You can comment on antidumping rule change

For readers who may have missed our coverage of the issue, the U.S. Department of Commerce is seeking feedback on a proposal that would change the way it instructs officials at the U.S. Department of Customs and Border Protection to collect antidumping duties.

Here is a link to the story we ran online June 21:

http://www.furnituretoday.com/article/540170-DOC_proposes_changes_in_how_antidumping_duties_are_collected.php?intref=sr

Apparently, there is some concern among government officials that a number of overseas factories - both inside and outside of the furniture industry - that escape review during the annual administrative review process are having their duties collected, or liquidated as the DOC says, at a lower rate than they deserve.

Thus the proposal suggests that importers and exporters determine whether they want to apply for a lower separate rate state during the annual review. Otherwise, the producer could get assigned a higher rate. In the furniture case this could mean having to pay a retroactive duty of 216% vs. a separate rate of 7.24% or lower.

What's unclear is how many factories will have to participate in a full review.

This is what the proposal - and here I am quoting language directly from a June 10 Federal Register announcement - states: "The Department is aware of instances where a non-reviewed exporter enters the U.S. at the cash-deposit rate of an exporter subject to review but where the basis for that cash deposit is not consistent with information subsequently reported to the Department during an administrative review. Accordingly, to ensure that entries are liquidated at appropriate rates and in accordance with information reported to the Department during an administrative review, the Department is proposing to refine its practice with respect to the rate at which it instructs CBP to liquidate certain entries from non-reviewed exporters. Specifically, the Department proposes to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME (Non-Market Economy) wide rate."

Joe Dorn, an attorney with King & Spalding who represents the U.S. furniture manufacturers supporting the government's decision to impose duties on Chinese-made wooden bedroom furniture, believes this could be less far-reaching than what he believes the original Furniture/Today article implies. He believes the government's use of the terminology "certain entries" implies the rule would only affect a limited number of exporters or producers.

The DOC, reiterating that this is only a proposal, is more vague about what it means by "certain entries" from non-reviewed exporters. Since it receives different information during each annual review, the scope of this terminology could, in fact, change from year to year. Thus, the DOC declines to speculate on what this could mean for furniture importers of record down the road, who by the way are the ones who have to pay the duties. Again, a DOC spokesman states, it's still only a proposal.

Further down, the Federal Register notice implies this could be more far-reaching than not.

Again I'm quoting specific language from FR notice, which reads, "By revising the NME liquidation instructions, the Department intends to ensure that entries are liquidated at the appropriate rate, i.e., the NME-wide rate for entries from firms without a separate rate assigned to them. This refinement will increase the need for interested parties (including exporters and importers of merchandise produced in NME countries) to participate in the Department's proceedings. For example, exporters and importers of subject merchandise will need to determine whether to request an administrative review and file a separate-rate application. Through an administrative review, a party can seek a separate cash-deposit rate for its merchandise."

The DOC will take comments on this proposal through July 11. We encourage anyone with questions or concerns to comment. This is the industry's chance to participate in the democratic process as afforded by a government agency that wants honest feedback before making such a change.

Comments should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov into Docket Number ITA-2011-0007. For those without Internet access, written comments are being accepted by Julia Hancock, Special Assistant, China/NME Unit, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Room AA118, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street NW. Washington, DC 20230.