Aluminum Foil Biz Says Bad Data Tainted Duty Review

46
SHARE
Aluminum Foil Biz Says Bad Data Tainted Duty Review
Civic Center, Manhattan, NYC

In a riveting legal saga, overseas aluminum foil producers, collectively known as Dingsheng, have filed a lawsuit urging the U.S. Court of International Trade to overturn Chinese anti-dumping tariffs. The gripping narrative unfolds as they accuse the U.S. Department of Commerce of miscalculations, alleging the use of erroneous surrogate production values.

Enter Email to View Articles

Loading...

Questionable Choices: Surrogacy of Financial Information

Dingsheng’s legal salvo contends that the Commerce Department’s selection of Romania, a market economy, for financial information was a grave misstep. Instead of opting for more fitting alternatives like Malaysia or Bulgaria, the lawsuit argues that this decision tainted the accuracy of assessing aluminum production costs in non-market China.

Aluminum Foil Biz Says Bad Data Tainted Duty Review: Dingsheng Strikes Back

As protagonists in the fourth administrative review of a 2018 anti-dumping duty order on specific Chinese aluminum foil, Dingsheng faced a startling 32.81% dumping margin, as revealed in the November denouement of the 2022 probe. However, in a twist worthy of a legal thriller, Dingsheng vehemently contested this rate on Monday.

Unraveling the Plot: Romanian Data’s Role

Dingsheng boldly claims that the use of Romanian data led to a web of inaccuracies. Allegedly, this choice resulted in flawed calculations concerning truck freight, brokerage, handling values, and distorted surrogate financial ratios. The stakes are high as Dingsheng seeks justice, asserting that the Commerce Department’s decision was not only unsupported by evidence but also ran afoul of the law.

Aluminum Foil Biz Says Bad Data Tainted Duty Review : The Defense Speaks

While Commerce remains silent in response to Tuesday’s queries, their previous defense echoes through the corridors of legal intricacies. In their November memorandum, Commerce staunchly defended the use of Romanian data, asserting it as the “best available information.” The legal chessboard comes alive as Commerce argues that the Romanian data surpasses both Bulgarian surrogate values and Malaysian SV data in contemporaneity and specificity.