CIT Again Upholds Heat Sinks Exception from AD/CV Duties on China Aluminum Extrusions
The Court of International Trade again affirmed the exception for finished heat sinks from antidumping duties on aluminum extrusions from China (A-570-967/C-570-968). Having already approved the International Trade Commission’s partial injury determination that led to the exception (see 12102228), CIT on Jan. 23 said the Commerce Department’s implementation in the scope of the orders was reasonable.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In its May 2010 final injury determination that led to the imposition of AD/CV duties, the ITC found domestic aluminum extrusions industry had been injured, except for manufacturers of finished heat sinks. Specifically, the ITC’s injury determination did not extend to “fabricated heat sinks, sold to electronics manufacturers, the design and production of which are organized around meeting certain specified thermal performance requirements and which have been fully, albeit not necessarily individually, tested to comply with such requirements.” Without an injury determination for finished heat sinks, Commerce amended the scope of the AD/CV duties when it issued the orders on aluminum extrusions in May 2011. The language of the ITC report was inserted verbatim, except for the removal of the phrase “sold to electronics manufacturers.”
The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee challenged the scope of Commerce’s orders. By omitting the qualification that they be sold to electronics manufacturers, finished heat sinks that are not sold to electronics manufacturers would not be subject to AD/CV duties, contrary to the ITC’s intent. Commerce was not allowed to change the definition because it was bound by the ITC’s injury determination, said the domestic coalition. It also said Commerce should direct CBP to implement a certification system to ensure products imported under the exclusion have met thermal performance testing requirements.
CIT found no evidence to back up the claim that Commerce expanded the scope exclusion. The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee didn’t identify any specific product that should be subject to AD/CV duties under the ITC injury determination, but is left out because of Commerce’s scope language, said the court. The way Commerce wrote the scope also had a legitimate purpose, because CBP often does not know the domestic purchaser of a shipment, and wouldn’t be able to enforce the orders if they were only intended to cover finished heat sinks sent to a specific group of purchasers, said CIT.
And although the court said the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee may have a point on the certification requirement for thermal performance testing, it said it couldn’t yet take up the issue because it was still a hypothetical problem. The domestic coalition didn’t identify any instances when CBP faced the issue of whether to assess AD/CV duties on improperly tested heat sinks. “After some period of enforcement, any problems CBP might have in properly implementing the scope of the Commission’s [finished heat sink exclusion] will be more concrete and apparent,” said CIT. “This will allow for a more informed evaluation based on a more complete factual record, better reflecting both the practical strengths and Constitutional mandate of the judiciary.”
(Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Comm. v. U.S., Slip Op. 14-06, dated 01/23/14, Judge Pogue)