Importers Didn't Circumvent AD Order on Chinese Aluminum Through Korea, Importer Says
A South Korean aluminum foil importer filed suit at the Court of International Trade against an anti-circumvention inquiry that found multiple importers attempted to avoid antidumping duties on Chinese aluminum foil using intermediaries in South Korea (Hanon Systems Alabama v. U.S., CIT # 23-00269).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The plaintiff, Hanon, said Jan. 19 that the applicable anti-circumvention state was “focused on the establishment of new operations (i.e., screwdriver operations...) as a result of the imposition of AD/CVD duties,” whereas in this case the South Korean aluminum foil industry was “well-established.”
Although the industry did order inputs from China, it said that investment and manufacturing was primarily centered on South Korea. There, products underwent compete transformation both chemically and physically, it said.
Even Commerce admitted it in regard to mandatory respondent Dong-Il, the importer said.
“Commerce continued to find that the level of investment in Korea by Dong-Il is not minor or insignificant, which weighs against a finding that the process of assembly or completion in Korea is minor or insignificant,” it said.
However, Commerce’s further finding, that the processing Dong-Il performed in Korea “represents a small proportion of the value of the inquiry merchandise imported into the United States,” was flawed, the importer said. It said Commerce erred when it calculated those values.
Hanon also said that Commerce relied on only two of five total factors to determine that the products' assembly process in Korea was “minor or insignificant” -- leaving out level of investment, level of research and development and extent of production facilities in the country, which the importer argued all weighed in favor of the opposite verdict. Finally, it said Commerce also incorrectly reached its determination in part based on a flawed analysis patterns of trade.
It asked the court to remand the results of the investigation to Commerce so the department can reach a new finding that no circumvention occurred.