The Court of International Trade upheld antidumping duties imposed on two Chinese manufacturers of small diameter graphite electrodes.  After analyzing numerous arguments made by the Plaintiffs, Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co. (Fushun) and Fangda Carbon New  Material Co. (Fangda), the Court found that the U.S. Department of Commerce  used appropriate data in analyzing the antidumping margin and that both Plaintiffs were subject to the PRC-wide antidumping duty of 159.64 percent.

The Plaintiffs’ challenges concerned the fourth administrative review of the Antidumping Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China.  Both Plaintiffs were selected as mandatory respondents in the administrative review.  During the review process, Commerce found that Fushun had “withheld or misrepresented information and had impeded the review.”   Consequently, Commerce disregarded Fushun’s submission and applied the “total facts available with an adverse inference” and determined Fushun was subject to the 159.64 percent PRC-wide antidumping rate.  Fushun unsuccessfully challenged this determination in the instant case.  Siding with Commerce, the Court found that the evidence demonstrated multiple inconsistencies in Fushun’s submissions and ruled it “cannot conclude Commerce’s determination on the issue [was] unsupported by substantial evidence or not in accordance with law.”

Fushun and Fangda both challenged Commerce’s selection of Ukraine as a surrogate country to be used in the review of the antidumping order.  The Plaintiffs were also unsuccessful in this argument as the Court held “substantial evidence of record supports Commerce’s determination [that Ukraine was an appropriate surrogate country] and the court will not ‘second guess’ the agency on the issue.”

The Antidumping Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes was first implemented in January 2009 and currently assesses duties of 159.64 percent on subject merchandise.   The order has recently been involved in an antidumping duty fraud investigation and civil settlement under the False Claims Act.  In that case, the federal government recovered $3 million and the relator, who was represented by Frohsin & Barger, received $480,000.

If you have questions about antidumping duties, please contact Frohsin & Barger.