DOJ Defends Commerce Remand Results in Aluminum Sheet Redetermination
The Commerce Department correctly found on remand that importer Valeo North America's T-series aluminum sheet fell within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum sheet from China, DOJ said in its Sept. 20 comments in support of the remand redetermination (Valeo North America v. U.S., CIT # 21-00581).
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.
DOJ said that Commerce correctly found the phrase "3XXX-Series" in the scope language to be ambiguous regarding unregistered alloys. On remand, Commerce considered all record information when evaluating the definition of “as designated by” the Aluminum Association in accordance with law, DOJ said. The department's determination that there is no dispositive interpretation of “as designated by” was reasonable and Valeo failed to make convincing arguments that the department needed to compare other (k)(1) sources DOJ, said.
Defendant-intervenor the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group, in its own comments, added that although Valeo claimed that scope language was unambiguous in its July remand comments (see 2307210038), the court already held that the phrase was ambiguous, and the Department simply relied on the Court’s holding in its remand results. Despite Valeo's claim that Commerce relied on a separate application as a (k)(1) source, DOJ said the Commerce actually relied on its original determination in the AD investigation, which is "a source explicitly referenced under (k)(1)."
The court had said that “the phrase ‘3XXX-series’ is not defined by the scope except in reference to the phrase ‘as designated by the Aluminum Association,’ which is also undefined.” Commerce reasonably concluded that the meaning of the phrase “3XXX-series” was ambiguous, DOJ said. Neither Valeo’s scope application, nor consideration of the (k)(1) factors, resolved that ambiguity. The department's subsequent analysis of (k)(2) factors was reasonable given the ambiguity of the scope language, DOJ said.
Valeo had also argued that the core layer used to manufacture T-series sheet is “heat-treatable” and are therefore not 3XXX-series alloys, which are non-heat-treatable. DOJ pointed to Commerce's conclusion that Valeo provided insufficient evidence to show that its product underwent heat-treatment. Valeo produced evidence that T-series sheet was made available in two tempers, while other heat-treated products were listed as available in separate tempers.