffs in the complaint included Lumber Liquidators, Armstrong Wood Products, Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry, Old Master Products, Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co, Changzhou Hawd Flooring, Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry, Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry, Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry, Jiaxing Hengtong Wood, Karly Wood Product Limited, Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry, Xiamen Yung De Ornament and Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology.
Consolidated plaintiffs included Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Johnson's Premium Hardwood Flooring, Struxtur, Wego Chemical & Mineral Corp., Floor and DĂ©cor Outlets of America, Hangzhou Hanje Tec, Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group, MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry, Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Dalian Dajen Wood, and Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry.
“The court finds that Commerce's assignment of the 17.37 percent margin calculated for Fine Furniture to the unexamined separate rate respondents was both lawful and supported by substantial evidence,” the ruling states.
