U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4492 October 2014

Washington, DC 20436

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from 

China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Second Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Meredith M. Broadbent, Chairman 

Dean A. Pinkert, Vice Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson 

David S. Johanson 

F. Scott Kieff 

Rhonda K. Schmidtlein

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Carolyn Esko, Investigator 

Christopher Robinson, Industry Analyst 

Sonia Murphy, Attorney 

Mary Messer, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4492 October 2014

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from 

China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Second Review)

i

Contents

Determination.......................................................................................................................................................1

Views of the Commission....................................................................................................................................3

Information obtained in the review............................................................................................................I-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................I-3

The original investigation....................................................................................................................I-4

The first five-year review ....................................................................................................................I-5

Commerce’s original determination and subsequent administrative review determinations ..........I-5

Commerce’s final result of expedited first five-year review...............................................................I-6

Commerce’s final result of expedited second five-year review .........................................................I-6

Related commission investigations and reviews................................................................................I-8

The product.............................................................................................................................................I-8

Commerce’s scope..............................................................................................................................I-8

U.S. tariff treatment............................................................................................................................I-9

Domestic like product and domestic industry ....................................................................................I-9

Physical characteristics.....................................................................................................................I-10

Manufacturing process.....................................................................................................................I-12

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions...........................................................I-13

Channels of distribution....................................................................................................................I-14

The industry in the United States.........................................................................................................I-14

U.S. producers...................................................................................................................................I-14

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data...................................................................I-19

Related party issues..........................................................................................................................I-21

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption ......................................................................................I-23

U.S. imports.......................................................................................................................................I-23

Leading nonsubject sources of imports............................................................................................I-27

Ratio of imports to U.S. production..................................................................................................I-28

Apparent U.S. consumptions and market shares .............................................................................I-29

Antidumping actions outside the united states....................................................................................I-32

The world market..................................................................................................................................I-32

Production capacity ..........................................................................................................................I-34

The subject industry in China................................................................................................................I-34

RBAO operations...............................................................................................................................I-36

Export profile ....................................................................................................................................I-38

Appendix

A. Federal Register notices.................................................................................................................................A-1

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy........................................................................................................B-1

C. Table C-2 from Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the original investigation..................C-1 

Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be 

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Second Review)

REFINED BROWN ALUMINUM OXIDE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1developed in the subject five-year review, the United States 

International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

refined brown aluminum oxide from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 

of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on February 3, 2014 (79 F.R. 6225) and 

determined on May 9, 2014 that it would conduct an expedited review (79 F.R. 48248, August 

15, 2014).

 

1

The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure 

(19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

3

Views of the Commission

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order 

on refined brown aluminum oxide (“RBAO”) from China would likely lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. 

I. Background

The original investigation was instituted in response to an antidumping petition filed by 

Washington Mills Group Inc. (“Washington Mills”) on November 20, 2002. On November 10, 

2003, the Commission found that an industry in the United States was materially injured by 

reason of less than fair value imports of RBAO from China.1 The U.S. Department of Commerce 

(“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of RBAO from China on November 

19, 2003.

2

 

On October 1, 2008, the Commission instituted the first five-year review. It conducted

an expedited review.3 On February 19, 2009, the Commission determined that revocation of 

the antidumping duty order on RBAO from China would be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.4 Commerce issued a notice 

of continuation of the antidumping duty order on imports of RBAO from China on March 13, 

2009.

5

The Commission instituted this review on February 3, 2014.6 On March 5, 2014, four 

domestic producers of RBAO submitted a joint response to the Commission’s notice instituting 

this review,

7

and on April 18, 2014, these parties submitted joint comments on the adequacy of 

these responses. On May 9, 2014, the Commission found each domestic producer’s response 

to be adequate. It further determined that the domestic interested party group response to 

the notice of institution was adequate. The Commission did not receive a response to the 

notice of institution from any respondent interested party. Consequently, it determined that 

the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the absence of any 

 

1

68 Fed. Reg. 64369 (Nov. 13, 2003).

2

68 Fed. Reg. 65249 (Nov. 19, 2003).

3

See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide 

from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1022 (Review), USITC Pub. 4063 (Mar. 2009), at Appendix B.

4

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1022 (Review), USITC Pub. 4063 

(Mar. 2009) (hereinafter “Review Opinion”). 

5

74 Fed. Reg. 10884 (Mar. 13, 2009).

6

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China: Institution of Five-Year Review, 79 Fed. Reg. 6225 

(Feb. 3, 2014).

7

These four producers are C-E Minerals, Inc. (“C-E Minerals”); Imerys Fused Minerals Niagara 

Falls, Inc. (“Imerys”); U.S. Electrofused Minerals, Inc.; and Washington Mills (collectively, “the Domestic 

Producers”). The response also contained data for an additional U.S. producer of RBAO. 
4

circumstances warranting a full review, the Commission unanimously determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order.8

II. Domestic Like Product and Industry

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission 

defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”9 The Tariff Act defines “domestic like 

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and 

uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.”10 The Commission’s 

practice in five-year reviews is to examine the domestic like product definition from the original 

investigation and consider whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior 

findings.11

Commerce has defined the scope of the antidumping duty order in this five-year review 

as follows:

ground, pulverized or refined brown artificial corundum, also known as brown

aluminum oxide or brown fused alumina, in grit size of 3/8 inch or less. Excluded

from the scope of the order is crude artificial corundum in which particles with a

diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight

of the entire batch. The scope includes brown artificial corundum in which

particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute less than 50 percent of

the total weight of the batch. The merchandise under investigation is currently

classifiable under subheadings 2818.10.20.00 and 2818.10.20.90 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).12

RBAO is a solid inorganic chemical derived from the aluminum oxide in mined bauxites 

and produced by crushing, grinding, and sieving brown aluminum oxide (“BAO”) in ingot or 

crude form. The product is sold in a range of sizes, generally but not always with a diameter of 

 

8

See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide 

from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1022 (Second Review), EDIS Doc. 535175 (June 5, 2014).

9

19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 

NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. 

v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l 

Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 

F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

11 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-

TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

12 79 Fed. Reg. 26207-26208 (May 7, 2014).
5

3/8 inch or less,13 to end users and to distributors.

14 RBAO is used mainly to make abrasives and 

refractories (heat-resistant furnace linings).15

In the original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product

consisting of all merchandise corresponding to the scope of the investigation as well as any

RBAO where particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch constituted at least 50 percent of

the total weight of the entire batch, as long as this product had been crushed, screened, and

sorted into consistent sizes.16

The Commission defined the domestic like product more broadly than the scope in order

to more accurately reflect the dividing line between crude BAO and RBAO.17 It found that 

Commerce’s scope did not accurately reflect the dividing line because both the larger and 

smaller sizes were used for refractories and shared the same channels of distribution. 

Additionally, the record contained no information that they were produced in distinct facilities.

18

The Commission found that the size of BAO particles did not affect interchangeability because 

most RBAO was produced to specific customer size specifications.19 Therefore, the Commission 

defined the domestic like product to include both the merchandise described by the scope 

definition and certain RBAO with a diameter greater than the 3/8 inch limitation included in the 

scope language.

20

In the expedited first review, the domestic parties indicated that they agreed with the 

Commission’s definition of the domestic like product in the original investigation.21 The 

Commission found that the record did not contain any new information that would cause it to 

revisit its domestic like product definition.22 Accordingly, it again defined the domestic like 

product to include all merchandise corresponding to the scope of the order, as well as any 

RBAO where particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch constituted at least 50 percent of 

the total weight of the entire batch, as long as the product had been crushed, screened, and 

sorted into consistent sizes.23

In this review, the Domestic Producers stated that they agree with the domestic like 

product definition the Commission adopted in the original investigation and first review.

24

There is no new information in the record indicating that the characteristics of the product at 

issue have changed since the prior proceedings.25 Accordingly, we again define the domestic 

 

13 Confidential staff Report (“CR”) at I-10, I-12, Public Report (“PR”) at I-8 - I-9. 

14 CR at I-17, PR at I-12. 

15 CR at I-14, PR at I-10.

16 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Pub. 3643 

(Nov. 2003) at 3 (“Original Determination”).

17 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 6-7.

18 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 6-7.

19 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 6-7.

20 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 8-10. 

21 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 4. 

22 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 4.

23 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 4.

24 Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of Institution at 16; Domestic Producers’ Comments 

at 1.

25 CR at I-13 – I-18, PR at I-10 – I-13.
6

like product to include all merchandise corresponding to the scope of the order, as well as any 

RBAO where particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute as least 50 percent of 

the total weight of the entire batch, as long as the product has been crushed, screened, and 

sorted into consistent sizes. 

B. Domestic Industry 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic

“producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output 

of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of 

the product.”26 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been 

to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether tollproduced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

In the original determination, five of the six domestic producers of RBAO imported the 

subject merchandise from China during the period of investigation, and thus were related 

parties under the statute. The Commission found that appropriate circumstances existed to 

exclude one of these producers, Great Lakes Minerals, from the domestic industry, but not to 

exclude the others. Great Lakes was excluded because it ***.

27

 The Commission found that 

Great Lakes ***.

28 The Commission therefore defined the domestic industry as consisting of all 

U.S. producers of the domestic like product, with the exception of Great Lakes Minerals.29

In the first review, the Commission found that the domestic industry consisted of all six 

U.S. producers of the domestic like product, none of which imported the subject merchandise 

from China during the period of review or was otherwise a related party.30

In this review, the Domestic Producers have stated that they agree with the 

Commission’s definition from the first review.

31 The sole reported change in composition to the 

domestic industry since the first review is that the producer previously known as Treibacher 

Schleifmittel is now known as Imerys Fused Minerals.32 There are no related party issues in this 

review because the record indicates that no domestic RBAO producers imported subject 

merchandise during the period of review.33 We therefore again define the domestic industry as 

consisting of all domestic producers of RBAO.

 

26 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle 

containing the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 

U.S.C. § 1677.

27 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 11.

28 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 11.

29 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 9-11. The U.S. Court of International Trade upheld 

the Commission’s exclusion of Great Lakes from the domestic industry. Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. 

United States, Slip Op. 04-139 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 12, 2004). 

30 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 5. 

31 Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of Institution at 16.

32 Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of Institution at 2.

33 Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of Institution at 14. The Domestic Producers 

reported that two U.S. producers, C-E Minerals and Imerys, are related to a Chinese producer of subject 

merchandise through a mutual parent company in France. Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of 
7

III. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order Would Likely Lead to 

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably 

Foreseeable Time 

A. Legal Standards

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will 

revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that 

dumping or subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a 

determination that revocation of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”34 

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that 

“under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must 

decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the 

status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining 

effects on volumes and prices of imports.”35 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in 

nature.36 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year 

review provisions of the Tariff Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that 

standard in five-year reviews.37

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or 

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of 

time.”38 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but 

 

Institution at 2. They also reported that the affiliate in China does not export RBAO to the United States, 

and that the two domestic producers had not imported subject merchandise, from this affiliate or 

otherwise, during the period of review. Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of Institution at 14.

34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

35 SAA, H.R. Rep. 103-316, vol. I at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury 

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, 

threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to 

suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

36 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not 

necessary,” it indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely 

continued depressed shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like 

product in the U.S. market in making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 

material injury if the order is revoked.” SAA at 884.

37 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) 

(“‘likely’ means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d 

mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) 

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” 

standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion;” “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any 

particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059, 1070 

(2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); 

Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely 

‘possible’”).

38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).
8

normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in 

original investigations.”39

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an 

original investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute 

provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of 

imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended 

investigation is terminated.”40 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury 

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or 

the suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if 

the orders are revoked or a suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by 

Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).41 The statute further 

provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider 

shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination.42

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under 

review are revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed 

to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be significant either in absolute terms 

or relative to production or consumption in the United States.43 In doing so, the Commission 

must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated factors: (1) any likely 

increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country; 

(2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the 

existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than 

the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign 

country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to 

produce other products.44

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review are 

revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed to 

consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as 

compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the 

 

39 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the 

fungibility or differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the 

imported and domestic products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as 

spot sales or long-term contracts), and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may 

only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned investment and the shifting of production 

facilities.” Id.

40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has not made any duty absorption findings with respect to 

the order currently under review. CR at I-7, PR at I-6.

42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is 

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

43 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

44 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A-D).
9

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect 

on the price of the domestic like product.45

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under 

review are revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed 

to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the 

industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following: (1) likely declines in 

output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of 

capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, 

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing 

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or 

more advanced version of the domestic like product.46 All relevant economic factors are to be 

considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are 

distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to 

which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the order under 

review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury upon revocation.47

No respondent interested party participated in this expedited review.48 The record, 

therefore, contains limited new information with respect to the RBAO industry in China.

Accordingly, for our determination, we rely as appropriate on the facts available from the 

original investigation and prior review, data submitted in the response to the notice of 

institution, and other public data.

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an 

order is revoked, the statute directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors 

“within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to 

the affected industry.”49 The following conditions of competition inform our determination.

 

45 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in 

investigations, in considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and 

termination, the Commission may rely on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse 

effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA at 886.

46 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

47 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the 

order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be 

contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the 

domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of 

sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at 885.

48 During the adequacy phase of this proceeding, the Commission received a letter from 

American Abrasive Products, Inc., of the City of Industry, California, an importer and distributor of 

RBAO. Because of deficiencies in the submission, the Commission determined that American Abrasives 

did not provide an individually adequate response to the notice of institution. CR/PR I-3, n. 5.

49 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).
10

Demand Conditions. In the original investigation, the Commission found that U.S. 

demand for RBAO declined over the period of investigation. This decline reportedly was caused 

by factors such as an overall deterioration in the economy, weak conditions in the refractory 

and steel industries, and increasing imports of downstream products. The quantity of apparent 

U.S. consumption fell by *** percent between 2000 and 2001, by *** percent between 2001 

and 2002, and by *** percent when comparing the first six months of 2002 (interim 2002) with 

the first six months of 2003 (interim 2003).50

In the first review, the Commission found that U.S. demand for RBAO had generally 

increased since imposition of the antidumping duty order. Nevertheless, demand was reported 

to have declined in 2008 and was projected to decline further in 2009 due to recessionary 

conditions and a drop in steel production.

51

In this review, U.S. demand for RBAO continues to be derived from demand for products 

used in the abrasives and refractories markets, which is strongly linked to activity in the U.S. 

manufacturing sector. However, due to improvements in technology in many of the industries 

in the U.S. manufacturing sector, including aerospace, automotive, furniture, construction, and 

steel, growth in these industries may not translate into an increase in consumption of RBAO.52 

Apparent U.S. consumption in 2013 was 134,645 short tons, which was below both the 167,086 

short tons of apparent U.S. consumption in 2007 and the *** short tons of apparent U.S. 

consumption in 2002.53

Supply Conditions. In the original investigation, the Commission specified several 

changes in the domestic industry that occurred during the period of investigation, including

Washington Mills’ acquisition of the RBAO operations of another domestic producer, Exolon; 

the cessation of production by 3M; and the beginning of domestic production by C-E Minerals.

54

 

Washington Mills purchased raw materials at low prices in 2001 and 2002 from the Defense 

Logistics Agency (DLA); otherwise all domestic producers of RBAO obtained their raw material 

from foreign sources, including China, as there was no domestic production of crude BAO.55 

The Commission also stated that the volume of nonsubject imports declined over the period of 

investigation.

56

During the first review, the Commission found several changes in the structure of the 

domestic industry, including the introduction of a new domestic producer, U.S. Electrofused 

Materials; that Washington Mills sold one of its two U.S. production facilities; and that Great 

Lakes was no longer an importer of subject merchandise.57 While the domestic industry’s

dependence on foreign sources for crude BAO had not changed, Chinese producers of RBAO 

 

50 The Commission recognized that the decline in apparent U.S. consumption may have been 

overstated due to misclassification of refined and crude BAO and over inclusion of white and pink 

aluminum oxide in the relevant HTSUS subheading. Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 13-14. 

51 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 8.

52 CR at I-40-41; PR at I-29. 

53 CR/PR Table I-7. 

54 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 12-13. 

55 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 13. 

56 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 13-14. 

57 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 8-9.
11

had begun experiencing production difficulties.58 The Chinese RBAO industry nevertheless 

remained the largest in the world.59 The volume of subject imports, however, had declined 

significantly following the imposition of the order.60

In this review, the responding domestic producers report that there are currently six 

domestic producers of RBAO, *** of which reported information for this review. There have 

been no major changes to the domestic industry since the first review.61 The data indicates that 

in 2013, the domestic industry supplied the largest percentage of RBAO to the U.S. market, 

followed by nonsubject imports. Nonsubject imports were principally from Canada, Austria, 

and Brazil.62 Subject imports had a very small presence in the U.S. market in 2013. In 2013, U.S. 

producers’ domestic shipments were 111,611 short tons, subject imports totaled 1,373 short 

tons, and nonsubject imports were 21,661 short tons.63

Substitutability. In the original investigation, the Commission found a moderate to high 

degree of substitutability between RBAO from China and the domestic like product.64 The 

Commission observed that purchasers characterized price as a very important factor in their 

purchasing decisions. While quality was the primary consideration for most purchasers, most 

purchasers reported that the United States and Chinese products were comparable in quality 

and product consistency, as well as in availability, discounts offered, minimum quantity 

requirements, packaging, product range, reliability of supply, and U.S. transportation costs. 

Most purchasers also ranked the U.S. product as superior to the Chinese product in technical 

support and service and inferior only in terms of (lowest) price. Overall, U.S. producers, 

importers, and purchasers reported that RBAO produced in the United States was generally 

interchangeable with RBAO produced in China.65 

In the first review, the Commission found that the record contained nothing that would 

suggest that the conditions affecting substitutability had changed significantly since the original 

investigation.66

The information available in this review similarly contains nothing to indicate that the 

substitutability between subject and domestic RBAO has changed since the original 

investigation. Accordingly, we again find that there is a moderate to high degree of 

substitutability between RBAO from China and the domestic like product, and that price 

continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions.

 

58 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 9.

59 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 9.

60 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 10.

61 CR at I-21, PR at I-15. 

62 CR/PR at Table I-5. 

63 CR/PR at Table I-7. 

64 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 13. 

65 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 13.

66 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 9.
12

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

Original Investigation and Prior Review. In the original investigation, the Commission 

found the volume of the subject imports to be significant, particularly in light of the moderate 

to high degree of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic product, the 

importance of price in purchasing decisions, and the prevalence of underselling by substantial 

margins.67 Subject imports totaled 68,994 short tons in 2000, 80,547 short tons in 2001, and 

57,172 short tons in 2002. In interim 2002 and interim 2003, subject imports were 24,259 short 

tons and 22,073 short tons, respectively. The market share of subject imports increased from 

*** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002, and was lower in interim 2003 than in interim 

2002. The ratio of subject import quantity to production in the United States was 55.7 percent 

in 2000, 71.0 percent in 2001, 51.9 percent in 2002, 52.2 percent in interim 2002, and 34.3 

percent in interim 2003.68 

In the expedited first review, the Commission found that subject imports declined 

sharply after imposition of the antidumping duty order in November 2003, although there was 

a slight increase at the end of the review period in 2007.69 Subject import quantity declined 

from 57,172 short tons in 2002 to 13,333 short tons in 2003, and was 2,922 short tons, or 1.7 

percent of apparent U.S. consumption, in 2007.70 The Commission concluded that the volume 

of subject imports would likely be significant if the order were revoked.71 Available data 

indicated that the Chinese RBAO industry was the largest in the world, that it had been 

expanding rapidly, and that its capacity and production far surpassed apparent U.S. 

consumption.72 The Chinese industry also was export oriented.73 Moreover, since imposition of 

the antidumping duty order on RBAO, Chinese exports to the United States of fused aluminum 

oxide, a category that included both crude and refined product, had increased.74 The 

Commission found that, if the order on RBAO were revoked, Chinese producers would have an 

incentive to shift their exports to the higher-valued and more labor-intensive refined product.75

Current Review. The information available in this review shows that subject imports 

have continued to be present in the U.S. market in modest levels since the prior review. 

Subject imports ranged from 1,160 short tons in 2008 to 1,708 short tons in 2012, and were 

 

67 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 14-15; Original Confidential Determination, EDIS 

Doc. 195944 at 20-21. 

68 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 14-15; Original Confidential Determination, EDIS 

Doc. 195944 at 20-21.

69 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 10.

70 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 10.

71 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 10.

72 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 10-11.

73 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 11.

74 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 11.

75 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 11.
13

1,373 short tons in 2013.76 Subject imports from China accounted for 1.0 percent of apparent 

U.S. consumption in 2013.77 

In light of its historically large production and demonstrated export orientation, the 

RBAO industry in China has the ability to increase exports of subject merchandise to the U.S. 

upon revocation, as it did during the original investigation. Available data indicate that the 

Commission’s prior findings regarding the large size of the RBAO industry in China are still 

valid.78 Information that the Domestic Producers provided in their response to the notice of 

institution indicates that capacity in China has continued to expand rapidly, and that excess 

capacity in China is greater than U.S. consumption.79

Upon revocation, the subject producers are likely, absent the restraining effects of the 

order, to direct significant volumes of RBAO to the U.S. market as they did during the original 

investigation. Available data indicate that the industry in China has a significant export 

orientation. China is by far the world’s largest exporter of fused aluminum oxide, the most 

narrowly defined product that includes the subject merchandise for which data are available.80

Moreover, the record indicates that the subject industry in China has continued to participate 

in the U.S. market, albeit at levels well below those observed during the original investigation, 

during each year from 2007 to 2013.81 We also note that the United States is a substantial 

export market for fused aluminum oxide from China.82 Information available indicates that at 

least some of the producers of brown fused alumina in China also produce RBAO.83 If the order 

on RBAO were revoked, Chinese producers would have an incentive to shift their exports to the 

higher-valued product. Given all of this, we find that the volume of subject imports would likely 

increase upon revocation. We further find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in 

absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States, would be significant if the 

order were revoked.84

D. Likely Price Effects 

Original Investigation and Prior Review. In the original determination, the Commission 

found that subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 46 of 56 quarterly 

comparisons, with substantial weighted-average margins of underselling. The Commission 

observed that prices for both the domestic like product and subject imports generally declined 

 

76 CR/PR at Table I-5. 

77 CR/PR at Table I-5.

78 CR at I-48, PR at I-35. 

79 Domestic Producers’ Response to Notice of Institution at 10.

80 CR/PR at Table I-8. The Global Trade Atlas data concern items covered by HTS subheading 

2818.10, which includes all forms and grades of fused aluminum oxide, a more broadly defined product 

than RBAO.

81 CR/PR at Table I-5. 

82 CR/PR at Table I-10

83 CR at I-48, PR at I-35.

84 There are no other antidumping orders concerning RBAO from China outside of the United 

States. CR at I-44; PR at I-32. Due to the nature of this expedited review, there are no data available on 

inventories of the subject merchandise.
14

over the period of investigation. It recognized that these declining prices may have been 

attributable in part to a decline in raw material costs and to weak demand for RBAO, but found 

that the decline in prices could not be completely attributed to these other factors. The 

Commission found that there was significant underselling by the subject imports and that the 

significant volumes of the subject merchandise depressed prices to a significant degree.85

The record of the expedited first review did not contain confidential pricing data, though 

it did contain some limited published data from the trade journal Industrial Minerals. The 

Commission attributed recent increases in the average unit values of the subject imports to the 

antidumping duty order.86 The Commission emphasized its findings that Chinese producers 

would likely increase exports to the United States significantly in the reasonably foreseeable 

future.87 It concluded that, as in the original investigation, if subject imports were to increase, 

they would likely undersell the domestic like product.88 Because price continued to be an 

important factor in purchasing decisions, the subject imports would likely have a significant 

depressing or suppressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.89

Current Review. There is no new product-specific pricing information on the record of 

this expedited review. Given the substitutable nature of RBAO, we find that price continues to 

be an important factor in purchasing decisions. In light of the underselling that occurred during 

the period of the original investigation, we find that if the antidumping duty order were 

revoked, subject imports from China would likely undersell the domestic like product at high 

margins, as they did during the original investigation. This in turn would likely require the 

domestic industry either to cut prices or restrain price increases to match the prices offered by 

the subject imports, or to risk losing sales to the subject imports.

Accordingly, given the likely significant volume of subject imports, we find that upon 

revocation subject imports would likely engage in significant underselling of the domestic like 

product. Additionally, the subject imports would be likely to enter the United States at prices 

that would have significant depressing or suppressing effects on the price of the domestic like 

product.

 

85 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3643 at 16. 

86 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 12.

87 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 16.

88 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 11.

89 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 11-12.
15

E. Likely Impact90

Original Investigation and Prior Review. In the original investigation, the Commission 

found that most of the domestic industry’s performance indicators were weak throughout the 

period of investigation and that many worsened over the period. At the same time, subject 

imports were present in significant volumes and were underselling the domestic like product by 

significant margins. The Commission recognized that there were substantial variations in the 

financial results of the domestic producers, but concluded that the weak results of one 

producer in particular were due in significant part to subject imports. The Commission also 

recognized that declining demand for RBAO played a role in the domestic industry’s worsening 

performance, but concluded that the decline in demand did not detract from the fact that the 

significant underselling by subject imports, which were present in large volumes and gained 

increasing market share during the period, had a significant adverse impact on the domestic 

industry.91

In the first review, the Commission received limited information that covered only one 

year of the period of review and pertained to only some indicia of domestic industry

performance.

92

 The Commission found that the domestic industry had experienced some 

positive effects as a result of the order. These included increased capacity, production, capacity 

utilization, shipments, and net sales, and a slight improvement in financial performance.

93

 The 

Commission concluded that the intensified subject import competition that would likely occur 

after revocation of the order would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic 

industry, especially in a period of declining demand.94

Current Review. The information available concerning the domestic industry’s condition 

in this review consists of the data that the domestic producers provided in response to the 

notice of institution. Because this is an expedited review, we only have limited information 

regarding the domestic industry’s financial performance. The record is insufficient for us to 

make a finding on whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to the continuation or 

recurrence of material injury in the event of revocation of the order.95

 

90 Under the statute, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping” 

in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the 

“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the 

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this 

title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv); see also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its antidumping duty review determination and found that revocation of 

the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins up to 

111.36 percent. Commerce Final Determination, 79 Fed. Reg. at 42291 (Jul. 21, 2014).

91 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3456 at 17-19.

92 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 13.

93 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 13.

94 Review Opinion, USITC Pub. 4063 at 13.

95 Vice Chairman Pinkert finds the evidence on vulnerability to be mixed. The domestic 

industry’s operating income, sales measured in value, and unit values were much higher in this review 

than in the other periods surveyed, but its operating margin was a relatively low 5.0 percent. Although 
16

The information on the record indicates that, in 2013, the capacity of the reporting 

domestic producers was 220,000 short tons, production was 114,675 short tons, and capacity 

utilization was 52.1 percent.96 U.S. shipments in 2013 were 111,611 short tons valued at $99.97 

million.97 The domestic industry reported that its ratio of operating income to net sales was 5.0 

percent.98 Based on the limited information on the record, we find that should the order be 

revoked, the likely significant volume and price effects of the subject imports would likely have 

a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of 

the domestic industry. This impact would likely cause declines in the domestic industry’s 

financial performance. Trends in U.S. demand will likely exacerbate the adverse effects of 

subject imports. Apparent consumption has been declining to stagnant since the original 

period of investigation.99

We have also considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including the 

presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the subject 

imports. While nonsubject imports have increased their market share since the original 

investigation,100 the domestic industry has improved its financial performance during that 

time.101 Moreover, average unit values for nonsubject imports are higher than those for the 

domestic industry.102 Consequently, we find that nonsubject imports are not a cause of the 

likely adverse effects we have attributed to the subject imports. 

Accordingly, we conclude that if the orders were revoked, subject imports would likely 

have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.

IV. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 

RBAO from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 

the industry’s U.S. market share improved after the order was in place, it was lower in this review than 

in the first review. Moreover, apparent U.S. consumption measured in quantity has decreased since the 

original investigation. CR/PR at Tables I-4 and I-7; CR at I-41; PR at I-29.

96 CR/PR at Table I-4.

97 CR/PR at Table I-4.

98 CR/PR at Table I-4.

99 CR/PR at Table I-7.

100 CR/PR at Table I-7.

101 CR/PR at Table I-4. 

102 Compare CR/PR at Table I-4 with CR/PR at Table I-7. Because differences in average unit 

value may reflect differences in product mix, we view such data with caution. 
I-1

INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

I-3

INTRODUCTION

On February 3, 2014, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (“the Act”),1the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave 

notice that it had instituted a second review to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on refined brown aluminum oxide (“RBAO”) from China would be likely 

to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.2 3 On May 9, 2014, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution was adequate4and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate.5In the absence of respondent interested party responses and 

any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review, the Commission 

determined to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section

751(c)(3) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6The Commission is scheduled to vote on this 

review on September 18, 2014, and will notify Commerce of its determination on October 1, 

2014. The following tabulation presents selected information relating to the schedule of this 

five-year review.7

 

1

19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

2

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China; Institution of A Five-Year Review, 79 FR 6225, February 

3, 2014. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information 

requested by the Commission.

3

In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) 

published a notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently 

with the Commission’s notice of institution. Inititation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 79 FR 6163, 

February 3, 2014.

4

The Commission received one submission from domestic producers C-E Minerals, Inc. (“C-E 

Minerals”); Imerys Fused Minerals Niagara Falls, Inc. (“Imerys”); U.S. Electrofused Minerals, Inc. (“U.S. 

Electrofused Minerals”) and Washington Mills Group, Inc. (“Washington Mills”) (collectively referred to 

herein as “domestic interested parties”) in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. 

The domestic interested parties are represented by counsel. The domestic interested parties reported 

that together they accounted for *** percent of total U.S. production of RBAO in 2013. They also state 

that their response, *** includes detailed information from domestic producers accounting for an 

estimated *** percent of U.S. output and capacity. Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 

2014, p. 2.

5

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of 

institution. However, the Commission did receive a letter from American Abrasive Products, Inc. 

containing certain information that may be relevant to this review, such as the effect of the order on 

prices for RBAO. However, the firm did not provide in its submission the information that was requested 

by the Commission in its notice of institution. In its letter, American Abrasive Products, Inc. describes 

itself as an importer and distributor of different types of abrasives for industrial and manufacturing 

purposes.

6

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China; Institution of A Five-Year Review, 79 FR 6225, February 

3, 2014.

7

Pertinent Federal Register notices are referenced in app. A, and may be found on the Commission’s 

website (www.usitc.gov). The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.
I-4

Effective Date Action

Federal

Register

citation

February 3, 2014 Commission’s institution of five-year review

79 FR 6225

February 3, 2014

February 3, 2014 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review

79 FR 6163

February 3, 2014

May 7, 2014

Commerce’s final determination in its expedited fiveyear review79 FR 26207

May 7, 2014

May 9, 2014

Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited 

five-year review

79 FR 48248

August 15, 2014

September 18, 2014 Commission’s vote Not applicable

October 1, 2014 Commission’s views Not applicable

The original investigation

On November 20, 2002, a petition was filed with Commerce and the Commission 

alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened with 

further material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of RBAO from China.8

On September 26, 2003, Commerce made an affirmative final LTFV determination9and, on 

November 10, 2003, the Commission completed its original investigation, determining that an 

industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of RBAO from 

 

8

The petition was filed by Washington Mills, North Grafton, Massachusetts. On November 27, 2002, 

the petition was amended to include two additional petitioners, C-E Minerals, King of Prussia, 

Pennsylvania, and Treibacher Schleifmittel, Niagara Falls, New York. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide 

From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. I-1. On 

March 14, 2003, the petitioners further alleged that critical circumstances existed with respect to 

imports of RBAO from China. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide (Otherwise known as Refined Brown Artificial Corundum or Brown Fused 

Alumina) from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 23966, May 6, 2003.

9

Commerce further found that critical circumstances existed with respect to subject imports from 

China. Commerce’s determination was company specific only as it applied to Chinese 

producer/exporter Zibo Jinyu Abrasive Co., Ltd.; otherwise, Commerce applied adverse facts available 

for all other Chinese producers/exporters as an adverse inference that critical circumstances were 

applicable for companies that refused to cooperate with its request for information. Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide (Otherwise known as 

Refined Brown Artificial Corundum or Brown Fused Alumina) from the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 

55589, September 26, 2003.
I-5

China.10 After receipt of the Commission’s final affirmative determination, Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of RBAO from China.11

The first five-year review

On October 1, 2008, the Commission instituted the first five-year review. In response to 

its notice of institution in that review, the Commission received a joint response from four 

domestic producers, but did not receive any responses from producers or exporters of RBAO in 

China or from any U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. On January 5, 2009, the 

Commission found the domestic interested party response to the notice of institution to be 

adequate and the respondent interested party response to be inadequate, and determined to 

conduct an expedited review.12 On February 19, 2009, the Commission determined that 

revocation of the antidumping duty order on RBAO from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry within a reasonably foreseeable 

time.13 On March 13, 2009, Commerce issued a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty 

order on imports of RBAO from China.14

Commerce’s Original Determination and Subsequent Administrative Review Determinations

Commerce’s original determination was published on September 26, 2003,

15 and the 

antidumping duty order concerning RBAO from China was issued on November 19, 2003.

16

Since the first sunset review of the order, Commerce conducted one administrative review for 

the period of November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007, in which it calculated a 46.88 percent 

 

10 The Commission found that critical circumstances did not exist with respect to imports of the 

subject merchandise from China. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, 68 FR 64369, November 

13, 2003; Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC 

Publication 3643, November 2003, p. 1.

11 Antidumping Duty Order: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide (Otherwise Known as Refined Brown 

Artificial Corundum or Brown Fused Alumina) From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 65249, 

November 19, 2003.

12 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from 

China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review), USITC Publication 4063, March 2009, app. B.

13 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review), USITC 

Publication 4063, March 2009. There was no litigation of the Commission’s five-year review 

determination.

14 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Continuation of 

Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 10884, March 13, 2009.

15 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide 

(Otherwise known as Refined Brown Artificial Corundum or Brown Fused Alumina) from the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 55589, September 26, 2003.

16 Antidumping Duty Order: Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide (Otherwise Known as Refined Brown 

Artificial Corundum or Brown Fused Alumina) From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 65249, 

November 19, 2003.
I-6

weighted-average dumping margin for Qingdao Shunxingli Abrasives Co., Ltd.17 No other 

administrative reviews have been completed since the issuance of the antidumping duty order. 

Although there have been three scope rulings concerning the antidumping duty order,18 there 

have been no new shipper reviews, no changed circumstances determinations, and no duty 

absorption findings. The order remains in effect for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters 

of the subject merchandise.19

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited First Five-Year Review

On November 20, 2008, Commerce notified the Commission that it did not receive an 

adequate substantial response to its notice of initiation from respondent interested parties 

with respect to RBAO from China and that it would conduct an expedited review of the order. 

Commerce published the final result of its review based on the facts available on January 23, 

2009.

20 Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on RBAO from 

China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins determined in its 

original final determination. 

Commerce’s Final Result of Expedited Second Five-Year Review 

On April 30, 2014, Commerce notified the Commission that it did not receive an 

adequate substantial response to its notice of initiation from respondent interested parties 

with respect to RBAO from China and that it would conduct a second expedited review of the 

order. Commerce published the final result of its review based on the facts available on May 7, 

2014.

21 Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on RBAO from 

China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins determined in its 

original final determination.22 Information on Commerce’s final determination, antidumping 

 

17 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 23682, May 20, 2009.

18 See the section of this report entitled “Scope” for information concerning Commerce’s scope 

rulings.

19 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People’s Republic of China, 

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, Department of Commerce, April 30, 2014, pp. 2-3.

20 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited 

Sunset Review, 74 FR 4138, January 23, 2009.

21 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited 

Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 26207, May 7, 2014.

22 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People’s Republic of China, 

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, Department of Commerce, April 30, 2014, pp. 5-6.
I-7

duty order, final administrative review determination, and final results of its expedited first and 

second five-year reviews is presented in table I-1.

Table I-1

RBAO: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, administrative review 

determination, and five-year review determinations

Action

Effective 

date

Federal 

Register

citation

Period of 

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty 

margins

Firm 

specific

Countrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final determination 09/26/2003 68 FR 55589

04/01/2002-

09/30/2002 135.182135.18

Antidumping duty order 11/19/2003 68 FR 65249 -- 135.182135.18

Final results of 

administrative review 05/20/2009 74 FR 23682

11/01/2006-

10/31/2007 46.883--

Final results of expedited 

first five-year review 01/23/2009 74 FR 4138 -- 135.182135.18

Final results of expedited 

second five-year review 05/07/2014 79 FR 26207 -- 135.182135.18

1

The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

2

Zibo Jinyu Abrasive Co., Ltd.

3 Qingdao Shunxingli Abrasives Co. Ltd. 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

In its final results of the expedited second five-year review, Commerce explained that 

“{i}n determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order is likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department shall consider (a) the 

weighted-average dumping margin for the investigation that continued at any level above de 

minimis after the issuance of the order, and (b) imports of the subject merchandise for the 

period before and after the issuance of the order. . .” With respect to the subject review, 

Commerce found that “dumping margins have continued to exist at levels above de minimis 

since the issuance of the order, and there have been substantially lower import levels after the 

imposition of the order when compared to pre-order levels. . .” Therefore, Commerce found 

that dumping would likely continue or recur if the order were revoked.23

 

23 Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People’s Republic of China, from 

Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce, April 30, 2014, pp. 5-6.
I-8

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has conducted no other related investigations or reviews concerning 

RBAO.

THE PRODUCT

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of this review as follows:

The merchandise covered by thisinvestigation is ground, pulverized or refined

brown artificial corundum, also known as refined brown aluminum oxide or brown

fused alumina, in grit size of 3/8 inch or less. The merchandise covered by this 

report is currently classifiable under subheadings 2818.10.20.10 and 2818.10.20.90 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

24

Commerce has received three separate requests for scope rulings since the original 

antidumping duty order date. The requestors, outcomes, and completion dates of Commerce’s 

scope rulings are listed in table I-2.

Table I-2

RBAO: Commerce’s scope rulings

Requestor Scope ruling

Date of 

completion

Federal 

Register

citation

Cometals Division of 

Commercial Metals Co.; 

Wester Mineralien SA 

(Pty) Ltd.; and Polmineral 

Sp.zo.o.

Exclusion request granted. Crude brown 

aluminum oxide, in which particles with a diameter 

greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent 

of the total weight of the entire batch, that is 

purchased from China and then refined in a 

country other than China is outside the scope of 

the order. February 3, 2004

70 FR 24533

May 10, 2005

Cometals Division of 

Commercial Metals Co.

Exclusion request granted. Black aluminum oxide 

is excluded from the scope of the antidumping 

duty order. February 7, 2005

70 FR 41374

July 19, 2005

3M

Exclusion request denied. Semi-friable aluminum 

oxide and heat-treated aluminum oxide are within 

the scope of the antidumping duty order. October 1, 2008

74 FR 14521

March 31, 2009

Source: Cited Federal Register notices and Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited 

Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from the People’s Republic of China, 

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of 

Commerce, April 30, 2014, p. 2.

 

24 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited 

Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 26207, May 7, 2014.
I-9

U.S. tariff treatment

Refined brown aluminum oxide is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (“HTS”) under subheading 2818.10.20, imported under statistical reporting 

number 2818.10.2090 (“artificial corundum, whether or not chemically defined: in grains, or

ground, pulverized or refined, other”), and has a normal trade relations tariff rate of 1.3 percent

ad valorem applicable to importsfrom China.25

Domestic like product and domestic industry

In its original determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as all

merchandise corresponding to the scope of the investigation, as well as any RBAO where

particles with a diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight

of the entire batch, as long as this product has been crushed, screened, and sorted into

consistent sizes.26 The Commission defined the domestic industry as all U.S. producers of the

domestic like product, as defined above, with the exception of Great Lakes Minerals, which was

excluded from the domestic industry as a related party.27

No new information was obtained in the first review pertaining to the Commission’s 

domestic like product definition in the original investigation. Therefore, the Commission again 

defined the domestic like product to include all merchandise corresponding to the scope of 

Commerce’s review, as well as any refined brown aluminum oxide where particles with a 

diameter greater than 3/8 inch constitute at least 50 percent of the total weight of the entire

batch, as long as this product has been crushed, screened, and sorted into consistent sizes.

28

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of

institution in this review that they agree with the definitions of the domestic like product and

domestic industry as set out in the Commission’s notice of institution and its final determination

in the original investigation.29

 

25 During the original investigation, the subject merchandise was imported under statistical reporting

number 2818.10.2000 of the HTS. Imports that entered the United States under this provision included

not only refined brown aluminum oxide, but also items outside the scope of the investigation (e.g., white

and pink refined aluminum oxide). However, beginning in 2005, separate data have been collected on

white, pink, and ruby aluminum oxide and on the brown product that is subject to the order. The white,

pink, and ruby product is currently imported under HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2010

(“white, pink or ruby, containing more than 97.5 percent by weight of aluminum oxide”).

26 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC

Publication 3643, November 2003, p. 7.

27 The Commission reported in the original investigation that there were six domestic producers of 

RBAO, five of which imported the subject merchandise from China during the period examined and were 

therefore considered related parties under the statute. However, the Commission excluded only Great 

Lakes Minerals from the domestic industry. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation 

No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, pp. 7 and 10.

28 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Review), USITC

Publication 4063, March 2009, p. 4.

29 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 16.
I-10

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” 

the subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical 

characteristics and uses; (2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) 

interchangeability; (4) customer and producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) 

price. Information regarding these factors is discussed below.

Physical characteristics

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide

RBAO (also known as brown fused alumina grain or grits) is a solid inorganic chemical of

the formula Al2O3. It is a processed form of aluminum oxide (also referred to as alumina) found

in mined bauxites.30 RBAO is processed from fused alumina, which is a granular material with a

high density, low porosity, low permeability, and high refractoriness. Fused alumina (or fused

aluminum oxide) is produced in various forms, the most common of which are brown fused

alumina (“BFA”) and white fused alumina (“WFA”).31 BFA has historically accounted for about 

two-thirds to three-fourths of the global market for fused alumina with WFA accounting for 

most of the remaining amount.

32 In addition, exports of RBAO from China have generally been

more widely available than the white, pink, and red forms.33

Industrial Minerals described the primary differences in the two forms of fused alumina

in very simple terms as follows: “BFA is considered the tougher all-purpose commodity

material with a lower specification and, up until now, a lower price. WFA is the specialist for

which consumers pay a premium.”34

There are two main end-use applications for RBAO: abrasives and refractories.35 RBAO is

used in the manufacture of a variety of abrasive products, such as bonded abrasives (e.g.,

 

30 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC 

Publication 3643, November 2003, p. I-2.

31 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, p. 33 (as cited in the 

Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

32 Global annual market estimates for BFA and WFA are approximately 1.5 - 1.7 million tons and 550 -

580 thousand tons, respectively. Roberts, Jessica, “Supply trends and prospects for fused alumina,” 

Roskill Information Services, paper presented at 2nd Asian Bauxite and Alumina Conference, Oct. 30-31, 

2012, retrieved from www.roskill.com/reports/industrial-minerals/...alumina.../attachment1.

33 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, p. 33; Tran, Alison, 

“Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43; Taylor, Lindsey, “Hot Stuff: 

Tabular Alumina Takes the Heat,” Industrial Minerals, June 2003, p. 43; and Kendall, Tom, “Fused 

Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005 (as cited in the Commission’s first 

review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

34 Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, p. 37 (as cited in the 

Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

35 The Commission reported in the original investigation that there were three main end-use 

markets: refractories, abrasives, and industrial. It also reported that the refractory market was the 

largest end-use market, consisting of comparatively fewer customers requiring large quantities of 

relatively coarser RBAO. However, the Commission’s staff report in the original investigation divided the 
I-11

grinding wheels for high tensile materials), coated abrasives (e.g., paper, discs and belts for

wood and metalworking), and surface preparation products (e.g., blast media, ceramic

deburring tools, and cutting tools to roughen, shape, buff, polish, or finish a workpiece).

Refractory applications include use in the linings of furnaces and ovens. Abrasives have 

historically accounted for about 60 percent of the worldwide demand for RBAO, with refractory

uses accounting for the bulk of the remaining 40 percent. Other specialty uses for RBAO include 

pigments, chemical reagents, optical powders, and non-slip flooring and floor tiles.

36

Refined White, Pink, and Ruby Aluminum Oxide

Refined white, pink, and red (or ruby) aluminum oxides are generally more chemically 

pure (in terms of aluminum oxide content) than RBAO. The chemical purity of the brown 

product typically ranges from 93.0 to 97.0 percent pure, whereas the chemical purity of the 

white product ranges from 99.5 to 99.9 percent. The higher purity white fused alumina is made 

from Bayer calcined specialty alumina, whereas the brown fused alumina is produced from a 

calcined non-metallurgical bauxite feedstock. The pink and red forms of the product are 

produced by the addition of chromium oxide to the white fused alumina, which increases the 

toughness of the finished product. Pink fused alumina, which contains less than two percent 

chromium oxide with small amounts of titanium oxide, has medium-sized sharp or blocky 

grains, which make it suitable for precision grinding of hard alloy steels. Red fused alumina, 

which has a higher chromium oxide content (up to three percent) with small quantities of 

silicon oxide, ferrous oxide, sodium oxide, calcium oxide, and magnesium oxide, has blocky, 

sharp edged, friable grains and is tougher than pink grades. In addition to differences in purity, 

other differences in characteristics between RBAO and the pink and white products include

hardness and friability.37

The more chemically pure refined white and pink aluminum oxides are ordinarily used in 

separate, specialized abrasive and refractory applications where brown aluminum oxide, 

because of the higher level of impurities, will not suffice. They historically have not competed in 

end-use applications because of the premium price commanded by the more pure product. For 

 

end use markets for abrasives into the bonded/coated market and the industrial market. In agreement 

with industry publications, these two end-use markets have been combined for purposes of the 

discussion in this report. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 

(Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. II-1.

36 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC 

Publication 3643, November 2003, p. I-2; Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” 

Industrial Minerals, October 2005; O’Driscoll, Mike, “Basics of Abrasives, Part 1: Types and 

Manufacture,” Industrial Minerals, January 2007, pp. 37-38; Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial 

Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38; and “Synthetic Alumina Steels Show,” Industrial Minerals, March 

2008, pp. 39-45 (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

37 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC 

Publication 3643, November 2003, p. I-3, and Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, 

December 2007, pp. 32-38 (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 

4063).
I-12

example, in refractory applications, RBAO competed more with calcined clays and calcined 

bauxite, whereas the refined white fused alumina competed more with tabular alumina.38

Micro Powders

Micro powders (or microgrits) are fine-milled grades of fused alumina,39 which are used

in a wide range of abrasive applications in the industrial and electronic industries where fine

surface finishing and polishing is required. Prices of these micro powders have historically been

nearly three to five times higher than fused alumina in traditional grit sizes.

40

Manufacturing process

Production of RBAO uses bauxite ores which have been oven dried at high heat 

(calcined) to drive off both free moisture and chemically combined water. The calcined bauxite 

is then heated (or fused) to its melting point (about 2100 degrees Fahrenheit) in an electric arc 

furnace.41 The varying amounts of impurities, such as iron oxide, silica, and titania, are removed 

in the electric arc furnace by melting the calcined bauxite with additions of carbon and iron. 

The carbon reacts with the oxygen in the impurities to form carbon monoxide gas, and the 

impurities are reduced to their corresponding metals, which, being heavier than aluminum 

oxide, settle to the bottom of the melt. The addition of iron to the melt results in the formation 

of iron salts (e.g., ferrosilicates) which also settle to the bottom. The brown aluminum oxide 

ingot is cooled and removed from the vessel. Impurities are removed from the bottom of the 

ingot, and the brown aluminum oxide is then refined (crushed, ground, and screened) into 

specific particle sizes. In general, the more uniform in size, the more expensive and difficult it is 

to manufacture.42 The sized material is packaged for shipping to end users and distributors. 

 

38 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38, and Tran, Alison,

“Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

39 One fused alumina processor with facilities in Germany, Poland, and South Africa reported 

standardized grading attained by micro powders at FEPA grain size F1500. “Wester Expands Fused 

Alumina/SiC Microgrits Capacity,” Industrial Minerals, December 2004, p. 15 (as cited in the 

Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

40 “Minerals to the Grindstone,” Industrial Minerals, January 2009, pp. 45-50; “Wester Expands Fused

Alumina/SiC Microgrits Capacity,” Industrial Minerals, December 2004, p. 15; and Kendall, Tom, “Fused 

Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, October 2005 (as cited in the Commission’s first 

review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

41 Producing fused alumina with an electric arc furnace is a very energy intensive process. At the

time of the original investigation, none of the U.S. RBAO producers operated an electric arc furnace

in the United States. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022

(Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. I-3, and Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,”

Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38.

42 O’Driscoll, Mike, “Basics of Abrasives, Part 1: Types and Manufacture,” Industrial Minerals,

January 2007, pp. 35-39 (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 

4063).
I-13

RBAO is produced in separate facilities from white and pink aluminum oxide to avoid 

contaminating those products with RBAO.43

Traditionally, spent aluminum oxide, including RBAO, is transported to landfills for final 

disposal. However, up to 30 percent of fused aluminum oxide is reportedly recycled back into 

the manufacturing process in North America. Domestic RBAO producer Washington Mills 

developed a process that enables it to collect spent aluminum oxide grains and recycle the 

spent product back into its aluminum oxide furnaces located in Canada. The spent aluminum 

oxide is blended with new bauxite and the mixture is fed into specially designed furnaces that 

melt and purify the liquid product. Recycling spent aluminum oxide reportedly has in the past 

enabled Washington Mills to control overall costs in light of increasing raw materials costs, 

declining quality of raw material inputs, rising landfill costs, tighter landfill regulations, and 

higher freight costs.44

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions45

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers responding to Commission questionnaires in 

the original investigation agreed that RBAO produced in the United States, China, and other 

nonsubject countries were interchangeable. They further noted that RBAO is produced to 

American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) specifications, with many customers requesting 

certification of the product. Producers in the United States and China reported in the original 

investigation that they had certified the RBAO they produced to ANSI standards. The domestic 

interested parties in the first and second five-year reviews indicated in their response to the 

Commission’s notice of institution that the domestic like product and the subject imports from 

China were fully interchangeable.46

Purchasers reported in the original investigation that refined white and pink aluminum 

oxide is perceived differently than RBAO by both end users and sellers. They further reported 

that refined white and pink aluminum oxide is ordinarily used in specialized applications where 

RBAO is not suitable.47

In responses to purchaser surveys in this five-year review, purchasers reported that 

there have not been any changes and do not anticipate any changes in the existence and 

availability of substitute products for RBAO in the U.S. market or in the market for RBAO in 

 

43Domestic producers Washington Mills and Treibacher reported in the original investigation 

that they produced the brown and white products in separate facilities. Response of domestic 

interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 4.

44 McLeod, Don, “Special Section/Resource Management: Success Story: Recycling Spent Aluminum 

Oxide,” October 1, 2008, found at http://www.ceramicindustry.com, and Olson, Donald W., “Abrasives, 

Manufactured,” U.S. Geological Survey 2014 Minerals Yearbook, p.14.

45 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in 

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 

3643, November 2003, p. I-3.

46 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 10; Response of domestic 

interested parties, March 10, 2014, p. 13.

47 See also Tran, Alison, “Alumina: Fused and Abused,” Industrial Minerals, July 2007, pp. 37-43 (as 

cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).
I-14

China since 2009. They also reported that there have not been any changes and do not 

anticipate any changes in the end uses and applications of refined brown alumina oxide in the 

U.S. market or in the market for refined brown aluminum oxide in China since 2009.

Channels of distribution48

In general, RBAO shares the same channels of distribution as refined white and pink 

aluminum oxide, being sold to distributors and end users. In addition, U.S. producers and 

importers of RBAO distribute the product through both distributors and end users. During the 

original investigation, U.S. producers sold slightly more of their RBAO to end users, whereas 

importers generally sold more to distributors. In 2002, U.S. producers shipped 52.4 percent of 

their product to end users and 47.6 percent to distributors, while importers shipped 37.9 

percent to end users and 62.1 percent to distributors.

End users and distributors that responded to the purchaser questionnaire in the original 

investigation reported that the RBAO they purchased was used in all primary end-use markets; 

however, the petitioners noted that purchases by refractory and abrasives (bonded/coated) 

customers tend to be made directly from manufacturers or importers, while general industrial 

customers (for surface preparation) tend to purchase from distributors. 

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. producers

U.S. industry data collected in the original investigation were based on the 

questionnaire responses of five domestic producers that accounted for 100 percent of U.S. 

production of RBAO during 2002.49 The five U.S. producers that participated in the original 

investigation and their shares of total domestic production during 2002 were as follows: C-E

Minerals (*** percent), Detroit Abrasives (*** percent),50 Great Lakes Minerals (*** percent),51

Treibacher Schleifmittel (*** percent), and Washington Mills (*** percent).52

 

48 The discussion in this section is based on information from Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From 

China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, pp. I-4 and II-1.

49 A sixth domestic firm (i.e., 3M) produced RBAO for its own use at a plant in, St. Paul, Minnesota, 

using crude product primarily imported from Washington Mills’ Canadian operations until June 2002, 

when it closed the facility. Following the plant’s closure, 3M’s Coated Abrasives Division entered into a 

long-term RBAO supply agreement with Washington Mills. Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. III-4.

50 Detroit Abrasives *** in the original investigation. Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide 

from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-6.

51 In the preliminary phase of original investigation, Great Lakes ***. However, in the final phase of 

the original investigation, Great Lakes indicated that it ***. Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum 

Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-4.

52 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-1 - III-7.
I-15

During the first five-year review, the participating domestic interested parties indicated 

that there had been several “modest” changes to the structure of the domestic industry since 

the Commission’s original investigation. These changes are listed below:

 Constructed at the former LTV Steel Works industrial park in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, 

U.S. Electrofused Minerals, a subsidiary of Brazilian integrated producer ELFUSA, began 

production of RBAO in the United States.

 Washington Mills sold one of its production facilities (i.e., Lakes Wales, Florida).

 Great Lakes Minerals, a domestic producer that was excluded from the domestic 

industry during the Commission’s original investigation because it was largely 

dependent upon imports of the subject merchandise, no longer imported RBAO and 

became a “significant” producer of RBAO in the United States.53

During this second five-year review, the domestic interested parties noted in their 

response to the Commission’s notice of institution that at the time of the first review, Imerys

Fused Materials (“Imerys”) was known as Treibacher Schleifmittel. Otherwise, they noted that 

there have been no major changes to the domestic industry since the first review. They 

reported that there are currently six domestic producers of RBAO: C-E Minerals; Detroit 

Abrasives; Great Lakes Minerals; Imerys Fused Materials (formerly known as Treibacher 

Schleifmittel); U.S. Electrofused Minerals; and Washington Mills.54 Details regarding each firm’s 

location(s) and company shares of 2002, 2007, and 2013 total domestic production of RBAO are 

presented in table I-3.

 

53 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 4-5 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

54 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 2.
I-16

Table I-3

RBAO: U.S. producers, locations, and company shares of 2002, 2007, and 2013 total domestic 

production

Firm Location

Share of 2002 

reported RBAO 

production 

(percent)

Estimated share 

of 2007 domestic 

production 

(percent)

Estimated share 

of 2013 domestic 

production 

(percent)

3M

St. Paul, 

Minnesota (

1

) (

1

) (

1

)

C-E Minerals

Newell, West 

Virginia *** *** ***

Detroit Abrasives

Owosso, 

Michigan *** *** ***

Great Lakes 

Minerals

Wurtland, 

Kentucky *** *** ***

Imerys/Treibacher 

Schleifmittel

Niagara Falls, 

New York *** *** ***

U.S. Electrofused 

Minerals

Aliquippa, 

Pennsylvania (

3

) *** ***

Washington Mills

North Grafton, 

Massachusetts

Niagara Falls, 

New York

Tonawanda, 

New York *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 *** ***

 1

3M produced RBAO for internal consumption using crude product primarily imported from 

Washington Mills in Canada until June 2002, when it closed the facility. Following the plant’s closure, 

3M’s Coated Abrasives Division entered into a long-term RBAO supply agreement with Washington Mills.

 

2

***

 

3 U.S. Electrofused Minerals was not identified as a domestic producer in the original investigation. 

Press reports indicate that the company moved into its Aliquippa, Pennsylvania facility in mid-2002.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 

(Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-1 - III-7; Response of domestic interested parties, 

November 20, 2008, exh. VII (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 

4063); Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, exh. 1; and "U.S. Electrofused Moves to 

New Facility," Ceramic Industry, August 1, 2002 (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report 

USITC Publication 4063).

C-E Minerals

C-E Minerals, a sister company of Imerys (formerly Treibacher Schleifmittel) is part of 

the Imerys family of companies, headquartered in Paris, France. C-E Minerals, headquartered in 

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, is a supplier of industrial minerals manufactured and processed at 

the company’s plants in the United States (Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia), Venezuela, 

and China. RBAO is produced by C-E Minerals at its custom sizing and processing plant in 

Newell, West Virginia. This facility processes not only RBAO, but also bauxite and other 
I-17

imported minerals. The company imports and processes raw materials supplied from its joint 

venture Guizhou Star Minerals located in Xiuwen, China.55

Detroit Abrasives

Detroit Abrasives, with an RBAO production facility located in Owosso, Michigan, is 

believed to be *** U.S. producer of RBAO. The company crushes and sieves purchased crude 

brown aluminum oxide from Canada and China into RBAO as a final product. In 2002 ***.

56 57

Great Lakes Minerals

Great Lakes Minerals was formed in March 1999 as a joint venture owned by Alcoa 

World Chemicals (***), PE Materials (***), and PR Minerals (***). On May 31, 2003, Alcoa 

World Chemicals sold ***. Great Lakes Minerals specializes in the processing of industrial 

minerals for the refractory and abrasives markets. The company’s production facility, located in 

Wurtland, Kentucky, was designed to ***.

58

Imerys Fused Minerals (formerly Treibacher Schleifmittel)

Treibacher Schleifmittel was founded in 1898 in the Austrian village Treibach; 

“schleifmittel” is the German word for abrasives. The company is currently known as Imerys 

Fused Minerals and is a sister company of C-E Minerals. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Imerys, a multinational corporation headquartered in France and a world leader in the 

refractory and abrasives fields with operating plants in Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Germany, 

Italy, Slovenia, and the United States. The company’s Niagara Falls, New York facility acts as a 

processing center, grinding, sizing, and treating imported fused aluminas, including RBAO. 59

U.S. Electrofused Minerals

U.S. Electrofused Minerals was not identified as a domestic producer in the original 

investigation but was identified as a domestic producer of RBAO by domestic interested parties 

 

55 C-E Minerals company website, accessed at http://www.ceminerals.com/.

56 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-6; Detroit Abrasives did not provide a response to the Commission’s 

notice of institution in this review; therefore, company-specific proprietary data are not available.

57 Current information regarding the break-out for applications is unavailable.

58 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-4-III-6; Great Lakes Minerals company website, accessed at 

http://www.greatlakesminerals.com/; “Great Lakes Minerals,” Industrial Minerals, May 2007, p. 98; and 

“Great Lakes Minerals,” Industrial Minerals, August 2005, p. 61 (as cited in the Commission’s first review 

staff report USITC Publication 4063).

59 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. III-3; Imerys Fused Minerals company website, accessed at 

http://www.imerys-fusedminerals.com/.
I-18

participating in the first review and is participating in this current second five-year review. U.S. 

Electrofused Minerals, a subsidiary of Brazilian integrated producer Elfusa Geral de Electrofusao 

Ltda. (“Elfusa”), completed construction of its RBAO plant in Aliquippa Pennsylvania, in 2002.60

Elfusa, is one of the largest manufacturers of fused oxides in the Southern Hemisphere with an 

annual capacity to produce over 300,000 short tons of fused oxides. According to the 

company’s website, U.S. Electrofused Minerals supplies products such as aluminum oxides, 

spinel, mullite, bauxite, and silicon carbide. Primary markets for the company’s products are the 

abrasive, refractory, ceramic and investment casting industries.

61

Washington Mills

Washington Mills, headquartered in North Grafton, Massachusetts, produces a wide 

range of artificial abrasives, including aluminum oxide abrasives, at facilities located in 

Tonawanda, New York, Niagara Falls, New York, and North Grafton, Massachusetts.

62 The 

company also has aluminum oxide production facilities located in Canada and the United 

Kingdom. On its website, Washington Mills describes itself as follows: “One of the world’s 

largest producers of abrasives and fused mineral products, offering an exceptionally wide line 

of standard abrasive grain and specialty electro-fused minerals from its worldwide multi-plant 

locations.”63

 

60 “U.S. Electrofused Moves to New Facility,” Ceramic Industry, August 1, 2002; Response of domestic 

interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 4 (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC 

Publication 4063).

61 U.S. Electrofused Minerals company website, accessed at http://usminerals.com/.

62 In 2002, ***. Current market share information is unavailable.

63 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154); Washington Mills company website, accessed at 

http://www.washingtonmills.com/.
I-19

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data

Data reported by U.S. producers of RBAO in the Commission’s original investigation and 

in response to the Commission’s institution notice in the first and second five-year reviews are 

presented in table I-4. Data presented for the period examined in the final phase of the original 

investigation were provided by five producers (C-E Minerals, Detroit Abrasives, Great Lakes 

Minerals,64 Treibacher Schleifmittel, and Washington Mills) that were believed to have

represented 100 percent of the U.S. production of RBAO during 2002. Data presented for 2007 

were provided by four producers (C-E Minerals, Great Lakes Minerals, Treibacher Schleifmittel, 

and Washington Mills) that are believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. production of 

RBAO during 2002 and *** percent during 2007. Data presented for 2013 were provided by ***

producers (***) that are believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. production of RBAO.

 

64 The Commission excluded Great Lakes Minerals from the domestic industry in the final phase of 

the original investigation and, therefore, relied on data presented in table C-2 of the staff report, which 

excludes all “domestic” data of Great Lakes Minerals, in making its determination. Since the original 

investigation, however, the company ceased importing the subject merchandise. ***. Table C-2 from 

the Commission’s original staff report (excluding the “domestic” data of Great Lakes Minerals) is 

provided in appendix C of this report.
I-20

Table I-4

RBAO: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 2000-02, 2007, and 20131

(Quantity=short tons; unit values and unit labor costs=$/short ton)

Item 2000 2001 2002 2007 2013

Capacity 217,400 217,400 246,600 250,000 220,000

Production 123,918 113,396 110,074 159,337 114,675

Capacity utilization (percent) 57.0 52.2 44.6 63.7 52.1

U.S. shipments:2

 Quantity 110,414 96,434 109,808 154,103 111,611

 Value ($1,000) 51,543 46,506 48,019 86,969 99,971

 Unit value $467 $482 $437 $564 $896

Exports:

 Quantity 10,939 8,649 8,076 (

3

) 8,107

 Value ($1,000) 6,083 4,441 4,299 4,478 7,523

 Unit value $556 $513 $532 (

3

) $928

Total shipments:

 Quantity 121,353 105,083 117,884 (

3

) 119,718

 Value ($1,000) 57,626 50,947 52,318 91,447 107,494

 Unit value $475 $485 $444 (

3

) $898

End-of-period inventories 41,923 53,811 47,322 (

3

) 39,325

Production and related workers 

(number) 186 168 168 (

3

) (

3

)

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 388 354 332 (

3

) (

3

)

Wages paid ($1,000) 7,618 6,846 6,187 (

3

) (

3

)

Hourly wages $19.63 $19.34 $18.64 (

3

) (

3

)

Productivity (short tons/1,000 hours) 319.4 320.3 331.5 (

3

) (

3

)

Unit labor costs $61.48 $60.37 $56.21 (

3

) (

3

)

Net sales ($1,000) 57,626 50,947 51,837 91,447 115,282

Cost of goods sold ($1,000) 52,491 44,981 47,081 (

3

) 104,446

Gross profit or (loss) ($1,000) 5,135 5,966 4,756 (

3

) 10,836

SG&A ($1,000) 4,490 4,304 4,126 (

3

) 5,120

Operating income or (loss) ($1,000) 645 1,662 630 (125) 5,7164

COGS/sales (percent) 91.1 88.3 90.8 (

3

) 90.6

Operating income (loss)/sales (percent) 1.1 3.3 1.2 (0.1) 5.04

 

1 Data presented for 2000-02 were provided by five producers (C-E Minerals, Detroit Abrasives, Great Lakes Minerals, Imerys/Treibacher Schleifmittel, 

and Washington Mills) in the final phase of the original investigation. These five firms were believed to have represented 100 percent of the U.S. 

production of RBAO during 2002. For comparison purposes, the domestic industry data presented include the data provided by Great Lakes Minerals, a 

company excluded by the Commission from the domestic industry as a related party in its original determination. Data presented for 2007 were provided 

by four producers (C-E Minerals, Great Lakes Minerals, Imerys/Treibacher Schleifmittel, and Washington Mills). These four firms are believed to have 

represented *** percent of U.S. production of RBAO during 2002 and *** percent during 2007. Data presented for 2013 were provided by *** producers 

(***), which are believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. production of RBAO during 2013.

 

2 Captive shipments amounted to *** percent of total reported US. shipments in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, and 2013 respectively.

 

3 Not available.

 

4

***

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), tables III-1 

and VI-1; Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7 at fn. 20, p. 9 at fn. 26, and exh. VII (as cited in the Commission’s first review 

staff report USITC Publication 4063); Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, exh. I.
I-21

The Commission noted in its views in the final phase of the original investigation that 

“{m}ost of the domestic industry’s performance indicators were weak throughout the period 

examined and many worsened over the period.”65 The data collected in the original 

investigation show that domestic production of RBAO fell from 2000 to 2002 with capacity 

utilization rates, which were relatively low in 2000, reflecting the drop in production. The 

domestic industry’s inventories *** over the period examined but employment and wages 

generally declined. Capital expenditures rose during the period examined, although shipments 

and net sales declined, mirroring the domestic industry’s overall poor and deteriorating 

financial performance.

The domestic interested parties noted in their response to the Commission’s notice of 

institution in the first review that despite a decline in the level of imports of RBAO from China 

since the antidumping duty order went into effect, “the domestic industry continues to be 

vulnerable to unfairly traded subject imports because the industry has not experienced 

significant recovery following the investigation. . .”66 The data provided by domestic interested 

parties participating in the first review indicated that the domestic industry had experienced 

overall improvements in capacity, production, capacity utilization, and shipments in 2007 as 

compared with 2002. Despite a substantial increase in unit value of shipments from 2002 to 

2007, the industry also reported aggregate losses of $125,000 during 2007. ***.

67

The domestic interested parties noted in their response to the Commission’s notice of 

institution in the second review that the RBAO industry continues to benefit from the 

antidumping duty order. Its operating profit margin of *** percent represents an improvement 

over the original period of investigation. However, the domestic interested parties indicated

that “such low operating profit margins and total operating profits (just $*** in 2013) cannot 

justify continued investment, when compared with other alternatives, and particularly if risks 

were increased by revocation of the order.”68 The data provided by domestic interested parties 

participating in the second review indicate that the domestic industry experienced declines in 

capacity, production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments in 2013 as compared with 2007. 

However, exports increased and there was a substantial increase in values and unit values of 

total shipments in 2013 as compared with 2007. The industry also reported a before tax gain of 

***. ***.69

Related party issues

Each of the five U.S. producers of RBAO imported the subject merchandise from China 

during all or part of the period examined in the original investigation. U.S. producers Great 

 

65 The Commission also noted that “we discount the significance of interim 2003 data due to the 

pendency of this investigation at that time.” Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation 

No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC Publication 3643, November 2003, p. 17.

66 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

67 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

68 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 6-7.

69 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, exhibit 1.
I-22

Lakes and C-E Minerals were ***, accounting for *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of 

reported imports from China from 2000 to June 2003. Great Lakes imported *** and its 

shipments of imports of RBAO from China were equivalent to *** percent of its U.S.-produced 

commercial shipments. On the other hand, C-E Minerals ceased importation of the subject 

merchandise in 2002 when it began its U.S. production operations. Petitioner Washington Mills 

accounted for *** percent of total reported imports of RBAO from China during 2002 and 

domestic producer Detroit Abrasives reported a minor amount (i.e., *** tons) of imports of 

subject merchandise only during 2002. Petitioner Treibacher Schleifmittel, whose subject 

imports accounted for *** percent of total reported imports of RBAO from China during 2002, 

reported during the original investigation that it was affiliated with Treibacher Schleifmittel 

Guizhou Co., Ltd., a Chinese producer of RBAO, and C-E Minerals, a sister company with 100 

percent common ownership.70

As indicated earlier, the Commission found in the final phase of the original 

investigation that appropriate circumstances existed to exclude domestic producer Great Lakes

Minerals from the domestic industry as a related party. The Commission further determined 

that Great Lakes Minerals “***.”71

The domestic interested parties participating in the first review reported in their 

response to the Commission’s notice of institution that C-E Minerals and Imerys/Treibacher 

Schleifmittel are both related to a producer of subject merchandise in China (Treibacher 

Schleifmittel Guizhou Co., Ltd.); however, they reported that the related foreign producer did

not export the subject merchandise to the United States.72 The Chinese integrated producer of 

RBAO (with fusion and processing capabilities) is 90 percent-owned by Treibacher Schleifmittel. 

The Chinese producer procures Chinese bauxite and mainly manufactures RBAO for Asian 

markets, although it supplies crude brown fused alumina to Treibacher Schleifmittel in the 

United States for further processing into RBAO.73 74 The domestic interested parties further 

indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first review that 

none of the domestic producers imported the subject merchandise from China since the 

original investigation and no other related parties were otherwise identified.

The domestic interested parties participating in this current second five-year review 

reported that C-E Minerals, Imerys Fused Minerals Niagara Falls, Inc., and Imerys Fused 

 

70 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. III-3 - III-4, III-6, and IV-1.

71 Confidential Views of the Commission, Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation 

No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), pp. 15-16.

72 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 12 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063); Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 

2014, pp. 14.

73 “World BFA Production Summary (Ex-China),” Industrial Minerals, May 2005, p. 47, and Crossley, 

Penny, “Abrasive Bauxite: Giving Proppants the Nod,” Industrial Minerals, July 2002 (as cited in the 

Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

74 This information is reported in the Commission’s first review staff report and current information 

on the Chinese producer is not publicly available.
I-23

Minerals China are all subsidiaries of Imerys, a French public limited liability company. ***. No 

other related parties were identified by the domestic interested parties in their response.75

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. imports

During the original investigation, 14 firms believed to have accounted for virtually all 

imports of subject merchandise from China provided requested trade data to the Commission. 

As noted earlier, each of the five U.S. producers of RBAO imported the subject merchandise 

from China during all or part of the period examined in the original investigation. Subject 

imports made by domestic producers Great Lakes and C-E Minerals (***) accounted for *** 

percent of reported imports from China during January 2000-June 2003. Domestic producers 

Washington Mills and Treibacher accounted for *** percent and *** percent, respectively, of 

total reported imports from China in 2002. Aside from the domestic producers, nine other firms 

reported imports of subject merchandise, three of whom were parties to the original 

investigation (Allied of Columbus, OH; Cometals of Fort Lee, NJ; and Saint-Gobain of Worcester, 

MA). Other companies providing import data were ***, Dauber Co., ***, and Golden 

Dynamic.76

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first review, the 

domestic interested parties listed the following seven companies that they believed to have 

been importers of subject merchandise from China: Allied Mineral Products, Inc.; Cometals, a 

division of Commercial Metals Co.; Dauber Co., Inc.; Fujimi Corp.; Golden Dynamic, Inc.; SaintGobain Corp.; and 3M Corp.77 They also noted that the domestic producers were not importers 

of the subject merchandise following the Commission’s original investigation.78

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this second five-year 

review, the domestic interested parties noted that although they do not know all of the 

importers of RBAO from China, the companies identified as importers in the first sunset review 

may continue to import.79 The Commission also received a response from American Abrasive

Products, Inc. (“American Abrasive”), a small business that imports and distributes different 

types of abrasives for industrial and manufacturing use. American Abrasive noted that the 

antidumping duty order only applies to RBAO in the grit size of 3/8 inches or less and that the 

petitioners specifically used a definition from which they were exempt. American Abrasive

contends that domestic manufacturers are only required to import BAO within the specified grit 

size for 50 percent or more of each shipment. Grit sizes below 3/8 inches can then be mixed 

together before being separated out during the sieving process. There are several grit sizes that 

 

75 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 14.

76 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. IV-1 - IV-2.

77 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, exh. V (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

78 Ibid., p. 12.

79 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 14.
I-24

are exempt from the antidumping order based on the end-use product.80 According to 

American Abrasive, the antidumping order should be “either imposed all imports of the

product, regardless of grit size, or the distinction of the AD being applied to only shipments 

containing 50 percent or more of BAO that is 3/8ths of an inch of less should be removed.”81

RBAO import data for annual periods 2002 (original investigation), 2007 (first review), and 

2008-2013 (second review) are presented in table I-5.

82 After the imposition of the antidumping 

duty order, subject imports from China fell from 57,172 short tons in 2002 to 2,922 short tons 

in 2007. Subject imports from China fluctuated from 2007 to 2013, decreasing to 1,160 short 

tons in 2008, 1,035 short tons in 2009, 1,199 short tons in 2010, 1,019 short tons in 2011, 1,708 

short tons in 2012, and 1,373 short tons in 2013. Unit values of subject imports increased 

overall subsequent to the order, from $257 per short ton in 2002 to $475 per short ton in 2007 

and $1,297 per short ton in 2013. 

The domestic interested parties indicated in their response to the Commission’s notice 

of institution in the first review that the antidumping duty order under review has “kept 

injurious RBAO imports at extremely low levels.”83 Domestic interested parties indicated in 

their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second review that “there is now 

more evidence than was available in 2008 that the U.S. industry is vulnerable to further 

imports. This is because demand for RBAO and U.S. production plunged in 2009 and have a long 

way to go before they could be said to be fully recovered...This low level of production, 

profitability, production, and efficiency is likely to persist for quite some time.”84

During the period examined in the final phase of the original investigation, U.S. imports 

of RBAO were primarily from China, which by 2002 accounted for 85.5 percent of total imports. 

By 2005, China accounted for only 6.5 percent of total U.S. imports of RBAO; however, the 

share of total U.S. RBAO imports held by the subject imports has since increased to 22.5 

percent in 2007 but decreased to 6.3 percent by 2013. 

 

80 Response of American Abrasive Products, Inc., January 16, 2014, p. 1-2.

81 Response of American Abrasive Products, Inc., January 16, 2014, p. 6.

82 The data for 2002 are from responses to Commission questionnaires in the original investigation 

for China and from official import statistics for Brazil and Canada for “other” sources entered under HTS 

statistical reporting number 2818.10.2000. The Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the 

original investigation indicated that the official U.S. import statistics for countries other than Brazil, 

Canada, and China were predominately, if not totally, nonsubject white and pink refined product. The 

data for 2007-2013 are from official import statistic for imports entered under HTS statistical reporting 

number 2818.10.2090.

83 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7 This is because demand for 

RBAO

84 Response of domestic interested parties, March, 5, 2014, pp. 7-8.
I-25

Table I-5

RBAO: U.S. imports, by source, 2002, 2007, and 2008-20131

Source 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

 Quantity (short tons)

China 57,172 2,922 1,160 1,035 1,199 1,019 1,708 1,373

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (

2

) 4,184 3,981 2,830 4,994 6,009 5,208 5,735

 Brazil 5,122 169 1,495 998 729 1,122 2,293 5,211

 Canada 4,551 38 47 - 0.15 54 7,910 7,789

 France (

2

) 1,160 1,075 183 649 825 340 428

 Germany (

2

) 878 1,872 554 1,105 660 711 1,017

 Italy (

2

) 2,003 355 270 134 195 261 93

 Other3(

2

) 1,629 1,354 658 1,580 1,436 1,545 1,387

 Total, nonsubject

 countries 9,673210,061 10,180 5,493 9,190 10,302 18,234 21,661

 Total, all

 countries 66,844 12,983 11,340 6,528 10,389 11,321 19,942 23,034

 Value ($1,000)

China 14,664 1,387 937 901 1,222 803 1,411 1,781

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (

2

) 7,850 6,934 5,352 10,242 11,775 10,555 12,356

 Brazil 3,291 191 1,443 606 413 677 1,365 3,159

 Canada 2,472 55 23 - 3 97 7,717 7,860

 France (

2

) 2,072 2,190 386 1,120 1,856 656 857

 Germany (

2

) 2,334 2,778 883 1,555 1,192 1,130 1,689

 Italy (

2

) 1,379 409 357 308 289 377 127

 Other3(

2

) 3,150 2,654 1,398 2,709 2,960 2,873 2,857

 Subtotal, nonsubject

 countries 5,763217,031 16,431 8,982 16,350 18,846 24,673 28,905

 Total, all countries 20,428 18,418 17,368 9,883 17,571 19,648 26,085 30,686

Footnotes continued on the following page.
I-26

Table I-5—Continued 

RBAO: U.S. imports, by source, 2002, 2007, and 2008-20131

Source 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

 Unit value (per short ton)

China 257 475 808 871 1,019 788 826 1,297

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (

2

) 1,876 1,742 1,891 2,051 1,960 2,027 2,154

 Brazil 643 1,134 965 607 567 603 595 606

 Canada 543 1,455 489 - 20,000 1,796 976 1,009

 France (

2

) 1,786 2,037 2,109 1,726 2,250 1,929 2,002

 Germany (

2

) 2,658 1,484 1,594 1,407 1,806 1,589 1,661

 Italy (

2

) 688 1,152 1,322 2,299 1,482 1,444 1,366

 Other3(

2

) 1,934 1,960 2,125 1,715 2,061 1,860 2,060

 Average, nonsubject

 countries 59621,693 1,614 1,635 1,779 1,829 1,353 1,334

 Average, all

 countries 306 1,419 1,532 1,514 1,691 1,736 1,308 1,332

 Share of quantity (percent)

China 85.5 22.5 10.2 15.9 11.5 9.0 8.6 6.0

Nonsubject countries:

 Austria (

2

) 32.2 35.1 43.4 48.1 53.1 26.1 24.9

 Brazil 7.7 1.3 13.2 15.3 7.0 9.9 11.5 22.6

 Canada 6.8 0.3 0.4 - 0.0 0.5 39.7 33.8

 France (

2

) 8.9 9.5 2.8 6.2 7.3 1.7 1.9

 Germany (

2

) 6.8 16.5 8.5 10.6 5.8 3.6 4.4

 Italy (

2

) 15.4 3.1 4.1 1.3 1.7 1.3 0.4

 Other3(

2

) 12.6 11.9 10.1 15.2 12.7 7.7 6.0

 Subtotal, nonsubject

 countries 14.5277.5 89.8 84.1 88.5 91.0 91.4 94.0

 Total, all countries 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Footnotes continued on the following page.
I-27

 1 Data presented for 2002 are based on data from importer questionnaire responses received in the 

Commission’s original investigation (China) and from official U.S. import statistics (“other” source). Data 

presented for 2007-13 are based on official U.S. import statistics. Prior to 2005, the subject merchandise 

was classified under a statistical reporting number that included all refined aluminum oxide (i.e., subject 

brown aluminum oxide, as well as nonsubject white, pink, and ruby refined aluminum oxide). Beginning 

in 2005, the HTS segregated white, pink, and ruby aluminum oxide from the brown product subject to 

the order. The white, pink, and ruby product is currently classified under HTS statistical reporting 

number 2818.10.2010 (“white, pink or ruby, containing more than 97.5 percent by weight of aluminum 

oxide”) and the subject merchandise is currently classified under HTS statistical report number 

2818.10.2090 (“other”). 

 2 Not applicable. The Commission’s staff report in the original investigation indicates that data 

presented for “other” imports were for Brazil and Canada only. It explained that U.S. imports from 

countries other than Canada and possibly Brazil were believed to be predominantly, if not totally, 

nonsubject white and pink refined aluminum oxide. It added that the official import statistics presented 

are overstated to the extent that white and pink product (in particular from Brazil) are included.

 3

The largest “other” sources and their respective share of the total quantity of imported RBAO during 

2007 include the following: Slovenia (4.5 percent), United Kingdom (3.1 percent), Japan (1.8 percent), 

and Mexico (1.5 percent). The largest “other” sources and their respective share of the total quantity of 

RBAO during 2013 include the following: Japan (3.2 percent), Slovenia (1.6 percent), Mexico (1.0 

percent), and Czech Republic (0.3 percent).

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Official import statistics 

reported through December 2013 reflect revisions available as of July 2014.

Leading nonsubject sources of imports

During the period for which data were collected, imports of RBAO entered the United 

States from a variety of sources (table I-5). During the first review, Austria, France, Germany, 

and Italy were the largest nonsubject sources of imports, together accounting for almost twothirds of total U.S. imports during 2007. The single largest nonsubject source of RBAO during 

2005-07 was Austria, which accounted for almost one-third of total U.S. imports of RBAO during 

2007. Other relatively large nonsubject sources and their respective shares of the total quantity

of imported RBAO during 2007 included the following: Italy (15.4 percent), France (8.9 

percent), and Germany (6.8 percent).

During the second review, Austria, Brazil, and Canada were the largest nonsubject 

sources of imports, together accounting for over three-quarters of total U.S. imports during 

2013. The single largest nonsubject source of RBAO during 2008-13 was Austria, which 

accounted for almost one-quarter of total U.S. imports of RBAO during 2013. Other relatively 

large nonsubject sources and their respective shares of the total quantity of imported RBAO 

during 2013 include the following: Canada (33.8 percent), Brazil (22.6 percent), and Germany 

(4.4 percent). 

During 2002, the total quantity of imports of RBAO from all nonsubject sources was 

9,673 short tons. The total quantity of imports of RBAO from all nonsubject sources was about 

4 percent higher at 10,061 short tons in 2007. The average unit value of all nonsubject imports 

rose from $596 per short ton in 2002 to $1,693 per short ton in 2007. The unit values of U.S. 
I-28

imports from nonsubject countries were consistently higher than the average unit values of 

subject imports from China.

Following the first five-year review, the total quantity of imports of RBAO from all 

nonsubject sources increased by 113 percent from 10,180 short tons in 2008 to 21,660 short 

tons in 2013. The average unit value of all nonsubject imports increased from $1,614 per short 

ton in 2008 to $1,829 per short ton in 2011, but fell to $1,334 per short ton in 2013. The unit 

values of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries were consistently higher than the average unit 

values of subject imports from China.

Ratio of imports to U.S. production

Information concerning the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production of RBAO is 

presented in table I-6. Subject imports of RBAO from China amounted to 55.7 percent of U.S. 

production during 2000, increased to 71.0 percent during 2001, but fell markedly after that 

point. Subject imports of RBAO from China were equivalent to only 1.8 percent of U.S. 

production during 2007 and 1.2 percent 2013. The ratio of nonsubject imports to domestic 

production fell during the period examined in the final phase of the Commission’s original 

investigation. Nonsubject imports amounted to 6.3 percent of U.S. production during 2007 and 

only 1.9 percent in 2013.

Table 1-6

RBAO: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2000-2002, 2007, and 20131

Item 2000 2001 2002 2007 2013

 Quantity (short tons)

U.S. production 123,918 113,396 110,074 159,337 114,675

 Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

China 55.7 71.0 51.9 1.8 1.2

Other 42.2 25.2 8.8 6.3 1.9

 Total imports 97.8 96.3 60.7 8.1 20.1

 1 Production data presented for 2000-02 were provided by five producers believed to have represented 100 

percent of the U.S. production of RBAO during 2002. For comparison purposes, the domestic industry data presented 

include the data provided by Great Lakes Minerals, which was excluded by the Commission from the domestic 

industry as a related party in its original determination. Data presented for 2007 were provided by four producers 

believed to have represented *** percent of U.S. production of RBAO during 2002 and *** percent during 2007. Data 

presented for 2013 include data from *** producers, representing *** percent of production during 2013.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final),

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), tables III-1 and IV-1 (2000-02); official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting 

number 2818.10.2090 (for 2007 U.S. import data); Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, 

exh. VII (for 2007 production data) (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063) , 

and Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, exh. I (for 2013 production data).
I-29

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares

Domestic demand for RBAO is ultimately derived from demand for end uses in which it 

is employed. The two main end-use applications for RBAO are for production of items used in 

the abrasives and refractories markets.85 The domestic abrasives and refractories markets are 

strongly linked to activity in the U.S. manufacturing sector, especially manufacturing output in

the aerospace, automotive, furniture, construction, and steel industries. However, because of 

improvements in technology in many industries in the U.S. manufacturing sector, growth in 

these industries may not necessarily lead to an increase in consumption of RBAO (e.g., 

improved material surface quality that requires less grinding and finishing operations that use 

abrasives).86 The U.S. Geological Survey estimated the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption 

of all forms of fused aluminum oxide, including RBAO, to be 253,532 short tons in 2007 and 

156,528 short tons in 2012. The estimated value of apparent U.S. consumption of all forms of 

fused aluminum oxide was $35 million in 2002. The value of apparent U.S consumption for 

2005 to 2012 are presented in the following tabulation.

87

Year

Apparent U.S. 

consumption 

(in million dollars)

Apparent U.S. 

consumption 

(in million 

dollars)

64.4

11.7

74.5

121.0

21.8

72.5

105.0

79.5

2005 64.4

2006 11.7

2007 74.5

2008 121.0

2009 21.8

2010 72.5

2011 105.0

2012 79.5

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares of RBAO for 2000-02, 2007, and 2013 are 

presented in table I-7. During the period examined in the final phase of the original 

investigation, apparent U.S. consumption of RBAO fell. Calculated apparent U.S. consumption 

for 2007 was modestly higher than the level reported in 2002 and apparent U.S. consumption 

for 2013 was lower than the level reported in 2007. The domestic interested parties indicated 

in their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first review that demand 

“increased slowly” from 2003 to 2007 before declining in 2008. 

 

85 Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), USITC 

Publication 3643, November 2003, p. II-1.

86 Olson, Donald W., Abrasives, Manufactured, U.S. Geological Survey, 2007-12 Minerals Yearbooks.

87 Olson, Donald W., Abrasives, Manufactured, U.S. Geological Survey, 2002-12 Minerals Yearbooks.
I-30

Table 1-7

RBAO: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S. 

consumption, 2000-02, 2007, and 2013

Item 2000 2001 2002 2007 2013

 Quantity (short tons)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1*** *** *** 154,103 111,611

U.S. imports from—

 China 66,046 71,461 68,864 2,922 1,373

 Other sources252,247 28,632 9,673 10,061 21,661

 Total import shipments 118,293 100,093 78,536 12,983 23,034

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** 167,086 134,645

 Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1*** *** *** 86,969 99,971

U.S. shipments of imports from—

 China 21,796 22,456 22,057 1,387 1,781

 Other sources220,465 11,399 5,763 17,031 28,905

 Total import shipments 42,262 33,855 27,820 18,418 30,686

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** 105,387 130,657

 Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1*** *** *** 92.2 82.9

U.S. shipments of imports from—

 China *** *** *** 1.7 1.0

 Other sources2*** *** *** 6.0 16.1

 Total import shipments *** *** *** 7.8 17.1

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments1*** *** *** 82.5 76.5

U.S. shipments of imports from—

 China *** *** *** 1.3 1.4

 Other sources2*** *** *** 16.2 22.1

 Total import shipments *** *** *** 17.5 23.5

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1

The Commission’s staff report in the final phase of the original investigation indicated that to avoid 

double-counting, it excluded the U.S. producers’ shipments of Great Lakes.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 

(Final), October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), table IV-3; Response of domestic interested parties, November 

20, 2008, exh. VII (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063); Response of 

domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, exh. 1; and official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical 

reporting number 2818.10.2090.

They explained that demand was strong for the larger refractory grades of RBAO used in the 

steel industry but that demand for RBAO in the general industrial abrasives and the bonded 
I-31

They explained that demand was strong for the larger refractory grades of RBAO used in the 

steel industry but that demand for RBAO in the general industrial abrasives and the bonded 

coated segments weakened based primarily on the downturn in domestic auto production.88 In 

their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second review, the domestic 

interested parties noted that “{o}ne forecaster predicts that the overall market for abrasives 

will increase by about 4 percent per year, as demand for durable goods such as motor vehicles 

continue to improve, and demand for refractories will grow about 3.3 percent per year, pacing 

growth in steel, other metals, and ceramics industries.”89

The domestic producers’ market share based on quantity fell from *** percent in 2000 

to *** percent in 2001, but increased to *** percent in 2002. The subject imports from China 

gained market share from *** percent in 2000 to *** percent in 2002. The domestic RBAO 

industry held an estimated 92.2 percent of apparent U.S. consumption on the basis of quantity 

in 2007 and 82.9 percent in 2013, and an estimated 82.5 percent on the basis of value in 2007 

and 76.5 percent in 2013. On the other hand, China held a 1.7-percent share of the U.S. market 

in 2007 on the basis of quantity and 1.0 percent in 2013, and other sources held a 6.0-percent 

share in 2007 on the basis of quantity and a 16.1-percent share in 2013.

 

88 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 7 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

89 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, p. 8.
I-32

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

In October 1997, an antidumping duty order on all types of fused alumina from China 

(95 percent of which was brown fused alumina, including RBAO) was put in place by the 

European Union (“EU”). The duty imposed was a flat rate of 240 Euros per metric ton. The EU 

order, which was viewed by Treibacher Schleifmittel as somewhat ineffective, expired in 

October 2002. No other antidumping actions concerning RBAO outside the United States were 

identified in the domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution 

in this review nor were any other actions identified in public searches for information.90

THE WORLD MARKET

Global Trade Atlas import and export data show that during 2008-13, China, Ukraine, 

and Hungary were the largest net exporters of items covered by HTS subheading 2818.10 (all 

forms and grades of fused aluminum oxide). Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Austria were 

the largest net importers, based on quantity, of the items under that subheading. Global Trade 

Atlas data concerning the net trade balance reported for the United States, China, and other 

selected nonsubject countries are presented in table I-8. These data show that China 

consistently held the largest net export trade balance during every annual period from 2008-13, 

reaching a level more than twenty times the size of the net export trade balance held by the

second largest country, Hungary. 

 

90 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), p. VII-5; “BFA Anti-Dumping Measure Expires,” Industrial Minerals, 

November 2002, p. 10, and Kendall, Tom, “Fused Alumina: Grinding Out a Living,” Industrial Minerals, 

October 2005.
I-33

Table I-8

Aluminum oxide: China and selected nonsubject country exports, imports, and trade balances, 

2008-131

Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

 Quantity (short tons)

China:

 Exports 904,000 347,000 870,000 900,000 812,000 786,000

 Imports 72,000 46,000 67,000 63,000 58,000 52,000

 Trade Balance 832,000 301,000 803,000 837,000 754,000 734,000

United States: 

 Exports 25,000 14,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 29,000

 Imports 45,000 29,000 49,000 51,000 77,000 97,000

 Trade Balance (20,000) (15,000) (26,000) (28,000) (55,000) (68,000)

Austria:

 Exports 0 0 0 0 4,000 6,000

 Imports 75,000 47,000 80,000 77,000 69,000 65,000

 Trade Balance (75,000) (47,000) (80,000) (77,000) (65,000) (59,000)

Germany:

 Exports 65,000 35,000 56,000 60,000 49,000 50,000

 Imports 156,000 68,000 120,000 149,000 118,000 129,000

 Trade Balance (91,000) (32,000) (64,000) (89,000) (69,000) (79,000)

Hungary:

 Exports 40,000 24,000 36,000 43,000 45,000 45,000

 Imports 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000

 Trade Balance 38,000 23,000 35,000 42,000 43,000 43,000

Japan:

 Exports 13,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 9,000 12,000

 Imports 198,000 81,000 180,000 171,000 180,000 159,000

 Trade Balance (185,000) (75,000) (171,000) (159,000) (171,000) (148,000)

South Korea:

 Exports 8,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 4,000 6,000

 Imports 76,000 51,000 80,000 99,000 96,000 88,000

 Trade Balance (68,000) (50,000) (76,000) (94,000) (92,000) (82,000)

Ukraine:

 Exports 43,000 24,000 38,000 35,000 34,000 35,000

 Imports 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

 Trade Balance 42,000 23,000 36,000 33,000 32,000 33,000

1

Positive numbers presented for “trade balance” show net exports and numbers in parentheses presented for “trade 

balance” show net imports.

Source: Global Trade Atlas (HTS subheading 2818.10, which includes all grades (e.g., brown, white, pink, and red) of 

crude and refined aluminum oxide).
I-34

Production capacity

For each year during 2008-12, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated global production 

capacity for the products in HTS subheading 2818.10 (aluminum oxides) at 1,312,000 short tons 

with China accounting for 772,000 short tons, or 59 percent of the global total. Germany was 

the country with the second highest production capacity at 88,000 short tons, or seven percent 

of global production capacity for each year in that timeframe.91

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the original investigation, the Commission transmitted foreign producer 

questionnaires to 15 producers and six exporters of RBAO in China that were believed to have 

accounted for most of the subject merchandise exported to the United States at that time. Nine 

producers and four exporters responded to the Commission’s request for information during 

the original investigation. These producers’ exports of the subject merchandise to the United 

States accounted for 59.8 percent of the total U.S. imports of refined aluminum oxide (all 

grades) from China during 2002. According to information provided in the petition, China’s level 

of production of brown aluminum oxide (refined and crude) in 2001 was estimated to be 

550,000 to 600,000 short tons. According to Chinese customs figures, China exported nearly 

490,000 short tons of fused alumina (85 to 90 percent is estimated to have been brown 

aluminum oxide (refined and crude)). In 2000, the United States (28.7 percent) was the top 

export market for Chinese exports, followed by Japan (27.0 percent), South Korea (7.7 percent), 

the Netherlands (4.5 percent) and South Africa (4.3 percent). Other export destinations 

included Canada, India, Italy, Taiwan and Thailand.92

The Commission did not receive any responses to the Commission’s notice of institution 

in the first or second review from Chinese producers of the subject merchandise. However, the 

domestic interested parties’ response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first 

review listed 11 known producers of RBAO in China that had exported the subject merchandise 

to the United States or other countries since 2002.93 They pointed out that since the imposition 

of the antidumping duty order on RBAO, Chinese capacity to produce the subject merchandise 

has “skyrocketed” and argued that the domestic industry remains threatened by Chinese 

overcapacity and underselling.94 They further pointed out that Chinese RBAO capacity was at 

 

91 U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

92 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), pp. VII-1 - VII-2.

93 The 11 Chinese producers listed include the following firms: Bosai Minerals Group Co., Ltd.; 

Guizhou Dazhong No.7 Grind Co.; Hainan Meida Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Henan Mianchi Great Wall 

Corundum Co., Ltd.; Xiyang Mianchi; Henan Yilong High & New Materials. Co., Ltd.; Sanmenxia Mingzhu 

Electric Smelting Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Qinxin Group; Taiyuan Twin-Tower Aluminum Oxide, Inc.; Qingdao 

Shunxingli Abrasives Co., Ltd.; and Zibo Jinyu Abrasive Co. Response of domestic interested parties, 

November 20, 2008, exh. VI (as cited in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 

4063).

94 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, pp. 7 and 11 (as cited in the 

Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).
I-35

least 1.1 million tons in 2007, a level far greater than the U.S. industry’s production capacity of 

approximately *** short tons in 2007.95 They argued that “{w}hile demand from the Chinese 

steel industry for RBAO for refractories has certainly grown over the POR, that demand is now 

placating along with the worldwide steel industry decline, leaving the Chinese with a large 

amount of excess capacity.”96

In their response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this second five-year 

review, the domestic producers noted that China had the largest RBAO industry in the world at 

the time of the original investigation and that its capacity has grown significantly since that 

time. They reported that recent reports indicate that Chinese capacity likely is still expanding 

rapidly, even as demand is weak both at home in China and abroad. They noted that at least 

200,000 metric tons of RBAO refining capacity was either added by Chinese firms in 2013 or is

anticipated. The domestic producers provided a listing of more than 150 Chinese producers of 

brown fused alumina in their response. They indicated that these firms either themselves 

produce RBAO or would supply feedstock to RBAO producers.97

China has long been described as the leading global producer of brown fused alumina, 

the feedstock material used in the production of RBAO.98 China’s supply problems have 

resulted in increasing prices globally and the tightening of global supply for brown fused 

alumina and the RBAO from which it is made. In December 2007, Industrial Minerals reported 

that the Chinese fused alumina supply problems were primarily due to the following factors:

 increased Chinese domestic demand;

 tighter Chinese environmental controls that restrict the supply of alumina as plants are 

closed or operate less frequently;

 increased Chinese power costs and availability;

 efforts to divert scarce bauxite and power resources in china to other more strategic 

industries;

 increased cost of domestic Chinese transportation; and

 increased sea freight cost and scarcity of bulk ocean vessels.99

By 2008, because of the shortages of bauxite and electrical power in China, the 

publication reported that Chinese production of brown fused alumina was “well below peak 

levels, possibly as low as 50% capacity.”100 101

 

95 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 9 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

96 Response of domestic interested parties, November 20, 2008, p. 9 (as cited in the Commission’s 

first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

97 Response of domestic interested parties, March 5, 2014, pp. 9-11 and exh. 14.

98 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38 (as cited in the 

Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

99 Backus, Rachel, “Uphill Struggle,” Industrial Minerals, December 2007, pp. 32-38 (as cited in the 

Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).

100 O’Driscoll, Mike, “Mineral Processing in Asia,” Industrial Minerals, March 2008, pp. 77-81 (as cited 

in the Commission’s first review staff report USITC Publication 4063).
I-36

RBAO operations

Table I-9 presents trade data for the Chinese RBAO industry compiled during the original 

investigation (2002-02) and U.S. imports from China for 2007 and 2013. As these data show, 

Chinese production increased throughout the period for which data were collected in the 

original investigation. Moreover, the Chinese producers also reported in their questionnaire 

responses in the original investigation that they forecasted production to increase further in 

2003 and 2004 over the 2002 level. During the period examined in the original investigation, 

the Chinese producers operated their facilities at relatively low aggregate capacity utilization 

rates ranging from 69.3 to 75.2 percent.102 103

 

101 This information is reported in the Commission’s first five-year review and no current information 

on this subject is publicly available.

102 Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), 

October 9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), table VII-1.

103 There was no Chinese response to the notice of institution in this current second five-year review 

and no information on the Chinese RBAO industry is otherwise publicly available.
I-37

Table I-9

RBAO: China’s capacity, production, and inventories, 2000-02,12007, and 2013

Item 2000 2001 2002 2007 2013

 Quantity (short tons)

Capacity 155,809 193,879 219,027 (

2

) (

2

)

Production 113,098 144,185 164,795 (

2

) (

2

)

End-of-period inventories 23,476 17,910 20,134 (

2

) (

2

)

Shipments:

 Internal consumption 2,493 5,257 4,654 (

2

) (

2

)

 Home market 64,310 88,940 94,279 (

2

) (

2

)

 Exports:

 United States 35,286 29,801 34,173 2,92231,3733

 All other markets 91,941 123,830 124,807 (

2

) (

2

)

 Total exports 127,227 153,631 158,980 (

2

) (

2

)

 Total shipments 194,030 247,828 257,913 (

2

) (

2

)

 Ratios and Shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 72.6 74.4 75.2 (

2

) (

2

)

Inventories to production 20.8 12.4 12.2 (

2

) (

2

)

Inventories to total shipments 12.1 7.2 7.8 (

2

) (

2

)

Share of total quantity of 

shipments:

 Internal consumption 1.3 2.1 1.8 (

2

) (

2

)

 Home market 33.1 35.9 36.6 (

2

) (

2

)

 Exports to:

 United States 18.2 12.0 13.2 (

2

) (

2

)

 All other markets 47.4 50.0 48.4 (

2

) (

2

)

 All export markets 65.6 62.0 61.6 (

2

) (

2

)

 

1 Data presented for 2000-02 were provided in the final phase of the original investigation by nine producers and 

four exporters in China. These producers’ exports of the subject merchandise to the United States accounted for 59.8 

percent of the total U.S. imports of refined aluminum oxide (all grades) from China during 2002.

 

2 Not available.

 

3 Official import statistics for HTS statistical reporting number 2818.10.2090 (more specific to refined brown 

aluminum oxide) is presented in lieu of export data because Global Trade Atlas Chinese export data are for HTS 

subheading 2818.10, which includes all forms (i.e., crude and refined) and all grades (e.g., brown, white, pink, and 

red) of fused aluminum oxide.

Source: Staff Report on Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1022 (Final), October 

9, 2003 (INV-AA-154), table VII-1 (2000-02), and official Commerce statistics (HTS statistical reporting number 

2818.10.2090 (2007 and 2013)).
I-38

Export profile

Global Trade Atlas statistics concerning exports of crude and refined fused alumina (HTS 

subheading 2818.10) from China for 2008-2013 are presented in table I-10. These data show 

that total exports of fused aluminum oxide from China to the world decreased by 13.2 percent 

from 904,514 short tons in 2008 to 785,564 short tons in 2013. The two largest export markets 

for Chinese fused aluminum oxide during 2008-13 were the United States and Japan, 

accounting for 14.2 percent and 18.0 percent of total exports of fused aluminum oxide made by 

China during 2013, respectively.
I-39

Table I-10

Fused aluminum oxide: China’s export shipments, 2008-13

Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

 Quantity (short tons)

Exports:

 United States 198,334 42,566 165,223 167,372 141,234 111,886

 Japan 163,703 62,861 155,825 138,560 151,988 141,374

 Netherlands 87,693 15,046 54,708 59,039 36,688 32,424

 India 36,297 21,778 54,049 57,950 54,501 47,530

 Korea 61,887 40,916 68,396 76,729 76,899 75,514

 Italy 56,793 11,967 42,799 46,758 43,463 34,154

 Russia 29,040 15,739 27,396 38,917 19,710 12,543

 Taiwan 29,157 21,902 40,612 43,671 38,607 43,801

 Thailand 31,135 18,744 36,725 33,447 33,403 35,926

 All other1210,474 95,490 223,972 237,353 216,005 250,411

 World 904,514 347,009 869,706 899,797 812,497 785,564

 Value ($1,000)2

Exports:

 United States 94,987 22,144 79,146 89,904 80,567 64,354 

 Japan 103,393 38,765 98,567 98,661 106,804 99,676 

 Netherlands 47,479 8,165 30,303 32,237 21,588 23,657

 India 18,976 7,083 27,828 35,439 34,265 29,697 

 Korea 37,239 20,301 39,947 50,558 50,995 53,642

 Italy 33,072 6,159 22,993 27,488 27,238 20,777 

 Russia 13,888 6,302 14,710 26,238 13,992 9,683 

 Taiwan 15,135 10,942 22,249 26,279 23,438 26,637 

 Thailand 16,938 10,312 22,095 22,166 20,570 24,228 

 All other1123,351 52,452 124,524 150,810 143,665 171,521

 World 504,457 182,625 482,361 559,780 523,122 523,872

Table continued on the following page.
I-40

Table I-10—Continued 

Fused aluminum oxide: China’s export shipments, 2008-13

Item 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

 Unit value (per short ton)

Exports:

 United States $479 $520 $479 $537 $570 $575

 Japan 632 617 633 712 703 705

 Netherlands 541 543 554 546 588 730

 India 523 325 515 612 629 625

 Korea 602 496 584 659 663 710

 Italy 582 515 537 588 627 608

 Russia 478 400 537 674 710 772

 Taiwan 519 500 548 602 607 608

 Thailand 544 550 602 663 616 674

 All other1586 549 556 635 665 685

 World 558 526 555 622 644 667

 Share of quantity (percent)

Exports:

 United States 21.9 12.3 19.0 18.6 17.4 14.2

 Japan 18.1 18.1 17.9 15.4 18.7 18.0

 Netherlands 9.7 4.3 6.3 6.6 4.5 4.1

 India 4.0 6.3 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.1

 Korea 6.8 11.8 7.9 8.5 9.5 9.6

 Italy 6.3 3.4 4.9 5.2 5.3 4.3

 Russia 3.2 4.5 3.2 4.3 2.4 1.6

 Taiwan 3.2 6.3 4.7 4.9 4.8 5.6

 Thailand 3.4 5.4 4.2 3.7 4.1 4.6

 All other123.3 27.5 25.8 26.4 26.6 31.9

 World 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

1

The “all other” category includes data for 82 export markets for the Chinese material. The largest of these other 

export markets for the Chinese product include Poland, Germany, Turkey, and Slovenia.

 2

F.o.b. port in China.

Source: Global Trade Atlas, (HTS subheading 2818.10, which includes all forms (i.e., crude and raw) and all grades 

(e.g., brown, white, pink, and red) of fused aluminum oxide.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES 

A-3

The Commission makes available notices relevant to its investigations and reviews on its 

website, www.usitc.gov. In addition, the following tabulation presents, in chronological order, 

Federal Register notices issued by the Commission and Commerce during the current 

proceeding.

Citation Title Link

79 FR 6225

February 3, 2014

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from 

China; Institution of A Five-Year 

Review

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2014-02-03/pdf/2014-01894.pdf

79 FR 6163

February 3, 2014

Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) 

Review

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2014-02-03/pdf/2014-02226.pdf

79 FR 26207

May 7, 2014

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Second Sunset 

Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2014-05-07/pdf/2014-10516.pdf

79 FR 48248

August 15, 2014

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide From 

China; Scheduling of an Expedited 

Five-Year Review

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2014-08-15/pdf/2014-19389.pdf

B-1 

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY 

EXPLANATIONOF COMMISSION DETERMINATIONONADEQUACY

in

Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide from China 

Inv. No. 731-TA-1022 (Second Review)

On May 9, 2014, the Commission unanimously determined to conduct an expedited

review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §1675(c)(3)(B).

The Commission unanimously determined that the domestic interested party group

response to the notice of institution was adequate. The Commission received adequate

responses filed jointly by four U.S. producers of refined brown aluminum oxide: C-E Minerals, Inc.;

Imerys Fused Minerals Niagara Falls, Inc.; U.S. Electrofused Minerals, Inc.; and Washington Mills 

Group, Inc. ***. Because the Commission received an adequate response from interested 

parties accounting for a substantial share of U.S. production of refined brown aluminum oxide, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission also unanimously determined that the respondent interested party

group response was inadequate, as no respondent interested party filed a response to the

notice of institution.

The Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full

review. The Commission, therefore, decided to conduct an expedited review of this order.

A record of the Commissioners' votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

at the Commission's web site (www.usitc.gov). 

C-1

APPENDIX C

TABLE C-2 FROM COMMISSION’S STAFF REPORT IN THE FINAL PHASE OF THE 

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

C-3

The Commission excluded Great Lakes Minerals from the domestic industry in the final 

phase of the original investigation. Therefore, the Commission relied on data presented in table 

C-2 of the staff report, which excludes all "domestic" data of Great Lakes Minerals, in making its 

determination. Since the original investigation, however, domestic producer Great Lakes 

Minerals has ceased importing the subject merchandise. ***. Table C-2 from the Commission's 

original staff report has been reproduced in this appendix.

C-5

Table C-2

RBAO: Summary data concerning the U.S. market (excluding all “domestic” data reported by Great Lakes), 2000-2002, January-June 2002 

and January-June 2003

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per ton; and period changes=percent, except 

where noted)

Item

Calendar year January-June Period changes

2000 2001 2002 2002 2003 2000-2002 2000-2001 2001-2002

Jan.June 

2002-Jan.-

June 2003

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers’ share1*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers’ share:1

 China (Great Lakes) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (all other) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (total) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers’ share1*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers’ share:1

 China (Great Lakes) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (all other) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (total) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports

 from--

 China (Great Lakes)

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (all other)

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (total)

 Quantity 66,046 71,461 68,864 40,391 28,262 4.3 8.2 -3.6 -30.0

 Value 21,796 22,456 22,057 12,772 9,939 1.2 3.0 -1.8 -22.2

 Unit value $330.02 $314.24 $320.29 $316.22 $351.67 -2.9 -4.8 1.9 11.2

 Ending inventory 29,858 38,487 29,983 24,151 17,605 0.4 28.9 -22.1 -27.1

 Other sources:2

 Quantity 52,247 28,632 9,673 5,489 3,948 -81.5 -45.2 -66.2 -28.1

 Value 20,465 11,399 5,763 3,227 2,654 -71.8 -44.3 -49.4 -17.8

 Unit value $391.70 $398.14 $595.83 $587.81 $672.16 52.1 1.6 49.7 14.3

 Ending inventory 0 0 0 0 0 (3) (3) (3) (3)

 All sources:

 Quantity 118,293 100,093 78,536 45,880 32,210 -33.6 -15.4 -21.5 -29.8

 Value 42,262 33,855 27,820 15,999 12,592 -34.2 -19.9 -17.8 -21.3

 Unit value $357.26 $338.24 $354.23 $348.71 $390.95 -0.8 -5.3 4.7 12.1

 Ending inventory 29,858 38,487 29,983 24,151 17,605 0.4 28.9 -22.1 -27.1

Table continued on next page.
C-6

(Quantity=short tons; value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per ton; and period changes=percent, except 

where noted)

Item

Calendar year January-June Period changes

2000 2001 2002 2002 2003 2000-2002 2000-2001 2001-2002

Jan.June 

2002-Jan.-

June 2003

U.S. producers’--

 Capacity quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization1*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments1*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid (1,000 dollars) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (tons per 1,000 

 hours) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales:

 Quantity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or 

 (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales

1

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or 

 (loss)/sales *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 

1

“Reported data” are in percent and “period changes” are in percentage points.

 

2

U.S. imports from other sources.

 

3

Not applicable.

 

4

Undefined.

Note.—Financial data are reported on a fiscal year bases and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. 

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission producer and importer (China) questionnaires and official Commerce 

statistics.