Commerce Wrongly Found Affiliation Between Aluminum Sheet Producer and Input Supplier, Exporter Says

Oman Aluminum Rolling Co. (OARC) is not affiliated with a supplier of a key common alloy aluminum sheet input despite the owner of OARC also owning 40% of the input producer, OARC said in a June 25 complaint in the Court of International Trade. The Commerce Department's incorrect conclusion of an affiliation led to the agency's application of adverse facts available (AFA) in an antidumping duty investigation of aluminum sheet from Oman, the exporter said. The court should remand this finding for further consideration along with Commerce's use of AFA, because OARC complied with all proceedings in the AD investigation, OARC said (Oman Aluminum Rolling Company LLC v. United States, CIT #21-00266).

In the investigation, Commerce determined that aluminum sheet from OARC was being sold at less than fair value. In so doing, the agency accepted all of OARC's data except for information on its major input -- liquid aluminum. Finding that its liquid aluminum supplier, Sohar Aluminum, was affiliated with OARC, Commerce applied AFA. The Oman Oil Co., which controls 100% of OARC, also controls 40% of Sohar. That 40% stake “does not place Oman Oil Company in a position to legally or operationally exercise control or restraint over the company,” OARC said in its complaint.

Commerce disagreed, saying that through its minority ownership, Oman Oil could exercise the requisite level of restraint over Sohar's operations. OARC pointed out that the Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. also owns 40% and Rio Tinto Alcon owns the remaining 20%. This ownership structure is mirrored in Sohar's board, which is composed of two representatives from Oman Oil, two from ADNEC and one from Rio Tinto.

Commerce's use of AFA was also illegal since the agency failed to provide OARC with the proper notice that the record was insufficient, the exporter said. OARC complied with all investigation proceedings, the company said. “Because Commerce did not clearly identify which information was purportedly missing from the record, and because it did not provide OARC with an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies in its responses, it had no justification for applying AFA under the statute,” the complaint said.