Commerce 'Effectively' Took Adverse Inference Against Importer, Quartz Stone Importer Argues
In a Jan. 12 reply brief supporting a motion for judgment, importer AM Stone again argued it provided enough information to the Commerce Department for it to make certain calculations in its antidumping duty and countervailing duty reviews of quartz surface products from Malaysia without resorting to facts otherwise available (AM Stone & Cabinets v. United States, CIT # 24-00241).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The department’s decision to use other facts was “effectively” an adverse inference against the importer, it said, “by requiring information outside of the control of AM Stone and then holding the inability of AM Stone to provide such information against AM Stone.”
The importer provided all of the documentation asked of it, it said. Any missing information, it said, was the responsibility of its supplier, Universal Quartz.
It also said that the government's response to its motion for judgment (see 2512240043) failed to demonstrate that there existed any evidence Universal Quartz manufactured its products anywhere other than Malaysia.