EAPA Petitioner Defends Commerce's Scope Ruling at CIT Over Aluminum Sheet
Plaintiff AA Metals cannot prove that its Chinese-origin aluminum coils are outside the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on common alloy aluminum sheet from China, petitioner Texarkana Aluminum argued in a Nov. 3 reply brief at the Court of International Trade in an Enforce and Protect Act case. The plaintiff "does not -- and cannot -- dispute" the finding that the physical dimensions of its product match the description laid out in the orders' scope, the brief said (AA Metals v. United States, CIT #22-00051).
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 case stems from an EAPA investigation CBP began in May 2021 to see whether goods imported by AA were evading the AD/CVD orders on CAAS from China by way of Turkey. Unable to find whether certain products in two different scenarios were in the scope of the orders, CBP then asked Commerce for a scope ruling. The goods described in "Scenario 2" are defined as “Chinese-origin aluminum sheet of a thickness covered by the scope re-rolled in Turkey to a thickness covered by the scope."
During the scope proceeding, AA Metals defined the product as "continuous cast coil with a thickness of 3-20 mm, which is considered primary unwrought aluminum." AA Metals said that the Chinese product that's shipped to Turkey is not subject to the orders since the input is continuous cast coil, which is unwrought aluminum made by casting without hot- or cold-rolling, and that a "certain temper product is non-subject merchandise."
Nevertheless, Commerce said that the goods under Scenario 2 are subject to the orders since the goods shipped to Turkey are within the scope of the orders "as flat-rolled aluminum sheet having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less, but greater than 0.2 mm, in coils or cut-to-length, regardless of width." The Scenario 2 products were not excluded based on their temper. AA Metals then took to the trade court, arguing that the scope decision violated the law since it found that the Scenario 2 products were not continuous cast coil goods, among other things (see 2202280045).
In its reply, Texarkana argued that AA Metals cannot dispute the fact that its products have a thickness less than 6.3 mm but greater than 0.2 mm in coils, or cut to length, regardless of width, as exactly mentioned in the scope. Commerce explained why it decided that the Chinese-origin good is flat-rolled aluminum sheet instead of continuous cast coil as AA Metals argued, the petitioner said. AA Metals said that both unwrought and wrought aluminum are identified via a four-digit designation system, though the evidence AA Metals pointed to "covers only wrought aluminum, not unwrought aluminum," Texarkana said.
AA Metals said that the scope ruling was illegal since the processes in Turkey substantially changed the Chinese-origin good of Scenario 2 so that it is a product of Turkey. "Because the product was in scope when it was exported to Turkey from China and remained in scope after processing in Turkey, a substantial transformation analysis was not required," the brief said.