Chinese Aluminum Exporter Says Rates Were Improperly Based on AFA in Motion for Judgment
The Commerce Department incorrectly calculated subsidy rates and improperly applied adverse facts available despite the cooperation of respondent Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum, Alcha said it an April 14 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade. Alcha is contesting Commerce's methodology in the agency's administrative review of a countervailing duty order on common alloy aluminum sheet from China (Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum Co. v. U.S., CIT #22-00290).
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.
The final results, released in June 2022, assigned a total subsidy rate of 17.80% to Alcha, including a 2.57% rate for the Export Buyer’s Credit Program from the Chinese Export-Import Bank, which Alcha said that record evidence shows it did not use. Commerce also incorrectly used a 17% value added tax to calculate the benchmark for the “Provision of Primary Aluminum for Less than Fair Renumeration" subsidy program, Alcha said. Alcha asked Commerce to remand the case to Commerce.
Alcha said that record evidence showed it never benefited from the EBCP nor asked its U.S. customers to apply for the program, saying that "Neither it nor any of its affiliates received any benefit" from the EBCP. In its November complaint, Alcha challenged Commerce's use of adverse facts available for the EBCP, arguing that it cooperated to the best of its ability (see 2211080022). Commerce said it used AFA because the Chinese government failed to cooperate, preventing Commerce from analyzing the function of the program.
Commerce said it used the 17% rate that the Chinese government provided in the initial CVD investigation because the Chinese government failed to respond to questionnaires regarding the VAT rate during the review. Alcha said that it provided information on all its primary aluminum purchases during the period of investigation and paid only a 13% VAT during that time, and that Commerce was in fact using AFA.
"The 17 percent rate was pulled from the underlying investigation and is substantially higher than the rate reported by Alcha," the company said. In order to justify the use of a higher rate, "Commerce again ignored evidence that Alcha placed on the record in order to apply an adverse inference on a cooperating respondent," Alcha said.