United States of America: Antidumping and countervailing duty petition against imports of aluminum extrusions from China
Description
On March 31, 2010 an industry association (the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee) and a labor union (the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union) filed a joint antidumping and countervailing duty petition against imports of aluminum extrusions imported from China. The industry association represents eleven U.S. firms.
The United States imported $534.1 million worth of this product from China in 2009. The public version of the petition does not include the specific dumping margins that the petitioners allege, but does list several types of subsidies that the Chinese manufacturers are alleged to receive (e.g., preferred eligibility for policy loans, allocation of credit, export assistance, etc.).
The first step in this case, apart from a determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce that the petition has been filed in good order, will be the preliminary injury investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The vote has been scheduled for May 14, 2010. If it is affirmative the case will proceed to the preliminary AD and CVD determinations by the Department of Commerce; if it is negative the case will come to an end.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | No |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | No |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | No |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
Based on the public version of the petition. See also the materials posted at http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/2010/alu....
Government Response:
- 113 reads
