Volume of Evidence Doesn't Reflect Its Relevance, US Industry Tells CIT in AD/CVD Exclusion Case

Producing a large volume of evidence does not establish the relevance or persuasiveness of such evidence, plaintiff Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee said in an April 19 brief blasting the Commerce Department's evidentiary record in an antidumping duty and countervailing duty exclusion case. Merely handing over a list of record information does not substitute for an explanation of how the evidence supports the exclusion finding, AEFTC said (Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee v. United States, CIT #21-00253).

The case concerns window wall system kits imported by Reflection Window + Wall which Commerce found to be outside the scope of the AD/CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China under the "finished goods kits" exclusion. AEFTC filed its case to argue against this position, telling the Court of International Trade that the goods don't fit under this exclusion since they are not assembled as is into a finished product and instead assembled in the field (see 2107020027).

In its reply brief, AEFTC said that Commerce's record information does not actually back its conclusion that Reflection's imports are assembled as is into final finished goods and some of the evidence actually indicates the opposite. As an example, the government submitted photographs of certain window wall units without a description of what the photographs reveal. "Because these photographs do not actually demonstrate the assembly or installation process, they cannot serve as evidence that no further finishing or fabrication or additional parts are required to fully assemble Reflection's imported products into final finished goods as is," the brief said.