Importer Challenges Scope Decision on Aluminum Sheet at Trade Court
The Commerce Department erred in a scope ruling regarding antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheets from China, importer Valeo argued to the Court of International Trade in an Aug. 12 brief (Valeo North America v. U.S., CIT #21-00581). The brief supports a March motion for judgment that challenged the ruling by Commerce that determined Valeo’s imported heat-treated T-series aluminum sheet is covered by the scope of the AD/CVD orders.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Valeo has argued that the scope was ambiguous and that Commerce overstepped its authority in its analysis of the products at issue. The regulatory framework limits Commerce's descriptions of the merchandise in its k(1) analysis. If an analysis beyond these factors is required, Commerce must undertake an additional “k(2)” analysis, which provides for a consideration of additional factors. In its arguments, Commerce did "not even pretend" that it limited its analysis to the k(1) level, which is reflected by supplemental questionnaires asking for details beyond the k(1) analysis level, Valeo said. "Ultimately ... Commerce relied on the physical characteristics of [the] aluminum sheet to interpret the terms of the scope -- not to determine whether Valeo’s products meets those terms," Valeo said.
Valeo has argued that its sheet is not manufactured from one of the designated series alloys as required by the underlying order, and is therefore outside of the scope. The AD and CVD orders designate products manufactured from one of a series of alloys as designated by the Aluminum Association, but "Commerce did not consider that the Aluminum Association sets limits to what may be considered an equivalent," Valeo said. In the same publication that Commerce cites, the Aluminum Association provided the limits for the variations in chemical elements of alloys, which Valeo said its sheet does not meet and should not be considered equivalent.