Three Chinese supplier and export companies filed a lawsuit, indicating that they are taking steps to contest an antidumping duty determination for wood moulding. The determination was published in the 2023-2024 91 Federal Register 8823 on February 24, 2026. The related summons were filed in March 2026 with the United States Court of International Trade. Recently, counsel for Longquan Jiefeng Trade Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Senya Board Industry Co., Ltd and Zhangzhou Wanjiamei Industry & Trade Co., Ltd. filed an initial complaint, outlining arguments against the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and its administrative determination.
According to the official court summons, dated March 25, 2026, the determination in question was made in February, five days prior to the Federal Register publication. It refers to the Antidumping Duty Review Determination, titled Wood Moulding and Millwork Products from the PRC: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, for the period February 1, 2023, through January 31, 2024.
The Federal Register noted that Commerce determined the companies, Yinfeng Imp & Exp Trading Co., Ltd./ Fujian Province Youxi City Mangrove Wood Machining Co., Ltd. (Yinfeng/ Mangrove), Longquan Jiefeng Trade Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Senya Board Industry Co., Ltd., “sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value” during the time frame reported.
Commerce began a review in April 2024, responding to a “request for review filed by the U.S. domestic industry” in February of the same year. From July 17, 2024, and May 6, 2025, the companies claim they “submitted responses to the Department’s questionnaires,” and Commerce published its preliminary results on June 16, 2025, in 90 Federal Register 25209.
In response to the preliminary findings, the plaintiff companies filed administrative case briefs to challenge the findings. That was in August 2025 and, a week later, they also filed administrative rebuttal briefs with Commerce. Six months later, Commerce issued its final results and “Department assigned a rate of 61.86% to plaintiffs Longquan Jiefeng Trade Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Senya Board Industry Co., Ltd and a rate of 37.24% for plaintiff Zhangzhou Wanjiamei Industry & Trade Co., Ltd.” documents said.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs point to previous lawsuits such as Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, Taian Ziyang Food v. United States, Jinan Yipin Corp. v. United States, and Carpenter Technology, et al. v. United States to support their argument that the “Court must remand any administrative determination made by the Department,” because it is “unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole or is otherwise not in accordance with law.” They also point to Atlantic Sugar Ltd. v. United States when they write that “Substantial evidence on the record means ‘more than a mere scintilla’ and ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,’ taking into account the entire record, including whatever fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.”
They call the Commerce final decision “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, and not supported by substantial evidence on the record,” and are asking the Court to declare it unlawful.
Supporting their claim, they say, is that “Department’s final determination to use veneer for a substitute for logs without adjustment is not appropriate” when the “record establishes that plaintiffs used logs, not veneer as an input.” Plaintiffs, through their lawyers, call Commerce’s use of veneer as a substitute for logs “arbitrary and capricious and otherwise contrary to the evidence of record.”
They further argue that “Department’s selection of a single financial statement as the basis for financial ratios was incorrect,” because Commerce “had of record multiple financial statements but instead of selecting more than a single financial statement, elected to rely upon a non-representative financial statement.”
The Chinese companies accuse Commerce of “abuse of discretion” due to its rejection of data involving the processing of logs from Senya (Zhejiang Senya Board Industry Co.), which the organization claimed “failed to cooperate.” Plaintiffs argue that “Senya provided all of the information in its possession and which it could reasonably obtain. The information of record was sufficient to calculate values for the processing of the logs,” and that “[t]he Department’s ‘neutral’ facts were not neutral, but rather significantly overstated the value of the processing of the logs.”
Their final claim is that Commerce “incorrectly included consumption used in General R&D in the calculations. The inclusion of this resulted in the double counting of the expenses – once in the surrogate financial statements and then the specific amounts of R & D.” Among the remedies they’re seeking, they are asking for the court to remand the case “to the Department of Commerce for issuance of a determination consistent with the decision of this court,” as well as attorney fees and court costs.