CIT to Review CV Prelim Determination All Others Rate in China Aluminum Extrusions
In a reversal of its previous ruling on the issue, the Court of International Trade agreed to consider the all others rate of 137.65% from the preliminary countervailing duty determination of aluminum extrusions from China (C-570-968), in light of the fact that, although the preliminary determination is not a final agency decision, it carries force because cash deposits are collected from the time of the preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.
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.
CIT had already remanded the CV final determination all others rate of 374.15% in April, which was determined on the basis of non-cooperative mandatory respondents’ adverse facts available (AFA) rates, because, according to CIT, the final all others rate was unreasonable. Plaintiffs, which included four domestic importers and one exporter of extruded aluminum, nevertheless asked CIT to reconsider the favorable ruling because CIT, in the original ruling, said (i) the issue of the preliminary determination was moot, and (ii) the International Trade Administration’s decision to only rely on the mandatory respondents’ AFA rates, and disregard voluntary respondents’ non-AFA rates, was not contrary to law.
CIT granted plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider its decision not to review the all others rate from the preliminary determination, which CIT said it would do when it reviews the ITA’s remand of the final determination, but declined to reconsider its decision that the ITA was within its rights when it disregarded individual respondents rates in its all others rates calculation.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 12040603 for summary of CIT’s April decision in MacLean-Fogg, et al. v. U.S.)
(Slip Op. 12-81, dated 06/13/12, Judge Pogue)