China Archives - Page 3 of 25 - Customs & International Trade Law Firm

Trade News: New AD/CVD Case Filed on Active Anode Material from China

A new case was filed on Active Anode Material from China by the American Active Anode Material Producers.

Full list of exporters here. Full list of importers here.

Background on AD/CVD Investigations

Antidumping duty (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigations are brought jointly by the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). AD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports of particular goods from specific countries being sold at less than a fair value. Meanwhile, CVD investigations are triggered when a domestic industry alleges that it has been injured by competing imports that are being unfairly subsidized by their governments. The domestic industry initiating the investigation is known as the petitioner while the foreign industry participating in the investigation is known as the respondent.

Scope of the Investigation

The product is generally described as: active anode material is most commonly used as the primary component in the anode of lithium-ion batteries. The anode of a lithium-ion battery must be made with active anode material, often combined with silicon. In contrast, the cathode of lithium-ion batteries can be made from a variety of metal oxides, including lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium iron phosphate, or lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide.

Full scope here.

Next Steps

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC will reach a preliminary determination of material injury or threat of material injury within 45 days.

As with any […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-12-20T14:47:58-05:00December 18, 2024|AD/CVD, China, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments

Trade News: New AD/CVD Case Filed on Erythritol from China

A new anti-dumping and countervailing case was filed on Erythritol from China by Cargill, the sole U.S. producer of Erythritol.

Full list of exporters here. Full list of importers here.

Background on AD/CVD Investigations

Scope of the Investigation

The product is generally described as: Erythritol, which is a sugar alcohol, commonly referred to as a polyol, typically produced by the fermentation of glucose using

enzymes and yeast or yeast-like fungi (though the scope includes erythritol produced using

any other feedstock or organism). Erythritol typically appears as a white crystalline, odorless product that rapidly dissolves in water. While erythritol is typically produced in the crystalline form or as a fine powder or in directly compressible form, the scope of these investigations covers all physical forms and grades of erythritol.

Full scope here.

Next Steps

The Commerce Department will determine whether to initiate the investigations within 20 days. The USITC […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-12-20T14:30:08-05:00December 13, 2024|AD/CVD, China, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments

USTR Finalizes Action on 301 Tariffs
Gallery
USTR Finalizes Action on 301 Tariffs
China, Countries, Import, U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)

USTR Finalizes Action on 301 Tariffs

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced final tariff modifications following their statutory review of the Section 301 investigation of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. The final modifications include tariff increases on several products including critical minerals, batteries, and semiconductors.

301 Investigation Background

In August 2017, USTR initiated an investigation into China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The agency released a report of its findings in March 2018 and in June 2018 began imposing additional duties on products of China in four tranches.

Under the Trade Act of 1974, the USTR is required to conduct a four-year review if they receive an appropriate request to continue an action taken under Section 301. The agency is required to review:

(A) the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of section 301 of (i) such action, and (ii) other actions that could be taken (including actions against other products or services), and
(B) the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers.

In accordance with this requirement, USTR announced in May 2022 that it was commencing this review and opened a docket for interested persons to submit comments.

The agency […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-09-17T15:52:42-04:00September 17, 2024|China, Countries, Import, U.S. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)|0 Comments

Reminder: New Section 232 Duties on Certain Steel and Aluminum Products from Mexico
Gallery
Reminder: New Section 232 Duties on Certain Steel and Aluminum Products from Mexico
China, Countries, Iran, Mexico, U.S. Department of Commerce

Reminder: New Section 232 Duties on Certain Steel and Aluminum Products from Mexico

On July 10, 2024, President Biden issued two proclamations on adjusting imports of steel and aluminum into the United States. The proclamations increase the section 232 duty rate for both products and adjust the requirements for avoiding section 232 duties.

Steel Proclamation

The steel proclamation implements a melt and pour requirement for imports of steel articles that are products of Mexico. It also increases the section 232 duty rate for imports of steel articles and derivative steel articles that are products of Mexico that are melted and poured in a country other than Mexico, Canada, or the United States. If the country of melt and pour is any country other than the U.S., Mexico, or Canada, then the steel articles are subject to an additional 25% duty.

In making this adjustment, the Administration stated that domestic steel producers’ capacity utilization remains below the target 80 percent capacity utilization recommended in the Secretary of Commerce’s report of January 11, 2018. Additionally, imports of steel articles from Mexico have increased significantly. In the opinion of the Administration and the Secretary of Commerce, these developments indicate the need for further action under section 232.

Aluminum Proclamation

The aluminum proclamation implemented a country of smelt and country of most recent cast requirement for imports of aluminum articles that are products of Mexico. It also increased the section 232 duty rate for imports of aluminum articles and derivative aluminum articles that are products of Mexico containing aluminum for which the reported […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-09-06T12:48:40-04:00September 6, 2024|China, Countries, Iran, Mexico, U.S. Department of Commerce|0 Comments

ICYMI: Court of International Trade Tells Commerce to Verify Exporter’s Nonuse of China’s EBCP
Gallery
ICYMI: Court of International Trade Tells Commerce to Verify Exporter’s Nonuse of China’s EBCP
AD/CVD, China, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)

ICYMI: Court of International Trade Tells Commerce to Verify Exporter’s Nonuse of China’s EBCP

The Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled in a recent opinion that it is unreasonable for the Commerce Department not to attempt verification of an exporter’s certificates proclaiming nonuse of China’s Export Buyer’s Credit Program (EBCP) when the exporter did not submit certificates for all its customers.

The ruling stems from an administrative review of a 2012 countervailing duty order on solar cells from China. In February 2022, Commerce initiated its Ninth Administrative Review of the order. In March 2022, the International Trade Administration (ITA) selected Risen Energy Co, a developer, manufacturer, and distributor of solar photovoltaic application products, as a mandatory respondent.

Risen reported that none of its customers used the EBCP during the period of review, and submitted non-use certificates for all but one of its U.S. customers. However, in the final results, Commerce included the Government of China’s EBCP in its calculation of Risen’s countervailing duty rate. Commerce stated that the Government of China did not provide all of the information initially requested, namely the one missing non-certificate. Therefore, Commerce concluded that Risen had failed to provide sufficient record evidence to determine non-use. Risen appealed the decision to the CIT arguing that the decision was not based on substantial evidence.

Judge Jane Restani heard the case and remanded the review of the countervailing duty order so that Commerce can attempt to verify Risen’s non-use certificates. Judge Restani stated that the conclusion that Risen failed to provide sufficient evidence based on their inability to account for a […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2024-08-26T11:47:53-04:00August 26, 2024|AD/CVD, China, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)|0 Comments

Previous 234 Next