Petitioners Say Drawback Adjustment Improper for Turkish Aluminum Exporter
Commerce improperly applied a duty drawback adjustment to a Turkish aluminum exporter’s antidumping duty rate, because the imports the exporter used to claim drawback could not be used to make the exported merchandise, the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group said in a brief filed Nov. 23 in support of its motion for judgment in the case (Assan Aluminiyum Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00246).
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.
Challenging Commerce’s final determination in its AD duty investigation on common alloy aluminum sheet from Turkey, the Aluminum Association, petitioners in the case, said Commerce did not follow court precedent when it raised Assan Aluminiyum’s export price to account for drawback as part of its AD rate calculation. The petitioners said Commerce only applied its two part test -- that the drawback is linked to the exportation of the subject merchandise, and that there are sufficient imports of the raw material to account for the drawback -- and did not consider a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holding in Maverick that the imports involved in the drawback be capable of use as inputs for the subject merchandise.
The Turkish drawback law at issue, the Inward Processing Regime, allows drawback for imports of “equivalent goods,” defined as goods with the same eight-digit tariff classification and commercial qualities and technical characteristics as goods used in production of the export. But only certain aluminum alloys can be used to make subject common alloy aluminum sheet, and Assan could have qualified for drawback without using them, the petitioners’ brief said.
Assan was also unable to demonstrate the imports at issue could be used to make common alloy aluminum sheet, the Aluminum Association said. Rather, “the documentation Assan did provide with respect to the specific import transactions identified in the Department's questionnaire confirmed that none of the imports could be used in the production of CAAS,” the petitioners said in the brief, much of which was redacted.