Loper Bright Applies in Country of Origin Determinations by CIT, Aluminum Importer Says
In response to U.S. opposition (see 2410090041) to its motion for judgment (see 2408010044), an aluminum importer again said Nov. 5 that its manufacturer’s production in South Korea was not minor or insignificant (Hanon Systems Alabama Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 24-00013).
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.
Importer Hanon Systems brought its case arguing that, in a country-of-origin determination for an anti-circumvention investigation, the Commerce Department must find that a majority or all statutory factors weigh toward one country of origin (see 2402210062).
The importer claimed in its Nov. 5 brief that the Court of International Trade’s analysis should be guided by Loper Bright, not the stricter deference standard advocated for by the government.
Hanon described Commerce’s final determination in its anti-circumvention investigation, in which the department found Hanon’s aluminum comes from China, as “fatally flawed.” The government, Hanon said, misunderstood Hanon’s argument that the phrase “minor and insignificant” must be read narrowly.
“Under Loper, the methodology that Commerce employs to determine whether the inquiry merchandise was minor and insignificant is for the Court to decide de novo,” it said.
The importer also argued that “overwhelming evidence” shows that its products originated from South Korea, not China, making the final determination by Commerce contrary to law. It again pointed out that its products were physically transformed in Korea and claimed that Commerce wrongly held otherwise in its determination.
The U.S. claimed that Hanon Systems had misunderstood Commerce’s statement -- the department did find a physical change had occurred, the government said, but decided it wasn’t substantial enough to make Korea the products’ country of origin -- but this wasn’t true, Hanon Systems said. It said that Commerce’s “determination regarding the nature of the production process focuses on the chemical properties rather than the physical and mechanical properties of the product.”
“Defendant merely concludes that ‘Commerce considered the chemical properties and also record information about the change in physical properties and concluded that the change in physical properties ... was not substantial enough to find that the nature of the production process weighed in favor of finding the production process is not minor or insignificant,’” it said. “Yet, the Final Determination is devoid of explanation as to why chemical properties rendered the change in physical properties ‘not substantial enough.’”
The importer said its argument that its manufacturer’s processing in South Korea was more than “a small proportion of the value” of its aluminum was more than a “mere ‘difference of opinion,’” as the government characterized it. And it said that Commerce also should have conducted a qualitative analysis on the issue, disagreeing that any had occurred.