Certain Aluminum Extrusions From China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-475 and 731-TA-1177 (Preliminary)

Publication 4153 June 2010

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Russell Duncan, Investigator

Vincent DeSapio, Industry Analyst

James Fetzer, Economist

David Boyland, Accountant

Marc Bernstein, Attorney

Mara Alexander, Statistician

James McClure, Supervisor Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Certain Aluminum Extrusions From China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-475 and 731-TA-1177 (Preliminary)

Publication 4153 June 2010
 
Table of contents 

Determinations .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

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

Part I: Introduction ............................................................................................................................. I-1

Background ............................................................................................................................................ I-1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report .................................................................................... I-1

Statutory criteria ................................................................................................................................. I-1

Organization of report ........................................................................................................................ I-2

Market summary .................................................................................................................................... I-2

Summary data ........................................................................................................................................ I-3

Previous investigations .......................................................................................................................... I-3

Nature and extent of alleged subsidies and sales at LTFV .................................................................... I-3

Alleged subsidies ............................................................................................................................... I-3

Alleged sales at LTFV ....................................................................................................................... I-3

The subject merchandise ........................................................................................................................ I-4

Commerce’s scope ............................................................................................................................. I-4

Tariff treatment .................................................................................................................................. I-5

Domestic like product ............................................................................................................................ I-7

Physical characteristics and uses ........................................................................................................ I-7

Manufacturing facilities and production employees .......................................................................... I-9

Interchangeability ............................................................................................................................ I-10

Customer and producer perceptions ................................................................................................. I-10

Channels of distribution ................................................................................................................... I-11

Price ................................................................................................................................................. I-11

Part II: Supply and demand information ........................................................................................... II-1

U.S. market characteristics.................................................................................................................... II-1

Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................................ II-1

Supply and demand considerations ....................................................................................................... II-1

Supply ............................................................................................................................................... II-1

Demand ............................................................................................................................................. II-4

Substitutability issues ............................................................................................................................ II-6

Factors affecting purchasing decisions ............................................................................................. II-6

Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported aluminum extrusions .................................................. II-7

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ................................................ III-1

U.S. producers ...................................................................................................................................... III-1

U.S. production, capacity, and capacity utilization .............................................................................. III-4

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and exports ........................................................................................ III-5

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases ................................................................................................ III-6

U.S. producers’ inventories .................................................................................................................. III-7

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................................................................... III-8

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares ......................................... IV-1

U.S. importers ..................................................................................................................................... IV-1

U.S. importers’ U.S. imports............................................................................................................... IV-1

Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares .......................................................................... IV-3

Ratio of imports to U.S. production .................................................................................................... IV-4
Part V: Pricing data ............................................................................................................................. V-1

Factors affecting prices ......................................................................................................................... V-1

Raw material costs ............................................................................................................................ V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs ........................................................................................................ V-1

Pricing practices .................................................................................................................................... V-1

Pricing methods ................................................................................................................................ V-1

Lead times ......................................................................................................................................... V-2

Sales terms and discounts ................................................................................................................. V-3

Price data ............................................................................................................................................... V-3

Price trends........................................................................................................................................ V-4

Price comparisons ............................................................................................................................. V-4

Lost sales and lost revenues ................................................................................................................ V-10

Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. producers .............................................................................. VI-1

Background ......................................................................................................................................... VI-1

Operations on certain aluminum extrusions ........................................................................................ VI-1

Revenue........................................................................................................................................... VI-1

Cost of goods sold ........................................................................................................................... VI-4

Financial results .............................................................................................................................. VI-5

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, assets, and return on investment ............ VI-5

Capital and investment ........................................................................................................................ VI-6

Part VII:Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ................................... VII-1

The industry in China ......................................................................................................................... VII-2

U.S. inventories of imported merchandise ......................................................................................... VII-5

U.S. importers’ outstanding orders .................................................................................................... VII-6

Antidumping or countervailing duty orders in third-country markets ............................................... VII-6

Information on nonsubject sources .................................................................................................... VII-8

Canada ........................................................................................................................................... VII-8

Appendixes 

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

B. Conference witnesses .................................................................................................................. B-1 

C. Summary tables ........................................................................................................................... C-1 

D. Selected financial information by firm ....................................................................................... D-1 

E. Actual and anticipated negative impact of imports of certain aluminum extrusions from 

China ......................................................................................................................................... E-1 
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-475 and 731-TA-1177 (Preliminary)

CERTAIN ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry

in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from China of certain aluminum extrusions,

provided for in subheadings 7604.21, 7604.29, and 7608.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) and subsidized

by the Government of China.

COMMENCEMENT OF FINAL PHASE INVESTIGATIONS

Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission’s rules, the Commission also gives notice of the

commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of

scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the

Commission’s rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) of affirmative

preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the

preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those

investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the

preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the

investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level,

representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names

and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2010, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Aluminum

Extrusions Fair Trade Committee2

 and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, alleging that an industry in the United

States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports

of certain aluminum extrusions from China. Accordingly, effective March 31, 2010, the Commission

instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-475 and antidumping duty investigation No. 731-

TA-1177 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the Commission’s investigations and of a public conference to be held

in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 The Committee is comprised of the following members: Aerolite Extrusion Company, Youngstown, OH;

Alexandria Extrusion Company, Alexandria, MN; Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., Medley, FL; William L.

Bonnell Company, Inc., Newnan, GA; Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Corona, CA; Futura Industries Corporation,

Clearfield, UT; Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., Linthicum, MD; Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Foothill

Ranch, CA; Profile Extrusion Company, Rome, GA; Sapa Extrusions, Inc., Des Plaines, IL; and Western Extrusions

Corporation, Carrollton, TX.

1
of April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17436). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2010, and all

persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

2
VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that there is a

reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of

certain aluminum extrusions from China that are allegedly subsidized and sold in the United States at less

than fair value. 

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS

The legal standard for preliminary antidumping and countervailing duty determinations requires

the Commission to determine, based upon the information available at the time of the preliminary

determination, whether there is a reasonable indication that a domestic industry is materially injured or

threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry is materially retarded, by reason

of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.1

 In applying this standard, the Commission weighs the evidence

before it and determines whether “(1) the record as a whole contains clear and convincing evidence that

there is no material injury or threat of such injury; and (2) no likelihood exists that contrary evidence will

arise in a final investigation.”2

II. BACKGROUND

The Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (“the Committee”) and the United Steel, Paper

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union

(“USW”) filed the petition in these investigations.3

 Petitioners appeared at the conference and submitted

a postconference brief. Brazeway, Inc., a domestic producer of aluminum extrusions that supports

imposition of duties but is not a member of the Committee, filed a postconference statement.

Two sets of respondents entered appearances and submitted postconference briefs, but did not

participate in the conference. One brief was filed by Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Co., a Chinese

producer of subject merchandise, and China Asia Aluminum USA Corp., an importer of subject

merchandise (jointly “Chinese Respondents”). The other brief was filed by Hubbell Power Systems, Inc.

(“HPS”), an importer of subject merchandise. Madden Manufacturing Co. (“Madden”), a U.S. purchaser

of aluminum extrusions, submitted a postconference statement but did not enter an appearance as a party. 

Peng Cheng Aluminum Enterprise, Inc. (“Peng Cheng”), an importer of subject merchandise, participated

at the conference, but neither entered an appearance as a party nor filed a postconference statement.

The Commission received questionnaire responses from 39 domestic producers, estimated to

account for 80 to 85 percent of domestic production of the aluminum extrusions under investigation.4

The Commission received usable questionnaire responses from 24 importers, believed to account for 53

to 55 percent of total subject imports from China, and between 46 to 49 percent of U.S. imports of

 1 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a) (2000); see also American Lamb Co. v. United States, 785 F.2d 994, 1001-04 (Fed. Cir.

1986); Aristech Chem. Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 353, 354-55 (1996). No party argued that the establishment of

an industry is materially retarded by reason of the allegedly unfairly traded imports.

 2

 American Lamb Co., 785 F.2d at 1001; see also Texas Crushed Stone Co. v. United States, 35 F.3d 1535, 1543

(Fed. Cir. 1994).

 3

 The Committee consists of eleven U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions. USW is a labor union representing

workers engaged in the production of aluminum extrusions in the United States.

 4

 Confidential Report (CR) at III-1, Public Report (PR) at III-1.

3
aluminum extrusions from all other sources.5

 The Commission received questionnaire responses from 12

Chinese producers or exporters of the subject merchandise, which account for an estimated 10 to 12

percent of total production of the merchandise in China, about 35 to 40 percent of subject imports in 2007

and 2008, and about 12 percent of subject imports in 2009.6

 Among the Chinese producers that did not

respond to the foreign producer’s questionnaire was Liaoning Zhongwang Group, which identifies itself

as the largest producer of aluminum extrusions in China, and was the *** exporter of subject merchandise

to the United States during the period examined.7 8

III. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”9

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “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.”10 In turn, 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 ... .”11

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.12 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

 5 CR/PR at IV-1 n.2.

 6

 CR at VII-2, PR at VII-2.

 7

 CR at VII-5, PR at VII-5; Petitioners Postconference Brief, ex. 3 at 77, ex. 4 at 51.

 8

 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences but such

authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole in making

its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by the participating

parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not automatically

accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level of

participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may

not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” Uruguay

Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Rep. 103-316, vol. I at 869 (1994).

 9

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 12 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); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

(continued...)

4
may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.13 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.14

Although the Commission must accept the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) 

determination as to the scope of the imported merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair

value,15 the Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has

identified.16 The Commission must base its domestic like product determination on the record in these

investigations. The Commission is not bound by prior determinations, even those pertaining to the same

imported products, but may draw upon previous determinations in addressing pertinent domestic like

product issues.17

B. Product Description

In its notices of initiation, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of these

investigations as follows:

aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process,

made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series

designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1,

3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents). Specifically,

the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association

series designation commencing with the number 1 contains not less than 99 percent

aluminum by weight. The subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an

Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 3 contains

manganese as the major alloying element, with manganese accounting for not more than

3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject merchandise made from an

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the

 12 (...continued)

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 13 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 14 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 15 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 16 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a

single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298

n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations where

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

 17 See, e.g., Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1304-05 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2000);

Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Asociacion Colombiana de Exportadores de Flores v. United States, 693 F. Supp. 1165,

1169 n.5 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988); Citrosuco Paulista, S.A. v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1087-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1988).

5
number 6 contains magnesium and silicon as the major alloying elements, with

magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total

materials by weight, and silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 3.0

percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions are properly

identified by a four-digit alloy series without either a decimal point or leading letter.

Illustrative examples from among the approximately 160 registered alloys that may

characterize the subject merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, and 6060. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of shapes and forms,

including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and

rods. Aluminum extrusions that are drawn subsequent to extrusion (“drawn aluminum”)

are also included in the scope. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of finishes (both coatings

and surface treatments), and types of fabrication. The types of coatings and treatments

applied to subject aluminum extrusions include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are

mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further finishing), brushed, buffed, polished,

anodized (including bright-dip anodized), liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum

extrusions may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would

include, but are not limited to, extrusions that are cut-to-length, machined, drilled,

punched, notched, bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered, chamfered, threaded, and

spun. The subject merchandise includes aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated,

painted, etc.), fabricated, or any combination thereof.

Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts for

final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to,

window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or furniture. Such parts that

otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions are included in the scope. The

scope includes aluminum extrusions that are attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to

form subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled merchandise. 

Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end use, such as heat sinks,

door thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods are subject merchandise if they otherwise

meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are finished products and ready for

use at the time of importation.18

Commerce’s scope definition also contains a fairly lengthy listing of exclusions from the scope.19

 18 75 Fed. Reg. 22109, 22113-14 (Apr. 27, 2010) (dumping investigation); 75 Fed. Reg. 22114, 22117-18 (Apr.

27, 2010) (CVD investigation).

 19 Commerce stated as follows:

The following aluminum extrusion products are excluded: aluminum extrusions made from

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designations commencing with the number

2 and containing in excess of 1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum extrusions made from

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the number 5

and containing in excess of 1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and aluminum extrusions made

(continued...)

6
Petitioners contend that the Commission should define a single domestic like product consisting

of all aluminum extrusions of the type described in the scope definition.20 No other party asserted a

contrary position.21

C. Analysis

We examine below whether all aluminum extrusions within the scope should be included within a

single domestic like product.

Physical Characteristics and Uses. Extrusions within the scope encompass the 1000, 3000, and

6000 series aluminum alloy extrusions.22 These are considered to be “soft” alloy aluminum extrusions, as

opposed to alloys in the 2000, 5000, and 7000 series, which are considered to be “hard” alloys and have

been excluded from the scope.23 The preponderance of domestic production of merchandise within the

scope consists of extrusions within the 6000 series of alloys.24 These alloys contain silicon and

magnesium. Petitioners describe the 6000 series as easily machined but less malleable than other alloys

in the scope.25 Alloys within the 1000 series have the highest percentage of aluminum, and have

particularly high thermal and electrical conductivity and excellent corrosion resistance and malleability.26

 19 (...continued)

from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the

number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc by weight. 

The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are

fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, such as finished windows

with glass, doors, picture frames, and solar panels. The scope also excludes finished goods

containing aluminum extrusions that are entered unassembled in a “kit.” A kit is understood to

mean a packaged combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary

parts to fully assemble a final finished good. 

The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by other than the extrusion

process, such as aluminum products produced by a method of casting. Cast aluminum products are

properly identified by four digits with a decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A letter

may also precede the four digits. The following Aluminum Association designations are

representative of aluminum alloys for casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, A356.0,

A357.0, 360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also

excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form. 

75 Fed. Reg. at 22114, 22118.

 20 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 5-10.

 21 Although Chinese Respondents express dissatisfaction with what they characterize as the overbreadth of the

domestic like product that Petitioners propose, they do not offer any specific alternative. Chinese Respondents

Postconference Brief at 3-4.

 22 Petition, vol. I at 17.

 23 Tr. at 11 (Jones). The “hard” alloy extrusions excluded from the scope are stronger than “soft” alloy extrusions

and tend to focus on low-temperature or aerospace applications. See Petitioners Postconference Brief at 5-6.

 24 Tr. at 55 (Crowdis).

 25 Petition, vol. I at 17.

 26 Petition, vol. I at 17.

7
Alloys within the 3000 series contain manganese, have greater strength than the other alloys, and also

have good malleability and corrosion resistance.27

Extrusions within the scope, regardless of alloy, can be formed into a variety of sizes or shapes. 

Petitioners estimate that about 15 to 20 percent of extrusions within the scope consist of “standard

shapes.”28 Standard shapes are of fixed dimensions.29 The remaining extrusions are “custom shapes.” 

These are specific and often proprietary to a particular account.30 Domestic extruders have the capability

of extruding aluminum into thousands of different shapes, depending on the design of the die used in the

extrusion process.31 Extrusions can be unfinished (which is called “mill finish”), painted, anodized,

brushed, or polished.32

The principal end-use applications of aluminum extrusions are in the construction, transportation,

electrical, consumer durable, and machinery and equipment sectors.33 There are many distinct individual

end-use applications.34 Examples include bath and shower enclosures, windows, storm doors, fencing,

manifold blocks for automobiles, solar panels, electrical conduit, flooring trim, and fitness equipment.35

Extrusions of different alloy series may be used for the same general categories of applications; thus,

alloys in the 1000, 3000, and 6000 series are all used for electrical applications.36 The record suggests

that standard and custom shapes may both be used for the same category of applications.37 

Interchangeability. Custom shapes, which constitute the majority of domestic extruders’

production of in-scope merchandise, are proprietary to specific users and specific applications, and thus

by definition one type of custom shape is not interchangeable with another. Similarly, the

interchangeability of standard shapes would be limited by size and cross-dimensional shape; for example,

one could not ordinarily use an angle and a tube interchangeably. Petitioners do not dispute that

extrusions of different profiles within the scope are not interchangeable with each other.38

 27 Petition, vol. I at 17.

 28 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 9.

 29 Tr. at 81 (Crowdis). For example, Bonnell Aluminum, a member of the Committee whose president testified at

the conference, sells 13 different types of standard extrusions. These are angles, channels, I-beams, rectangular bar,

rectangular tubes, round rod, round tube, schedule pipe, split tube, square bar, square tubes, tees, and zees. See

http://www.bonlalum.com/Login/SalesEng/SEStandardShapes.jsp (visited and printed April 30, 2010).

 30 Tr. at 81 (Crowdis).

 31 Tr. at 16 (Crowdis).

 32 Tr. at 17 (Crowdis). See also CR at I-12, PR at I-9.

 33 Petitioners Postconference Brief, ex. 1 at 7.

 34 See generally CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 35 Tr. at 27 (Johnson), 32 (Brown), 61 (Henderson), 70 (Brown), 101 (Brown);

http://www.futuraind.com/product-examples (visited and printed April 30, 2010).

 36 Tr. at 87 (Jones), 88 (Brown).

 37 For example, one domestic industry witness at the conference cited a proprietary window frame design as an

example of a custom shape, Tr. at 81 (Crowdis), but window frames and sashes are also among the standard shape

products on which the Commission collected pricing data in its questionnaire. See CR at V-4, PR at V-3. 

Additionally, in some instances standard shapes may be customized to the particular requirements of an individual

customer. See Investigator Trip Notes (May 3, 2010) (EDIS Doc. 425645).

 38 Petition, vol. I at 17.

8
Channels of Distribution. Aluminum extrusions within the scope are sold both directly to end

users and to distributors. Most domestically produced product is sold directly to end users.39 Although

distributors at one point stocked primarily standard shapes, they now distribute both custom and standard

shapes and provide design assistance to end users seeking to purchase custom shapes.40

Manufacturing Facilities, Production Processes, and Production Employees. Aluminum

extrusions are principally produced from aluminum billet. The billet is softened by being heated to the

necessary temperature before extrusion. The heated billet is then pushed or squeezed into a precision

opening, or die, to produce the desired shape.41 Thus, the shape of the die will dictate the shape of the

extrusion.42 After emerging from the die, the extrusion is cooled, stretched, cut, aged, and finished.43 All

extrusions within the scope – including both standard and custom extrusions – are produced using the

same facilities and the same equipment.44 

Producer and Customer Perceptions. Publicly available materials not prepared for these

investigations indicate that U.S. producers of in-scope merchandise commonly reference the product that

they produce as “aluminum extrusions.”45

Price. Pricing of domestically produced aluminum extrusions reflects the price of the primary

aluminum used as raw material plus conversion costs. Products with more complicated finishing tend to

be more expensive than products that are less highly finished.46

Analysis. All in-scope aluminum extrusions are made from similar raw materials with similar

qualities and are produced on the same equipment at the same facilities. The information available in the

preliminary phase of these investigations indicates that industry participants perceive the product category

they produce to be “aluminum extrusions.” There is an overlap among different types of extrusions in

channels of distribution.

It is true that the in-scope extrusions have many different end uses, and that there is a lack of

interchangeability among the thousands of different shapes of extrusions. Nevertheless, the current

record does not indicate any clear dividing line between categories of in-scope products with similar end

uses, and no party has suggested that such a dividing line exists. Rather, the product in these

investigations appears to be one where models of several different alloys and finishes and many different

 39 CR/PR, Table II-1.

 40 Tr. at 81-82 (Crowdis).

 41 CR at I-11, PR at I-9.

 42 Tr. at 16 (Crowdis).

 43 CR at I-10, PR at I-9.

 44 Tr. at 86 (Henderson). Additionally, the record indicates that no domestic producer produces at the same

facility both soft alloy aluminum extrusions and the hard alloy aluminum extrusions that are excluded from the

scope. Petitioners Postconference Brief at 5-6; Tr. at 50 (Crowdis, Henderson, Brown).

 45 There is an international trade organization called the Aluminum Extrudes Council. www.aec.org (visited and

printed May 5, 2010). The Aluminum Association, a national trade association, identifies on its website 12 distinct

types of products, one of which is “extrusions.” 

http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/Extrusions/default.htm (visited and printed April

30, 2010). The websites of each of the four Committee members whose officials testified at the conference identify

the pertinent product these firms produce as “aluminum extrusions.” See

http://www.bonlalum.com/Login/SlsMfg/about-bonnell-aluminum.jsp (visited and printed April 30, 2010);

http://www.futuraind.com/about-futura (visited and printed April 30, 2010);

http://www.sapagroup.com/en/Operations/Profiles/ (visited and printed April 30, 2010);

http://www.hydro.com/en/Subsites/North-America/Products-and-services/Custom-extrusions/ (visited and printed

April 30, 2010).

 46 CR at I-14, PR at I-11.

9
shapes and sizes constitute a continuum without any clear breaking point. In such circumstances, the

Commission has generally declined to subdivide the continuum into multiple like products.47

Accordingly, we find that all aluminum extrusions within the scope constitute a single domestic like

product.

IV. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined 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.”48 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 toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.49 Exclusion

of such producers is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation. 

The record indicates that three domestic producers are subject to possible exclusion under the

related parties provision. Domestic producers *** are each related parties because each firm imported

subject merchandise during the period examined.50 *** are also related parties because each firm’s parent

owns an exporter of subject merchandise in China.51 Petitioners, the only party to brief the issue, assert

 47 See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails from China and the United Arab Emirates, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1114-1115

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3939 at 8 (Aug. 2007); Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from China, Germany,

and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1099-1101 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3832 at 11 (Jan. 2006).

 48 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 49 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 50 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i); CR/PR, Table III-4. *** was the *** largest domestic producer during the

period examined, accounting for *** percent of domestic production from 2007 to 2009. It is a member of the

Committee and supports the petition. CR/PR, Table III-1. *** was *** domestic producer during the period

examined, accounting for *** percent of domestic production from 2007 to 2009. It is a member of the Committee

and supports the petition. Id. *** was the *** largest domestic producer during the period examined, accounting for

*** percent of domestic production from 2007 to 2009. It *** the petition. Id.

 51 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii)(III), CR at III-4, PR at III-4. Domestic producers *** purchased imports from

China, although neither firm imported subject merchandise directly. CR/PR, Table III-4. The Commission

considers a purchaser of subject imports to be a related party only if it controls large volumes of imports. This will

occur when the domestic producer was responsible for a predominant portion of an importer’s purchases and the

importer’s purchases were substantial. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from the Czech Republic, France,

India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Macedonia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-392 and 731-TA-815-822

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3181 at 12 (April 1999); Certain Brake Drums and Rotors from China, Inv. No.

731-TA-744 (Final), USITC Pub. 3035 at 10 n.50 (April 1997).

***. *** Producer’s Questionnaire, response to question II-13. ***. *** Producer’s Questionnaire, response

to question II-13. Each firm’s purchases were relatively modest; ***. See Producers’ Questionnaires, response to

question II-13; CR, Table IV-2. In light of the modest volumes of purchases and each firm’s use of multiple

suppliers, we find that neither firm controlled large volumes of subject imports. Consequently, we find that neither

*** is a related party.

10
that they are unaware of any circumstances that would warrant exclusion of any producer from the

domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision.52

We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude any of the related party producers

from the domestic industry. For all three related party producers, the ratio of subject imports to domestic

production declined during the period examined; *** of the three imported *** subject merchandise

during 2009 even though 2009 was the year when subject import volume and market penetration were

greatest.53 Additionally, the ratios of subject imports to domestic production were very low for the three

companies, never exceeding 10 percent for any producer in one year, and exceeding 5 percent in only one

instance.54 This would indicate that the principal interest of each of the related parties is in domestic

production. Additionally, no domestic producer opposes the petition.55

Further, while related party *** arguably imported subject merchandise to benefit from lower

prices,56 the record does not indicate that its importations shielded it from the effects of the subject

imports. This is because of the small quantities of subject merchandise that it imported and the fact that

its imports fell in 2009 when subject imports surged overall.57 58

Accordingly, we define the domestic industry to include all U.S. producers of those aluminum

extrusions defined in the scope.

V. REASONABLE INDICATION OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT

IMPORTS59

A. Legal Standard

In the preliminary phase of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially

 52 Petitioners Postconference Brief, ex. 1 at 19.

 53 *** imports of subject merchandise declined from *** short tons in 2007 to *** short tons in 2008, and it had

*** short tons of subject imports in 2009. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production was *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** in 2009. CR/PR, Table III-4. Imports of subject merchandise reported by ***

declined from *** short tons in 2007 to *** short tons in 2008, and then declined further to *** short tons in 2009. 

Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and ***

percent in 2009. Id. *** imports of subject merchandise declined from *** short tons in 2007 to *** short tons in

2008, and then declined further to *** short tons in 2009. Its ratio of subject imports to domestic production

declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** in 2009. Id. See also CR/PR, Table IV-2.

 54 CR/PR, Table III-4.

 55 CR/PR, Table III-1.

 56 *** stated that it imported subject merchandise ***. CR at III-10, PR at III-4. By contrast, *** stated that the

imports of subject merchandise it reported were ***, and *** stated that it imported subject merchandise ***. CR at

III-12, PR at III-7.

 57 There is also no indication that *** benefit from their relationships with affiliated subject producers. 

 58 Chairman Aranoff has based her determination not to exclude related parties *** principally on their low ratios

of subject imports to domestic shipments and other evidence that their primary interests lie in domestic production.

 59 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. During the 12-month period

prior to filing of the petition, subject imports from China accounted for 73 percent of total imports of aluminum

extrusions. CR at IV-3 n.3, PR at IV-1 n.3. 

11
injured or threatened with material injury by reason of the imports under investigation.60 In making this

determination, the Commission must consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the

domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in

the context of U.S. production operations.61 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not

inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”62 In assessing whether there is a reasonable indication that

the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.63 No single factor is

dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”64

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether there is a reasonable

indication that the domestic industry is “materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,65 it does

not define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the

Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.66 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that

relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those

imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard

must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.67

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.68 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

 60 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 61 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... {a}nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 62 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 63 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 64 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 65 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a), 1673b(a).

 66 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 67 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 458

F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir.

2001).

 68 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-

(continued...)

12
isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.69 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.70 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.71

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”72 73 Indeed, the

 68 (...continued)

316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-

317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into

account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or

dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized

imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive

practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the

export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

 69 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”). 

 70 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 71 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 72 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... . {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 73 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances

when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports, albeit

without reliance on presumptions or rigid formulas. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive,

nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an

(continued...)

13
Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”74

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive nonsubject

imports.75 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record ‘to show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,’” and requires that the Commission not attribute

injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.76 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.77 78

 73 (...continued)

important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether nonsubject or non-LTFV imports would

have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

 74 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 879

(“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic injury

was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 75 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 76 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 77 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1131-1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

 78 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.

14
The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard. Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.79

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is a reasonable

indication of material injury by reason of subject imports.

1. Demand Conditions

There are many distinct uses for aluminum extrusions, with the largest U.S. end-use sectors being

construction, transportation, electrical, and consumer durable goods.80 The main indicators that domestic

producers monitor for business conditions in the aluminum extrusion industry are employment, housing

starts, and gross domestic product (GDP). The first two of these indicators have declined since 2007, and

GDP was essentially flat in 2008 and declined in 2009.81

Reflecting these declines in economic factors, apparent U.S. consumption of aluminum extrusions

declined during the period examined, which encompasses calendar years 2007 through 2009. The

quantity of apparent U.S. consumption fell from 1.42 million short tons in 2007 to 1.25 million short tons

in 2008, and then declined further to 1.06 million short tons in 2009.82

Because most aluminum extrusions sold in the United States are engineered for particular

applications, except in rare circumstances no other products can be immediately substituted for aluminum

extrusions. Several products can be substituted for aluminum extrusions, however, in the design phase of

the product cycle.83

2. Supply Conditions

There are many U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions. The petition identified 104 potential

U.S. producers in addition to the eleven members of the Committee.84 The Commission received

questionnaire responses from 39 producers, estimated to account for between 80 and 85 percent of U.S.

 79 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357; S.

Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 80 Petitioners Postconference Brief, ex. 1 at 7.

 81 CR at II-6, PR at II-4; CR/PR, Figure II-1.

 82 CR/PR, Table IV-3. At the conference, domestic industry witnesses indicated that demand for some end-use

applications may move independently of national economic trends. For example, demand for extrusions to be used

as frames for solar panels is increasing. Tr. at 106 (Johnson). Respondents similarly argue that demand for

particular end-use applications rose during the period examined. See Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at

9-10. Nevertheless, consistent with our usual practice, we give principal weight to the product-wide consumption

data discussed below. In any event, for each of the six largest sector categories for which the Aluminum Association

collects data, shipments declined from 2007 to 2008 and were lower during the first three quarters of 2009 than the

comparable period in 2008. Petitioners Postconference Brief, ex. 1 at 7.

 83 CR at II-7, PR at II-5.

 84 Petition, exs. I-1, I-2.

15
production of the domestic like product.85 Members of the domestic industry vary greatly in size. The

largest extruder, Committee member Sapa Extrusions, accounted for *** percent of reported U.S.

production during the period examined, has twelve facilities in nine states, and employs approximately

2800 people.86 By contrast, 22 of the responding producers individually accounted for less than 1 percent

of reported domestic production.87

There have been several changes in domestic production facilities during the period examined. 

Nine U.S. producers reported that they closed a total of 16 plants.88 On the other hand, a few firms

expanded or upgraded production facilities.89 In 2009 Sapa expanded its operations by acquiring the

assets of Indalex, a former U.S. producer of aluminum extrusions that filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.90

The domestic industry was the largest supplier of aluminum extrusions to the U.S. market

throughout the period examined. Its share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption fell, however,

from 81.9 percent in 2007 to 71.7 percent in 2009.91

At the conclusion of the period examined, China was the second largest supplier of aluminum

extrusions to the U.S. market after the domestic industry. Chinese producers’ share of the quantity of

apparent U.S. consumption increased from 8.0 percent in 2007 to 20.1 percent in 2009.92 As previously

discussed, the information available about the Chinese industry is incomplete, because the majority of the

industry, including the largest producer, did not respond to the Commission’s foreign producer’s

questionnaire.

The percentage of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption supplied by nonsubject sources

declined from 10.2 percent in 2007 to 8.3 percent in 2009.93 The majority of nonsubject imports

throughout the period examined were from Canada.94

3. Other Conditions

Raw materials costs accounted for over 60 percent of domestic producers’ total cost of goods sold

in 2009, and primary aluminum is the main raw material used to create aluminum extrusions.95 Primary

aluminum is globally traded in markets such as the London Metal Exchange (LME).96 LME aluminum

prices fluctuated substantially over the period examined, increasing by 24 percent between January 2007

and June 2008, decreasing by 64 percent between June 2008 and February 2009, and then increasing by

126 percent between February 2009 and April 2010; the April 2010 price was marginally above the

January 2007 price.97 

 85 CR at III-1, PR at III-1.

 86 CR/PR, Table III-1; Tr. at 21 (Henderson).

 87 CR/PR, Table III-1.

 88 CR at III-6, PR at III-5.

 89 CR at III-6-7, PR at III-5.

 90 CR at III-6-7, PR at III-5.

 91 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 92 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 93 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 94 CR/PR, Table IV-2.

 95 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 96 CR at V-1, PR at V-1.

 97 CR/PR at V-1, Figure V-1.

16
Domestic extruders have little ability to negotiate or change their primary aluminum costs.98

Thus, their price negotiations with purchasers tend to focus on the extrusion or “conversion” costs.99

Producers and importers agree that aluminum extrusions, regardless of source, are highly

interchangeable. U.S. producers and importers compared aluminum extrusions from the United States,

China, Canada, and other nonsubject sources. For each comparison, substantial majorities of both

producers and importers indicated that products from different sources were always or frequently

interchangeable.100 In addition, most producers and importers perceive that price differences play a

significant role in purchase and sales decisions.101 In light of this and the perceptions of high

interchangeability between products, we find for purposes of these preliminary phase investigations that

price plays an important role in purchasing decisions.102

 

C. Volume of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”103

Notwithstanding a decline from 2007 to 2008, subject imports increased sharply in both absolute

and relative terms during the period examined. The quantity of subject imports from China declined from

113,150 short tons in 2007 to 90,085 short tons in 2008, then more than doubled to 212,717 short tons in

2009.104

 98 Tr. at 31 (Brown), Petitioners Postconference Brief at 21.

 99 Petitioners Postconference Brief at 21-22.

 100 CR/PR, Table II-2.

 101 In their questionnaire responses, 26 of 31 responding U.S. producers and 13 of 24 responding importers

reported that differences other than price were “never” or only “sometimes” a significant factor in sales of the

domestic like product as compared to the subject imports. CR/PR, Table II-3. This would indicate that most

producers and importers perceive price differences to be significant in making sales.

 102 Respondents assert that factors other than price, such as product range, quality, and availability, are important

to purchasing decisions, and that non-price differences exist between the domestic like product and the subject

imports. See Chinese Respondents Postconference Brief at 10-11; HPS Postconference Brief at 5-6; Tr. at 174-76

(Boland). In any final phase investigations, we will issue purchasers’ questionnaires which will seek further

information both as to whether there are significant non-price differences between products from different sources

and whether any such differences play an important role in purchasing decisions. To facilitate data collection and

analysis, parties and other market participants should identify specifically the type of products they are referencing

when they assert that there are differences between the subject imports and the domestic like product in terms of

product range, availability, or quality. Similarly, they should fully describe any circumstances in which they could

not obtain products they needed from the domestic industry.

 103 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 104 CR/PR, Table IV-2. Because importers’ questionnaire coverage was not complete, import data are based on

U.S. Customs data for the primary HTS numbers for aluminum extrusions. Of the data reported in the questionnaire

responses, 92.3 percent of reported quantities entered under these primary HTS numbers. CR/PR at IV-1 & n.1. 

Chinese Respondents argue that the Commission should recognize what they characterize as limitations in the

official import data, U.S. importer’s questionnaire data, and U.S. producer’s questionnaire data. Chinese

Respondents Postconference Brief at 5-8. The Commission's determinations in this preliminary phase of the

investigations are based on what we determine to be the most accurate and comprehensive facts available. Chinese

Respondents may propose in their comments on the draft final phase questionnaires alternative ways in which they

believe the Commission can collect data from U.S. producers and importers that would result in more complete

(continued...)

17
Because the 2009 surge in subject import volumes occurred during a time of declining apparent

U.S. consumption, the increase in subject import market penetration was even more dramatic. The

subject imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption, measured by quantity, declined from 8.0 percent in

2007 to 7.2 percent in 2008, and then soared to 20.1 percent in 2009.105

The bulk of the subject imports’ increase in market penetration from 2007 to 2009 came at the

expense of the domestic industry. During this period, the subject imports’ market penetration increased

by 12.1 percentage points and that of the domestic industry declined by 10.2 percentage points.106

For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we conclude that the subject import

volume and the increase in that volume are significant both in absolute terms and relative to consumption

in the United States.

D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.107

In these preliminary phase investigations, the Commission collected quarterly pricing data on five

products. For 2009, the pricing data accounted for approximately 9.3 percent of U.S. producers’

shipments of aluminum extrusions, 5.8 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports, and 3.7 percent of

U.S. shipments of nonsubject imports from Canada.108

The subject imports were priced lower than the domestic like product in 51 out of 54 quarterly

pricing comparisons.109 Underselling margins for the subject imports were particularly high in 2009, the

year when subject import volume and market penetration showed the greatest increases. Of the 19

quarterly pricing comparisons between the domestic like product and subject imports during 2009, 18

involved underselling by the subject imports, 16 involved underselling margins of at least 10 percent, and

11 involved underselling margins of at least 20 percent.110 Because price is an important consideration in

purchasing decisions, we find this pervasive underselling at frequently high margins to be significant.

 104 (...continued)

coverage of the domestic industry and the subject imports.

 105 CR/PR, Table IV-3. 

 106 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 107 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 108 CR at V-4-5, PR at V-4. The nature of the product under investigation imposes substantial limitations on

potential pricing coverage. As discussed in section III.C. above, aluminum extrusions can be made in thousands of

shapes, and the great majority of the domestic industry’s shipments consists of custom shapes that are often specific

to a particular account and application. We invite parties commenting on the draft final phase questionnaires to

suggest specific pricing products that would increase coverage while still permitting comparisons of similar

domestically produced and imported products.

 109 CR/PR, Table V-7.

 110 CR/PR, Tables V-1-5. By contrast, of the 35 quarterly comparisons between the subject imports and the

domestic like product during 2007 and 2008, seven involved underselling margins of over 20 percent. Id.

18
Additionally, there were 11 confirmed lost sales allegations.111 Some of the purchasers who

confirmed lost sales allegations specifically cited the lower prices of the Chinese product.112 This

provides further evidence of the significance of the low prices of the subject imports. The pervasive

underselling and evidence of lost sales lead us to conclude that subject imports gained market share

during the period examined at the expense of the domestic industry through aggressive pricing.

Prices for each of the domestically produced products on which the Commission collected data

fluctuated during the period examined, and the timing and magnitude of the fluctuations varied from

product to product. Nevertheless, for all five products, the final price observation during the fourth

quarter of 2009 was lower than the initial price observation during the first quarter of 2007.113 As

discussed in section V.B.3., raw material costs account for the majority of the domestic industry’s cost of

goods sold, and primary aluminum is the principal raw material used in producing aluminum extrusions. 

Thus, primary aluminum costs influence the price of aluminum extrusions. Nevertheless, price trends for

aluminum extrusions at the conclusion of the period examined did not simply mirror primary aluminum

price trends. Between the fourth quarter of 2008 and the fourth quarter of 2009 (which is the final quarter

for which pricing data were collected), the average quarterly LME price for primary aluminum increased

by 36 percent.114 During the same period, prices for four out of the five domestically produced pricing

products declined.115 For purposes of the preliminary phase of these investigations, we find that these

price declines, occurring while the volume of subject imports that are highly interchangeable with the

domestic like product increased sharply, provide some evidence of price depression.116 117

E. Impact of the Subject Imports118

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”119 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment,

 111 CR/PR, Table V-8.

 112 See CR at V-27, V-31, PR at V-12, V-14.

 113 CR/PR, Tables V-1-5. 

 114 See LME Pricing Data (EDIS Doc. 425668).

 115 CR/PR, Tables V-1-2, V-4-5. The price increase for the only product that experienced an increase during this

period was ***. CR/PR, Table V-3.

 116 Commissioner Pinkert does not find evidence of price depression on the record of these investigations.

 117 During any final phase investigations, we intend to explore further the relationship between primary aluminum

prices and prices for aluminum extrusions. Specifically, we will examine the mechanisms extruders may use to

adjust the prices they charge to their purchasers to reflect changes in their primary aluminum costs, and how quickly

these mechanisms operate. Additionally, as previously stated, extruders’ price negotiations with purchasers focus on

“conversion” costs (in other words, the price component independent of raw material costs). We intend to explore

further in any final phase investigations trends for the component of extruders’ prices reflecting such “conversion”

costs.

 118 In its notice initiating an antidumping investigation on aluminum extrusions from China, Commerce reported

estimated dumping margins ranging from 32.57 percent to 33.32 percent. 75 Fed. Reg. at 22112.

 119 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, 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 also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”)

19
ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor

is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”120

Most domestic industry performance indicators declined during the period examined, with

declines being particularly severe when subject import volume surged in 2009. Domestic producers’

capacity declined from 1.73 million short tons in 2007 to 1.67 short tons in 2008 and 1.58 million short

tons in 2009.121 As previously stated, numerous producers have closed production facilities since 2007,

and 22 of the 39 reporting producers experienced prolonged shutdowns or production curtailments.122

Production declined during the period examined, with the sharpest production drops occurring in

2009. Domestic producers’ production fell from 1.18 million short tons in 2007 to 1.06 million short tons

in 2008, and then declined further to 785,626 short tons in 2009. Notwithstanding the declines in

capacity, capacity utilization fell from 68.3 percent in 2007 to 63.5 percent in 2008 and 49.6 percent in

2009.123

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments followed trends similar to production, falling from 1.16

million short tons in 2007 to 1.03 million short tons in 2008 and 758,746 short tons in 2009.124 The 34.8

percent decline in the quantity of U.S. shipments from 2007 to 2009 was greater than the 25.6 percent

decline in apparent U.S. consumption during the same period.125 Consequently, the domestic producers’

share of apparent U.S. consumption also fell, declining from 81.9 percent in 2007 to 71.7 percent in

2009.126

The number of production and related workers declined from 12,407 in 2007 to 10,611 in 2008

and 7,929 in 2009.127 Hours worked also fell from 23,486 in 2007 to 21,915 in 2008 and 16,103 in

2009.128 Hourly wages, by contrast, increased each year while productivity was stable throughout the

period examined.129

The industry’s declines in output and market share over the period examined corresponded with

declines in sales revenues on both an absolute and unit basis.130 The declines in unit sales revenues from

2007 to 2009 largely tracked declines in unit raw materials costs, which in turn reflected trends in primary

 120 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 121 CR/PR, Table III-2.

 122 CR at III-6, PR at III-5.

 123 CR/PR, Table III-2.

 124 CR/PR, Table III-3. The overwhelming proportion of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments were commercial

shipments. The domestic industry’s exports increased from 2007 to 2009, but exports constituted no more than 3.7

percent of total shipments at any point during the period examined. Id.

End-of-period inventories fell from 47,331 short tons in 2007 to 45,602 short tons in 2008 and 37,194 short

tons in 2009. Inventories increased as a ratio to production from 4.0 percent in 2007 to 4.3 percent in 2008 and 4.7

percent in 2009. CR/PR, Table III-5.

 125 CR/PR, Table C-1.

 126 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 127 CR/PR, Table III-6.

 128 CR/PR, Table III-6.

 129 CR/PR, Table III-6.

 130 CR/PR, Tables VI-1, VI-2.

20
aluminum costs.131 Nevertheless, because output declined, producers were forced to spread fixed and

administrative costs over a smaller quantity of production. This contributed to increases in per unit other

factory costs, and led to increases in per unit selling, general, and administrative cost (which rose

noticeably in 2009).132 Increases in these costs led to lower operating margins, although we observe that

the decrease in operating margin from 2008 to 2009 was modest. The industry’s operating ratio declined

from positive 2.3 percent in 2007 to negative 1.2 percent in 2008 and negative 2.1 percent in 2009. By

2009, 18 of the 34 reporting producers sustained operating losses.133

We conclude that the increasing volumes of low-priced subject imports that undersold the

domestic like product took sales volumes and revenues away from the domestic industry. The domestic

industry’s declines in production, domestic shipments, and sales revenues were far sharper in 2009, the

year when subject import volume and market penetration increased most dramatically, than in 2008, a

year in which subject import volume and market penetration actually declined.134 These output and

revenue declines have, in turn, contributed to the domestic industry’s closing of production facilities as

well as its observed declines in employment and operating performance. 

We have considered whether there are other factors that may have had an adverse impact on the

domestic industry during the period examined. We recognize that the significant decline in apparent U.S.

consumption over the period examined had a role in the domestic industry’s deteriorating performance. 

Nevertheless, as previously noted, the decline in the domestic industry’s shipments from 2007 to 2009

was greater than the decline in apparent U.S. consumption. Indeed, although apparent U.S. consumption

declined in 2008 and 2009 by roughly comparable amounts, the declines in domestic producers’

production, U.S. shipments, and employment were far greater in 2009, when subject import volume and

market penetration increased sharply and the subject imports pervasively undersold the domestic like

product at often very high margins, than in 2008.135 By the same token, the domestic industry’s loss of

market share to the subject imports, whose volume increased in 2009 notwithstanding demand trends, is

not a function of reduced demand. Consequently, notwithstanding demand declines, the subject imports

were an independent cause of the domestic industry’s declines in performance.

 131 CR/PR, Table VI-2, Figure V-1.

 132 CR/PR, Table VI-2. The increase in per unit other factory costs also reflects increases in energy costs and

some company-specific non-recurring charges. See CR at VI-6-7, PR at VI-4.

 133 CR/PR, Table VI-1. We have also examined the industry’s capital and research and development expenses. 

Capital expenditures increased from $96.3 million in 2007 to $145.8 million in 2008 and then declined to $62.1

million in 2009. Research and development expenses declined from $15.5 million in 2007 to $12.0 million in 2008,

and then declined further to $11.0 million in 2009. CR/PR, Table VI-3.

 134 See CR/PR, Tables III-2, III-3, IV-3, VI-1.

 135 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this sentence.

21
We have also examined the impact of nonsubject imports.136 Unlike the subject imports,

nonsubject imports declined in both absolute and relative terms. The quantity of nonsubject imports

declined from 144,990 short tons in 2007 to 127,221 short tons in 2008 and 87,367 short tons in 2009.137

Nonsubject imports’ share of the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption, which remained stable at 10.2

percent in 2007 and 2008, declined to 8.3 percent in 2009.138 The information available in the record

further indicates that imports from Canada, the largest nonsubject source, sold at higher prices than the

domestic like product in the majority of comparisons. This is in contrast to the subject imports, which

undersold the domestic product in the majority of comparisons.139 Thus, any material injury we have

found to be by reason of subject imports cannot be attributed to nonsubject imports. 

Consequently, we conclude for purposes of these preliminary phase investigations that there is a

causal nexus between the subject imports and the observed declines in domestic industry performance. In

light of this, we determine that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is materially

injured by reason of the subject imports. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the preliminary phase of these

investigations, we find that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of allegedly dumped and subsidized aluminum extrusions from China. 

 136 Based on the record evidence in the preliminary phase of these investigations, Commissioner Pinkert finds

that price competitive, nonsubject imports were a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period under

examination. Regardless of whether aluminum extrusions constitute a commodity product for purposes of this

analysis, however, he finds that, had the subject imports exited the market during the period, nonsubject imports

would not have replaced them without benefit to the domestic industry. There is no information in the record of this

preliminary phase to indicate that nonsubject imports could have increased to match the highest level of the subject

imports during the period. CR/PR at Table IV-3. Moreover, as noted in the text above, Canada was the largest

source of nonsubject imports, and imports from Canada sold at higher prices than imports from China (and even at

higher prices than the domestic like product in the majority of comparisons). Thus, even if nonsubject imports had

replaced the subject imports, the record indicates that antidumping relief would likely have benefited the domestic

industry through higher prices.

 137 CR/PR, Table IV-2.

 138 CR/PR, Table IV-3.

 139 CR/PR, Tables V-1, V-2, V-4, V-5.

22
I-1 

PART I: INTRODUCTION 

BACKGROUND 

These investigations result from a petition filed on March 31, 2010, by the Aluminum Extrusions 

Fair Trade Committee (“Committee”)1

 and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (“USW”) (collectively “petitioners”) 

alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by 

reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain soft-alloy aluminum extrusions (“aluminum 

extrusions”) from China and by reason of imports of subsidized aluminum extrusions from China. The 

following tabulation provides information relating to the background of these investigations:2

Effective date Action 

March 31, 2010 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; 

institution of Commission investigations (75 FR 17436, 

April 6, 2010). 

April 21, 2010 Commission’s conference.1

April 27, 2010 Commerce’s notice of initiation of antidumping duty 

investigation (75 FR 22109). 

April 28, 2010 Commerce’s notice of initiation of countervailing duty 

investigation (75 FR 22114, April 27, 2010). 

May 14, 2010 Commission’s vote. 

May 17, 2010 Commission’s determinations transmitted to Commerce. 

May 24, 2010 Commission’s views transmitted to Commerce. 1

 A list of witnesses appearing at the conference is presented in app. B of this report. 

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

Statutory Criteria 

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in 

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission— 

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) 

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States 

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such 

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only 

in the context of production operations within the United States; and. . . 

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the 

 1

 The Committee is comprised of the following members: Aerolite Extrusion Company, Youngstown, OH; 

Alexandria Extrusion Company, Alexandria, MN; Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., Medley, FL; William L. 

Bonnell Company, Inc., Newnan, GA; Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Corona, CA; Futura Industries Corporation, 

Clearfield, UT; Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., Linthicum, MD; Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Foothill 

Ranch, CA; Profile Extrusion Company, Rome, GA; Sapa Extrusions, Inc., Des Plaines, IL; and Western Extrusions 

Corporation, Carrollton, TX. 2 Federal Register notices cited in this tabulation are presented in app. A of this report. 
I-2 

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of 

imports. 

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that-- 

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission 

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any 

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production 

or consumption in the United States is significant. 

. . . 

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the 

Commission shall consider whether. . .(I) there has been significant price 

underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of 

domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of imports 

of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree 

or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a 

significant degree. 

. . . 

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph 

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the 

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the 

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on 

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to 

. . . (I) actual and potential decline in output, sales, market share, profits, 

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II) 

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative 

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to 

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects 

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic 

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced 

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping 

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping. 

Organization of Report 

Information on the subject merchandise, alleged margins of dumping and subsidies, and domestic 

like product is presented in Part I. Information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic 

factors is presented in Part II. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, 

including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. The volume and pricing 

of imports of the subject merchandise are presented in Part IV and Part V, respectively. Part VI presents 

information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. The statutory requirements and information 

obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury are 

presented in Part VII. 

MARKET SUMMARY 

Aluminum extrusions are used as inputs into the manufacture and construction of a wide variety 

of other products within the following broad downstream industries: building and construction; 

automotive and transportation; engineering products; and electric and alternative energy. Trade in the 
I-3 

U.S. market for aluminum extrusions totaled $3.6 billion in 2009, of which 74.6 percent was sales of 

U.S.-produced extrusions. Imports from subject sources accounted for 15.4 percent of the U.S. market by 

value in 2009, while imports from nonsubject sources accounted for 10.0 percent of the U.S. market by 

value. During its preliminary phase investigations, the Commission received questionnaire responses 

from 39 U.S. producers, 27 U.S. importers, and 12 Chinese producers or exporters of aluminum 

extrusions. 

SUMMARY DATA 

Table C-1 in appendix C presents a summary of data collected in these investigations. U.S. 

industry data are based on questionnaire responses from U.S. producers (see Part III of this report). U.S. 

import data are based on U.S. Census data and on questionnaire responses from U.S. importers (see Part 

IV of this report). Information on the industries that produce aluminum extrusions in China is based on 

questionnaire responses from foreign producers and exporters and publicly available data (see Part VII of 

this report). Data from other sources are referenced and footnoted where appropriate. 

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 

There have been no known prior import injury investigations in the United States on the 

merchandise subject to these investigations. 

NATURE AND EXTENT OF ALLEGED SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV 

Alleged Subsidies 

On April 28, 2010, Commerce initiated its countervailing duty investigation concerning 

aluminum extrusions from China.3

 Commerce indicated it would be investigating two preferential loan 

and interest rate programs, 13 income tax programs, four other tax programs, eight grant programs, three 

allegations of government provisions of goods and services for less than adequate remuneration, and one 

allegation of government purchases of goods for more than adequate remuneration. See Part VII of this 

report for a discussion of the subsidies found by the governments of Canada and Australia in their 

respective countervailing duty investigations on the subject merchandise. 

Alleged Sales at LTFV 

On April 27, 2010, Commerce initiated its antidumping investigation concerning aluminum 

extrusions from China.4

 The estimated dumping margins for Chinese firms selling aluminum extrusions 

in the U.S. market range from 32.57 to 33.32 percent. See Part VII of this report for a discussion of the 

dumping found by the governments of Canada and Australia in their respective antidumping 

investigations on the subject merchandise. 

 3

 Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 73 

FR 22114, April 27, 2010. 4 Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 

FR 22109, July 27, 2010. 
I-4 

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE 

Commerce’s Scope5

The merchandise covered by these investigations is aluminum extrusions which 

are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum 

alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations 

published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 

6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents). Specifically, 

the subject merchandise made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation commencing with the number 1 contains not less 

than 99 percent aluminum by weight. The subject merchandise made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing 

with the number 3 contains manganese as the major alloying element, with 

manganese accounting for not more than 3.0 percent of total materials by weight. 

The subject merchandise made from an aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation commencing with the number 6 contains 

magnesium and silicon as the major alloying elements, with magnesium 

accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more than 2.0 percent of total 

materials by weight, and silicon accounting for at least 0.1 percent but not more 

than 3.0 percent of total materials by weight. The subject aluminum extrusions 

are properly identified by a four–digit alloy series without either a decimal point 

or leading letter. Illustrative examples from among the approximately 160 

registered alloys that may characterize the subject merchandise are as follows: 

1350, 3003, and 6060. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of shapes and 

forms, including, but not limited to, hollow profiles, other solid profiles, pipes, 

tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum extrusions that are drawn subsequent to 

extrusion (‘‘drawn aluminum’’) are also included in the scope. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported with a variety of finishes (both 

coatings and surface treatments), and types of fabrication. The types of coatings 

and treatments applied to subject aluminum extrusions include, but are not 

limited to, extrusions that are mill finished (i.e., without any coating or further 

finishing), brushed, buffed, polished, anodized (including bright–dip anodized), 

liquid painted, or powder coated. Aluminum extrusions may also be fabricated, 

i.e., prepared for assembly. Such operations would include, but are not limited 

to, extrusions that are cut–to-length, machined, drilled, punched, notched, bent, 

stretched, knurled, swedged, mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. The subject 

merchandise includes aluminum extrusions that are finished (coated, painted, 

etc.), fabricated, or any combination thereof. 

Subject aluminum extrusions may be described at the time of importation as parts 

for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but 

not limited to, window frames, door frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or 

furniture. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of aluminum extrusions 

are included in the scope. The scope includes aluminum extrusions that are 

 5

 Ibid. 
I-5 

attached (e.g., by welding or fasteners) to form subassemblies, i.e., partially 

assembled merchandise. 

Subject extrusions may be identified with reference to their end use, such as heat 

sinks, door thresholds, or carpet trim. Such goods are subject merchandise if 

they otherwise meet the scope definition, regardless of whether they are finished 

products and ready for use at the time of importation. The following aluminum 

extrusion products are excluded: aluminum extrusions made from aluminum 

alloy with an Aluminum Association series designations commencing with the 

number 2 and containing in excess of 1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy with an Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the number 5 and containing in excess of 1.0 

percent magnesium by weight; and aluminum extrusions made from aluminum 

alloy with an Aluminum Association series designation commencing with the 

number 7 and containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc by weight. 

The scope also excludes finished merchandise containing aluminum extrusions as 

parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of 

entry, such as finished windows with glass, doors, picture frames, and solar 

panels. The scope also excludes finished goods containing aluminum extrusions 

that are entered unassembled in a ‘‘kit.’’ A kit is understood to mean a packaged 

combination of parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the 

necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good. 

The scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by other than 

the extrusion process, such as aluminum products produced by a method of 

casting. Cast aluminum products are properly identified by four digits with a 

decimal point between the third and fourth digit. A letter may also precede the 

four digits. The following Aluminum Association designations are representative 

of aluminum alloys for casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, C355.0, 356.0, 

A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 514.0, 518.1, and 

712.0. The scope also excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in any form. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following 

categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’): 

7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 7604.29.5030, 

7604.29.5060, 7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The subject merchandise 

entered as parts of other aluminum products may be classifiable under the 

following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 

7615.20, and 7616.99 as well as under other HTS chapters. While HTS 

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 

description of the scope in this proceeding is dispositive. Tariff Treatment. 

Tariff Treatment 

Commerce’s scope highlights the relevant HTS numbers for these investigations. Most subject 

merchandise is imported under subheadings 7604.21, 7604.29, and 7608.20 of the HTS. In response to 

Commission questionnaires, U.S. importers indicated that over 90 percent of their imports of subject 

merchandise fell under these “primary HTS” subheadings ( i.e., 7604.21, 7604.29, and 7608.20), while 

approximately 6 percent of their imports of subject merchandise fell under the “secondary HTS” 
I-6 

subheadings that were listed in Commerce’s scope (i.e., 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 

7616.99), and the remaining 4 percent of imports came in under “other HTS” subheadings not explicitly 

identified in Commerce’s scope. Most U.S. importers indicated that only subject merchandise is imported 

under the primary HTS numbers, therefore based on information gathered in the preliminary phase of 

these investigations it appears that official Commerce import statistics for the primary HTS numbers 

largely represent the merchandise subject to these investigations. Further, according to U.S. importers, 

the secondary and other HTS numbers represent basket categories that include large amounts of 

nonsubject merchandise, but nonetheless do contain some amount of imports of products that match 

Commerce’s scope. Table I-1 presents information on the applicable tariff rates for the primary HTS 

numbers for aluminum extrusions. 

Table I-1 

Aluminum extrusions: Applicable tariffs, 2010 

 Article description1

General2

 Special 

Column 

23

Rates (percent ad valorem) 

7604 

7604.21.0000 

7604.29.1000 

7604.29.3010 

7604.29.3050 

7604.29.5030 

7604.29.5060 

7608 

7608.20.0030 

7608.20.0090 

Aluminum bars, rods and profiles: 

... 

Of aluminum alloys: 

Hollow profiles 

Other: 

Other profiles 

Bars and rods: 

Having a round cross section: 

With an outside diameter of less 

than 10 mm 

With an outside diameter of 10 

mm or more 

Other 

With a maximum cross-sectional 

dimension of less than 10 mm 

With a maximum cross-sectional 

dimension of 10 mm or more 

... 

Aluminum tubes and pipes: 

... 

Of aluminum alloys: 

Seamless 

Other 

1.5% 

5% 

2.6% 

2.6% 

3% 

3% 

5.7% 

5.7% 

Free4

Free4

Free4

Free4

Free4

Free4

Free4

Free4

15.5% 

45% 

11% 

11% 

13.5% 

13.5% 

45% 

45% 1

 An abridged description is provided for convenience. However, an unabridged description is available from the 

respective headings, subheadings, and legal notes of the 2010 U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule available online at 

http://hts.usitc.gov . 2

 Normal trade relations rate applicable to imports from China. 

3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal or preferential trade relations duty 

status. 4

 Zero tariffs are applied to the eligible imports of these products from most but not all free trade agreement 

partner countries of the United States. See http://hts.usitc.gov for the list of countries for each tariff line for which duty 

free treatment applies. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010). 
I-7 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT 

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic products 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, where appropriate, (6) price. Petitioners argue 

that the Commission should find a single like product co-extensive with Commerce’s scope.6

 One 

respondent counsel raises generic concerns over the basket nature of defining the domestic like product as 

all aluminum extrusions, but does not argue for any specific break-out for the purposes of the 

Commission’s preliminary determinations.7

 

Physical Characteristics and Uses 

The subject aluminum extrusions are shapes and forms, produced via an extrusion process, of 

aluminum alloys having metallic elements falling within the alloy series designations published by the 

Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other 

certifying body equivalents). Aluminum extrusions are produced and imported in a wide variety of 

shapes and forms, including, but not limited to hollow profiles, other solid profiles, pipes, tubes, bars, and 

rods. Aluminum extrusions that are subsequently drawn are also included in the scope. The scope 

excludes final finished goods containing aluminum extrusions that are imported in finished form, that is, 

fully and permanently assembled, such as finished window frames, door frames, picture frames, and solar 

panels. The scope also excludes unassembled final finished goods containing aluminum extrusions. The 

scope also excludes aluminum alloy sheet or plates produced by other than the extrusion process; 

aluminum products produced by the casting method; pure, unwrought aluminum in any form; and 

aluminum extrusions falling within alloy series designations of the Aluminum Association commencing 

with the numbers 2, 5, and 7.8

 Figure I-1 presents images of some of the aluminum extrusions subject to 

these investigations. 

Extrusion is also among the most widely used of the aluminum forming processes. Aluminum is 

one of the easiest materials to process through extrusion due to the relatively low temperatures (600-700 

degrees Celsius) at which aluminum can be extruded. Aluminum extrusions are produced from aluminum 

alloy billets which are heated and forced under pressure applied by a hydraulic extrusion press through a 

metal die. The pressure capacity of the extrusion press determines the size of the extrusion it can produce 

and the die is created to match precisely the profile of the shape to be produced. Common extrusion 

shapes include bar, rod, pipe, and tube as well as hollow profiles and solid profiles such as angles, tees, Ibeams, H-beams, channels, tracks, rails, mullions, stiles, gutters, and other shapes. 

After the extrusion process, the aluminum extrusion can be sold as “mill finished,” without any 

further surface treatment or it can be further fabricated, that is, cut-to-length, machined, drilled, punched, 

notched, bent, stretched, and assembled into a finished product by welding or fastening. Surface finishes 

for extrusions include mechanical finishes such as brushing, buffing, polishing, sanding, anodizing,9

 and 

other chemical and paint finishes. 

 6

 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 3. 

7

 Zhaoquing Asia’s postconference brief, p. 3. 

8

 Also known as “hard alloys,” these extrusions possess high strength over a wide range of temperatures and are 

used in aerospace , aircraft, and competitive sporting equipment applications. 

9

 Anodizing is an electrochemical process that enhances aluminum’s natural oxide surface layer by forming an 

even more durable oxide film that can accept a variety of largely translucent colors. “Bright dipping” is a 

specialized anodizing process that yields a bright, mirror-like finish. 
I-8 

Figure I-1 

Aluminum extrusions: Images 

Source: Various sites on the internet, through a Google image search for "aluminum extrusions". 

Aluminum extrusions are used in a wide variety of applications. Major end-use applications for 

aluminum extrusions as defined by the Aluminum Extruders Council10 include: 

 Building and Construction.--Windows, doors, railings, high-rise curtainwall, highway and 

bridge construction, framing members, other various structures; 

 Transportation.--Automotive (cars, buses, trucks, trailer/van/container vehicles), heavy rail, 

light rail and other mass transit vehicles, recreational vehicles, aircraft, aerospace, marine; 

and 

 Engineered Products.--Consumer and commercial products - air conditioners, appliances, 

furniture, lighting, sports equipment, personal watercraft; electrical power units, heat sinks, 

coaxial cables, bus bars; machinery and equipment, food displays, refrigeration; medical 

equipment, display structures, laboratory equipment and apparatus. 

While there are a variety of soft alloy extrusions11 with differences in physical characteristics 

(e.g., differing metal strength based on length of baking process used, differing appearance based on the 

customer’s preferred finish, different extrusion shapes as required by the specific purchaser, or specific 

fabrication provided for end users) and distinct end uses based on sector and specific end user 

requirements (e.g., product used for automotive applications may be more “engineered” than commodity 

type extrusions used as building and construction materials), all subject extrusions share general physical 

characteristics and tolerances along a continuum and are all used as inputs (i.e., an intermediate product) 

 10 http://www.aec.org/ 11 Petitioners' postconference brief, p. 3. 
I-9 

in the production of downstream products. The petitioner argues that within the universe of aluminum 

extrusions, there are no clear dividing lines among types of extrusions and that the Commission should 

consider all soft-alloy aluminum extrusions as the domestic like product (co-extensive with the scope) 

within which there is a continuum of physical characteristics and end uses.12 

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees 

Aluminum extrusions are principally produced from aluminum billet. The billet is softened by 

being heated to the necessary temperature before extrusion. Under the direct extrusion process, the 

heated billet is then placed into a hydraulic extrusion press where a ram pushes a dummy block to force 

the softened metal through a precision opening, or die, to produce the desired shape. As pressure is 

applied against the die, the billet becomes shorter and wider until its expansion is restricted by full contact 

with the container walls. As the pressure increases, the softened metal begins to squeeze out through the 

shaped orifice of the die and emerges as a fully formed profile. Under indirect extrusion, the die is 

contained within the hollow ram, which moves into the stationary billet forcing the metal to flow into the 

ram, acquiring the shape of the die as it proceeds. In either process the aluminum exiting the die acquires 

the same cross-sectional shape as the die. After emerging from the die, the extrusion is cooled, either 

naturally or through air or water quenching. The following steps are usually performed after cooling: 

 Stretching.--After the extruded part has been cooled, a stretcher and/or straightener may be 

used to straighten the extrusion and correct any twisting that may have occurred during and 

after the extrusion process 

 Cutting.--The profile is typically cut in order to reduce it to the specified commercial length. 

 Aging.--Certain extrusion alloys reach optimal strength through the process of aging, or, agehardening. The aging process ensures the uniform precipitation of fine particles through the 

metal, producing an alloy with maximum strength, hardness, and elasticity. Natural aging 

occurs at room temperature and artificial aging occurs through controlled heating in an aging 

oven. Non-heat-treatable aluminum alloys, including 3000 series alloys utilizing manganese, 

are subject to natural aging. Artificial aging, also known as precipitation heat-treating, occurs 

through controlled heating in an aging oven. 

In the case of aluminum drawn tubing, also included within the scope of these investigations, an 

extruded hollow shape, after cooling, is subsequently drawn over a mandrel to create a hollow profile and 

this hollow profile may then be subject or natural aging or artificial age-hardening to improve strength 

characteristics. After aging, the extruded profiles are typically subject to finishing or fabricating 

processes. After an extrusion is aged, this is considered mill-finished product. Mill-finished can be sold 

as is or further finished (i.e., painted or anodized) or further fabricated (i.e., drilled, cut-to-length, 

crimped, welded, etc.). The subject aluminum extrusions may undergo the following finishing and 

fabricating processes. 

 Mechanical finishes.-- These processes include buffing and burnishing to achieve a smooth 

finish and blasting or scoring to achieve a rough finish. Mechanical finishes are 

accomplished using specific types of equipment. Other mechanical finishes include sanding, 

polishing, and tumbling. 

 Anodizing.–This process involves the use of electrolysis to encourage oxygen ions to 

combine with aluminum to form a hard aluminum oxide film or seal, thus enhancing the 

 12 Ibid. 
I-10 

durability and beauty of the profile. Pretreatment steps to the anodizing process may include 

alkaline cleaning to remove organic contaminants and acid cleaning to remove inorganic 

contaminants. The extrusion profile is immersed in a tank containing an acid-based 

electrolyte solution. Electric current is passed through the solution while the temperature is 

carefully controlled. The electric current causes oxygen ions to be released from the 

electrolyte solution and to be drawn to the surface of the aluminum profile, which serves as 

an anode. 

 Bright Dipping.–This is a type of anodizing process. The aluminum extrusion is first 

polished to remove fine scratches and then submerged typically in a phosphoric acid and 

nitric acid bath and heated to an elevated temperature. It is then anodized to protect the 

surface finish and to apply color to the profile. 

 Etching.–Under chemical etching the aluminum profile is passed through a caustic solution 

bath, rinsed, and then immersed in another bath to dissolve unwanted alloy surface 

impurities. 

 Painting.–Both specialty liquid paints and powder coatings may be applied to the aluminum 

profile. Thermoplastic or thermoset polymer powder coatings are applied using an 

electrostatic gun to impart a positive electric charge to the powder. The powder is 

accelerated toward and adheres to the negatively charged aluminum profile. After the 

powder is applied, the profile is baked in an oven where the powder particles are melted to a 

liquid state which then fuses with the profile to form a homogeneous surface finish. The 

surface is then cooled to form a hard coating. 

 Fabrication.--Fabrication processes generally include machine tooling operations such as 

cutting to precision lengths, machining, drilling, hole-punching, notching, bending, and 

stretching to prepare the profile for its final use. 

All aluminum extrusions are produced on the same equipment and use the same workers 

regardless of the end use. No other products other than aluminum extrusions are produced on the same 

equipment (i.e., the aluminum extrusion presses).13 All producers provide some additional finishing or 

fabrication to mill-finished products and according to industry officials there may be a small universe of 

third-party finishers or fabricators that are contracted by the end user.14 

Interchangeability 

Within the continuum of products that make up aluminum extrusions, different shapes of softalloy aluminum extrusions are not completely interchangeable with each other, e.g., applications that 

require a tube will likely not be able to use profiles, extrusions designed to fit the machinery of a specific 

end user may never be produced for another customer, and so on. Additionally, specific end-users may 

also require certain performance criteria, e.g., extrusions used for structural purposes in construction may 

not be interchangeable with extrusions used for non-structural purposes. 

Customer and Producer Perceptions 

U.S. producers perceive the production of aluminum extrusions (i.e., owning and operating an 

aluminum extrusion press) to be the defining characteristic of their industry regardless of the market 

 13 Conference transcript, p. 50 (Brown). 14 Conference transcript, p. 64 (Brown). 
I-11 

sectors that an individual extruder may focus on. Producers have the ability to create almost any 

extrusion for any industry depending on the aluminum billet used as the material feedstock and the design 

of the die used for the extrusion. The petitioners claim that customers also consider the industry to be the 

universe of aluminum extrusions (as opposed to specific end use sectors),15 while one respondent counsel 

claims that customers perceive products based on the specific end use industry.16 

Channels of Distribution 

Aluminum extrusions are sold both directly to end users (primarily producers of other products) 

and distributors. Historically, more of the standardized extrusions were sold through distributors than 

directly to end users; however, industry officials indicate that currently there is less distinction in the 

channels of distribution between standardized extrusions and customized ones.17 

Price 

The price of aluminum extrusions largely reflects the price of primary aluminum plus the cost of 

conversion.18 Among the continuum of products subject to these investigations, the degree of finishing 

(e.g., anodized products are generally more expensive than mill finished products)19 and fabrication (e.g., 

a mill-worked extrusion that has been cut-to-length, drilled, and crimped will be slightly more expensive 

than an unprocessed extrusion) will add value and be reflected in the price. But generally the bulk of 

aluminum extrusions are priced within a range that differs only slightly based on the finishing and 

fabrication involved.20 

 15 Conference transcript, pp. 51-52 (Crowdis). 

16 Zhaoquing Asia’s postconference brief, p. 3. 

17 Conference transcript, pp. 81-82 (Crowdis). 

18 Conference transcript, pp. 30-31 (Brown). 

19 Conference transcript, p. 171 (Boland). 

20 Conference transcript, p. 56 (Brown). 

 1

 Petition Vol. 1, p. 18.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Fourteen of the 35 responding U.S. producers and seven of 22 responding importers reported

selling certain aluminum extrusions nationally. Of the remaining responding firms 12 producers and

seven importers reported selling to the Northeast, 18 producers and nine importers reported selling to the

Midwest, 19 producers and eight importers reported selling to the Southeast, 11 producers and four

importers reported selling to the Southwest, one importer and eight producers reported selling in the

Mountain region, and one importer and nine producers reported selling in the Pacific Coast region. 

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

According to petitioners, the majority of the aluminum extrusions are sold directly to end users,

although some products are sold through distributors.1

 As shown in table II-1, the share of shipments of

U.S.-produced certain aluminum extrusions to end users increased from 75.1 in 2007 to 77.8 in 2009,

with the rest of the shipments to distributors. The share of reported U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from

China made to end users increased irregularly from 65.3 percent in 2007 to 70.0 percent in 2009, while

the share of reported U.S. shipments of U.S. imports from countries other than China made to end users

decreased from 81.6 percent in 2007 to 76.2 percent in 2009. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. aluminum extrusion producers have the ability to respond to

changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced aluminum

extrusions to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the moderate degree of responsiveness of

supply are the availability of unused capacity and some ability to use inventories to increase shipments;

supply responsiveness is constrained by a limited ability to ship to alternate markets and a limited ability

to produce alternate products. 

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization decreased from 68.3 percent in 2007 to 49.6 percent in 2009.

This level of capacity utilization indicates that U.S. producers have unused capacity with which they

could increase production of aluminum extrusions in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Exports by the U.S. producers, as a share of total shipments, increased from 2.0 percent in 2007 

to 3.7 percent in 2009. These data indicate that U.S. producers have very limited ability to divert

shipments to or from alternative markets in response to changes in the price of aluminum extrusions.
 2

 Conference transcript, p. 50 (Henderson, Brown, and Crowdis).

II-2

Table II-1

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. shipments of aluminum extrusions, by

sources and channels of distribution, 2007-09

Item

Period

2007 2008 2009

 Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments of aluminum extrusions to:

 Distributors 24.9 25.3 22.2

 End users 75.1 74.7 77.8

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of aluminum extrusions from China:

 Distributors 34.7 39.5 30.0

 End users 65.3 60.5 70.0

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of aluminum extrusions from all other countries to: 

 Distributors 18.4 20.1 23.8

 End users 81.6 79.9 76.2

Note.–Data for domestic producers include only U.S. commercial shipments.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for the U.S. producers increased from

4.0 percent in 2007 to 4.7 percent in 2009. These data indicate that U.S. producers have a somewhat

limited ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of aluminum extrusions to the U.S.

market.

Production alternatives

Petitioners indicate that only aluminum extrusions are produced on the equipment and machinery

that are used to produce aluminum extrusions.2

 Almost all responding U.S. producers indicated that they

produce products other than aluminum extrusions on their equipment and machinery.

Supply constraints

None of 34 responding U.S. producers indicated that they had refused, declined, or been unable

to supply aluminum extrusions since January 2007.
II-3

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of aluminum extrusions to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of unused

capacity, the existence of alternate markets, and somewhat limited ability to use inventories; supply

responsiveness is constrained by the somewhat limited ability to produce alternate products. 

Industry capacity

Chinese producers’ capacity utilization increased from 62.7 percent in 2007 to 63.8 percent in

2009. This level of capacity utilization indicates that Chinese producers have unused capacity with which

they could increase production of aluminum extrusions in the event of a price change. 

Alternative markets

Shipments of aluminum extrusions from China to markets other than the United States (both

exports to alternative markets and shipments to the home market) increased from approximately 85.8

percent of total shipments in 2007 to 92.0 percent in 2009. Thus, available data indicate that subject

producers in China have the ability to divert shipments to or from their home market and alternative

markets in response to changes in the price of aluminum extrusions. 

Inventory levels

The ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments for the Chinese producers increased

from 5.4 percent in 2007 to 6.8 percent in 2009. These data indicate that Chinese producers have a

somewhat limited ability to use inventories as a means of increasing shipments of aluminum extrusions to

the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Three of 12 responding Chinese producers indicated that they produce products other than

aluminum extrusions on the equipment and machinery that is used to produce aluminum extrusions. One

Chinese producer (***) indicated that it can produce screen, handle, and heatsink on the same machinery. 

Chinese producer (***) indicated that it could produce 2000, 5000, and 7000 series aluminum extrusions

on the same equipment, while Chinese producer (***) indicated that it could produce aluminum

extrusions not subject to this investigation on its machinery and equipment.

Supply constraints

Four of the 24 responding importers reported refusing, declining, or being unable to supply

aluminum extrusions. Reasons for not supplying included: inability to meet customer specifications, lead

time, payment terms or price; tight supply for aluminum frame for solar battery panel in the last 12-24

months; shipment delay due to vessel congestion; local trucking problems; and the inability to obtain

paint supply from the U.S. suppliers on time.
 3

 Petition Vol. 1, p. 8.

 4

 Ibid.

 5

 Petition Vol. 1, pp. 16, 19, and 28.

 6

 Conference transcript, pp. 78-79 (Crowdis and Henderson).

 7

 Bureau of Economic Activity, downloaded April 30, 2010.

II-4

Demand

Based on available information, it is likely that any change in the price level of aluminum

extrusions will result in a small change in the quantity of aluminum extrusions demanded. The main

contributing factors are the lack of products that can be immediately substituted for aluminum extrusions.

Demand Characteristics

As described in more detail in Part I, certain aluminum extrusions serve in a wide variety of

applications such as window and door frames and sills, curtain walls, thresholds, gutters, solar panel

frames, and vehicle parts.3

 According to petitioner, the wide and varied uses of aluminum extrusions are

due to their combination of such desirable performance characteristics as high strength, low weight, high

corrosion-resistance, and relative workability and/or machineability.4

Petitioners indicate that demand for aluminum extrusions in the United States has been

declining.5

 Thirty-two of 34 responding producers and 17 of 23 responding importers indicated that U.S.

demand had decreased since 2007. Only one importer reported increased demand and the remaining two

producers and five importers either reported that demand fluctuated or had not changed. Most firms

reported that demand declined because of the economic downturn or reduced construction. 

Nine of 14 producers and eight of 13 importers also reported demand outside the United States

had declined because of the economic downturn. Four importers and three producers reported demand

outside the United States had increased because of increased demand for solar battery panels, increased

demand in the China and developing markets, and production using aluminum extrusions moving to low

cost regions. The remaining two producers and one importer reported demand outside the U.S. was either

unchanged or had fluctuated. 

Petitioners indicated that the top economic indicators they monitor for business conditions in the

aluminum extrusion industry are employment, housing starts, and gross domestic product.6

 Total

nonfarm employment decreased by 5 percent between January 2007 and April 2010 (see figure II-1). 

Also, seasonally adjusted housing starts decreased by 56 percent between January 2007 and March 2010. 

Real GDP growth in United States was 2.1 in 2007, 0.4 percent in 2008, and -2.4 percent in 2009.7

Business Cycles

Twenty-two of 34 responding producers and 12 of 22 responding importers indicated that the

aluminum extrusions market is subject to distinctive business cycles or conditions of competition. Firms

reported seasonal demand, demand related to hurricanes, demand related to RV, boating, and commercial

transportation, and demand related to business and construction cycles.

Thirteen of 25 responding producers and 10 of 15 responding importers indicated that these

distinctive business cycles or conditions of competition for aluminum extrusions have changed since

January 2007. The changes included lower demand because of the financial crisis; increased capacity;

increased share of Chinese extrusions in U.S. market; increased demand based on hurricane forecasts;

extrusion company’s bankruptcies; supply chain management exacerbating the business cycle and 
 8

 Conference transcript, pp. 102-104 (Henderson, Brown, and Crowdis).

 9

 Conference transcript, p. 103 (Crowdis).

II-5

Figure II-1

Employment and housing starts: Total nonfarm employment in the United States, seasonally

adjusted and seasonally adjusted housing starts monthly, January 2007-April 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, Mining and Construction Statistics, Construction Spending and Bureau of Labor

Statistics (retrieved April 30, 2010).

increased customer use of domestic supply to supplement imports; movement of lower value added

extruders into higher value added niches of the market; and declines in the truck trailer market. 

Substitute Products

Petitioners indicate that given the engineering content in their products, there are no products than

can be immediately substituted for aluminum extrusions, although substitutes can be developed over the

product cycle.8

 Although it is rare, some very small applications, such as high tension cable connectors,

switch back and forth between using steel and aluminum on a monthly basis.9

Fifteen of 27 responding producers and two of 22 responding importers indicated that there are

substitutes for aluminum extrusions. The most frequently cited substitutes were vinyl/plastic for windows

and doors, steel for transportation and machinery, aluminum tube or casings, copper, and wood. Six of 15

responding producers and both responding importers reported that these substitutes affected the price of

aluminum extrusions. 

Cost Share

Producers and importers reported that the share of the cost of aluminum extrusions in their final

uses ranges from less than one percent for automobiles, appliances, and furniture to 70 percent or more

for aluminum conduit, mounting systems for solar collectors, and storm shutters. U.S. producer and
 10 Conference transcript, p. 101 (Brown).

 11 Conference transcript, pp. 24, 95 (Henderson, Crowdis).

 12 Conference transcript, p. 23-24 (Henderson).

 13 Conference transcript, pp. 94-95 (Crowdis).

 14 Conference transcript, p. 94 (Johnson).

 15 Conference transcript, pp. 95 (Henderson).

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 184 (Boland).

 17 Respondent Hubbell Power Systems’ postconference brief, p. 9.

 18 Respondent Hubbell Power Systems’ postconference brief, p. 5.

II-6

importer Sapa indicates that for applications such as electrical conduit, the aluminum extrusion can

represent 85 to 90 percent of the costs, whereas for other applications such as a storm doors the aluminum

extrusion can be 25 percent of the cost, or for a classic truck tractor it may be 5 percent of the cost.10

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported aluminum extrusions depends upon

such factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of

substitutability between domestically produced aluminum extrusions and aluminum extrusions imported

from China.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Petitioners indicated that price is usually the most important factor to purchasers of aluminum

extrusions.11 U.S. producer and importer Sapa reports that products imported from China and products

produced in the United States are comparable in terms of quality and product availability.12 Bonnell

Aluminum stated that the Chinese industry produces “decent” or similar quality products to U.S.

produced aluminum extrusions and that Chinese producers have found a way of satisfying the needs of

many, but probably not all customers.13 Futura Industries indicates that although its customers are

dependent on the great and reliable responsive service that they get from the U.S. industry, it feels a

tremendous amount of pressure to have the same cost advantage as their competitors who are purchasing

aluminum extrusions imported from China.14 Sapa notes that the importance of price is demonstrated by

the success of Chinese importers in the U.S. market despite the clear advantages enjoyed by the U.S.

industry.15 Importer Peng Cheng reports that quality is comparable between U.S. produced aluminum

extrusions and imports of aluminum extrusions from China and in some cases the U.S. product is of

higher quality.16 

Importer Hubbell Power Systems (Hubbell) indicates that price is neither the only nor the

determinative factor for purchases of aluminum extrusions since its customers require customized

products as well as short lead times and competitive prices. It notes that its main customers are public

utilities that need quick, adequate, and available supply when power outages occur.17 Hubbell also

indicates that when it searched for alternate domestic suppliers in 2007, neither of the two U.S. producers

that could produce the required sizes (***) could meet their demand due to limited manufacturing

capabilities (at that time) and timing issues.18

Chinese producer Zhaoqing indicates that U.S. extruders’ production equipment is generally older

and less capable of producing complex sections and thinner walls and therefore unable to meet growing
 19 Respondent Zhaoqing’s postconference brief, p.10.

 20 Conference transcript, pp. 108-109 (Crowdis, Johnson).

II-7

demand for profiles, tubes, or pipes with less than 1mm thick walls.19 However, petitioners insist that

they do not know of any products that the U.S. industry cannot produce that Chinese producers can

produce.20

Comparison of U.S.-Produced and Imported Aluminum Extrusions

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced aluminum extrusions can generally be used in the

same applications as imports from China, U.S. producers and U.S. importers were asked whether the

products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As shown from

table II-2, 30 of the 31 responding producers and 20 of the 24 responding importers indicated that

aluminum extrusions produced in the United States and imported from China are “always” or

“frequently” used interchangeably. Some importers indicated that interchangeability was limited by the

profiles available, quality, machineability, formability, finishes, and lead times. One importer reported

that China has a wider range of both large and small presses and that U.S. producers reject many shapes

and requests as not profitable.

All producers and at least 80 percent of the responding importers reported that aluminum

extrusions produced in the United States and imported from nonsubject countries are “always” or

“frequently” used interchangeably. All but one responding producer and over 80 percent of importers

reported that aluminum extrusions imports from China, Canada, and other nonsubject countries compared

to imports from each other and other countries are “always” or “frequently” used interchangeably.

As indicated in table II-3, 26 of 31 responding U.S. producers and 13 of 24 responding importers

indicated that differences other than price between aluminum extrusions produced in the United States

and imported from China were at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. Three-quarters of

the responding U.S. producers and almost two-thirds of responding importers indicated that differences

other than price between aluminum extrusions produced in the United States and aluminum extrusions

imported from nonsubject countries were at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales. Over 80

percent of responding U.S. producers and over half of responding importers indicated that differences

other than price between aluminum extrusions at most “sometimes” a significant factor in their sales in

comparisons from China, Canada, and other nonsubject countries. 
II-8

Table II-2

Aluminum extrusions: Perceived interchangeability between aluminum extrusions produced in the

United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. other countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 27 3 1 0 15 5 2 2

 U.S. vs. Canada 26 2 0 0 10 5 1 0

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 23 3 0 0 11 5 3 0

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Canada 21 2008010

 China vs. other nonsubject 20 3 0 0 10 2 1 0

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 19 2108010

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-3

Aluminum extrusions: Perceived differences other than price between aluminum extrusions

produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. other countries: 

 U.S. vs. China 3 2 12 14 4 7 9 4

 U.S. vs. Canada 2 3 8 13 1 2 4 3

 U.S. vs. other nonsubject 3 1 8 11 3 2 5 4

Nonsubject countries comparisons:

 China vs. Canada 30790232

 China vs. other nonsubject 1 2 4 10 1 4 2 4

 Canada vs. other nonsubject 20590123

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
III-1 

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND 

EMPLOYMENT 

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§ 

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the alleged margin of dumping and alleged subsidies was 

presented in Part I of this report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject 

merchandise is presented in Part IV and Part V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in 

this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of 39 firms that 

accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of aluminum extrusions over the period examined. 

U.S. PRODUCERS 

Of the 39 firms that responded to the Commission’s questionnaires, none opposed the petition, 

while 35 firms supported the petition (representing more than 96 percent of reported production during 

the period) and four firms took no position on the petition (representing less than 4 percent of reported 

production during the period). U.S. producer data gathered in the preliminary phase of these 

investigations cover an estimated 80 to 85 percent of the U.S. industry.21 Table III-1 lists U.S. producers 

of aluminum extrusions, their production locations, positions on the petition, production, and shares of 

reported production over the period for which data were collected. 

Table III-1 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions, their positions on the petition, 

production locations, production, and shares of reported production, January 2007 to December 

2009 

Firm Position on petition1

Production 

location(s) 

Total 

production 

(short tons) 

Share of 

production 

(percent) 

Aerolite Extrusion 

Company 

Support, petitioner Boardman, OH 

Youngstown, OH 

*** ***

Aisin Light Metals, LLC *** Marion, IL *** ***

Alexandria Extrusion 

Company 

Support, petitioner Alexandria, MN *** ***

Astro Shapes, Inc. *** Struthers, OH *** ***

Benada Aluminum of 

Florida, Inc. 

Support, petitioner Medley, FL *** ***

Brazeway, Inc *** Hopkinsville, KY 

Shelbyville, IN 

*** ***

Custom Aluminum 

Products, Inc. 

*** South Elgin, IL *** ***

Table continued on next page. 

 21 This estimate is based on comparing the reported quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments gathered from 

questionnaire responses and information provided in the petition using data from the Aluminum Association. See

the petition, exh. 4, attachment A. Counsel to Zhaoqing Asia claimed that U.S. producer coverage was inadequate 

based on a comparison to the data contained in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 Annual Survey of Manufacturers 

(ASM). See Zhaoqing Asia’s post-conference brief, p. 8. Questionnaire data indicate that U.S. producers’ total 

shipments account for approximately 61 percent of what is reported in the ASM. The ASM data, however, include 

sales of both hard and soft-alloy aluminum extrusions, therefore coverage is likely higher than this comparison at the 

6-digit NAICS code would suggest. 
III-2 

Table III-1--Continued

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions, their positions on the petition, 

production locations, production, and shares of reported production, January 2007 to December 

2009 

Firm Position on petition1

Production 

location(s) 

Total 

production 

(short tons) 

Share of 

production 

(percent) 

Empire Resources 

Extrusions, LLC 

*** Baltimore, MD (idled) *** ***

Extruders, Inc. *** Wylie, TX *** ***

Extrusions, Inc. *** Fort Scott, KS *** ***

Frontier Aluminum 

Corporation 

Support, petitioner Corona, CA *** ***

Futura Industries 

Corporation 

Support, petitioner Clearfield, UT *** ***

General Extrusions, Inc. *** Youngtown, OH *** ***

Hydro Aluminum North 

America, Inc. 

Support, petitioner Belton, SC 

Kalamazoo, MI 

Monett, MO 

North Liberty, IN 

Phoenix, AZ 

Sidney, OH 

St. Augustine, FL 

*** ***

International Extrusions, 

Inc. 

*** Garden City, MI *** ***

Kaiser Aluminum 

Corporation 

Support, petitioner Bellwood, VA 

Los Angeles, CA 

Sherman, TX 

Tulsa, OK 

*** ***

Leed-Himmel Industries *** Hamden, CT *** ***

Light Metals Corporation *** Wyoming, MI *** ***

M-D Building Products, 

Inc. 

*** Gainesville, FA 

Oklahoma City, OK 

*** ***

MI Metals, Inc. *** Millersburg, PA 

Oldsmar, FL 

Prescott Valley, AZ 

Smyrna, TN 

*** ***

Mid-States Aluminum 

Corp. 

*** Fond du Lac, WI *** ***

Minalex Corporation *** Whitehouse Station, 

NJ 

*** ***

Patrick Aluminum 

Incorporated 

*** Mishawaka, IN *** ***

Peerless of America, Inc. *** Effingham, IL *** ***

Penn Aluminum 

International, LLC 

*** Harlingen, TX 

Murphysboro, IL 

*** ***

Pennex Aluminum 

Company, LLC 

*** Wellsville, PA *** ***

Table continued on next page. 
III-3 

Table III-1--Continued

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions, their positions on the petition, 

production locations, production, and shares of reported production, January 2007 to December 

2009 

Firm Position on petition1

Production 

location(s) 

Total 

production 

(short tons) 

Share of 

production 

(percent) 

Pries Enterprises, Inc. *** Independence, IN *** ***

Profile Extrusion 

Company 

Support, petitioner Phoenix, AZ 

Rome, GA 

*** ***

Richardson Metals, Inc. *** Colorado Springs, 

CO 

*** ***

Sapa Extrusions, Inc. Support, petitioner Burlington, NC 

City of Industry, CA 

Connersville, IN 

Cressona, PA 

Delhi, LA 

Elkhart, IN 

Gainesville, GA 

Kokomo, IN (idled) 

Louisville, KY 

(closed) 

Magnolia, AR 

Morris, IL (closed) 

Mountaintop, PA 

Parsons, KS (closed) 

Portland, OR 

Spanish Fork, UT 

Yankton, SD 

*** ***

Service Center Metals, 

LLC 

*** Prince George, VA *** ***

Silver City Aluminum 

Corporation 

*** Taunton, MA *** ***

The William L Bonnell 

Company, Inc. (“Bonnell”) 

Support, petitioner Carthage, TN 

Kentland, IN 

Newnan, GA 

*** ***

Tower Extrusions, Ltd. *** Olney, TX *** ***

Valmont Industries *** Elkhart, IN *** ***

Vitex Extrusion, LLC *** Franklin, NH *** ***

Wakefield Solutions, Inc. *** Pelham, NH *** ***

Western Extrusions 

Corporation 

Support, petitioner Carrollton, TX *** ***

YKK AP America, Inc. *** Dublin, GA *** ***

Total 3,028,351 100.0 1 Indicates position on both the dumping and subsidy allegations unless otherwise indicated. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 
III-4 

Based on questionnaire data, U.S. production of aluminum extrusions is moderately concentrated. 

The four firm concentration ratio for the data presented in table III-1 calculates out to 59 percent, which 

indicates a moderate or medium industry concentration. Sapa Extrusions alone accounts for more than 

*** of reported U.S. production, while the petitioning firms account for just over two-thirds of reported 

U.S. production. 

Two of the responding U.S. producers (***22 and ***23) are related to producers of aluminum 

extrusions in China. 

U.S. PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION 

Table III-2 and figure III-1 present U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization. 

Over the period examined, both production capacity and actual production fell. By 2009, U.S. producers 

were operating at just under half of their estimated average production capacity, down from two-thirds 

utilization in 2007. For most U.S. producers, capacity is based on operating at 120 hours a week for 

between 50 and 52 weeks a year. 

Table III-2 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, 2007-09 

Item 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 

Quantity (short tons) 

Capacity 1,730,651 1,671,426 1,582,980

Production 1,181,968 1,060,757 785,626

Capacity utilization (percent) 

Capacity utilization 68.3 63.5 49.6

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure III-1 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity utilization, 2007-09 

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

2007 2008 2009

Calendar year

Quantity

(short tons)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Ratio

(percent)

Capacity (left-axis) Production (left-axis) Capacity Utilization (right-axis)

Source: Table III-2. 

 22 The Chinese producer *** is owned by the same parent company ***. 

23 The Chinese producer *** is owned by the same parent company ***. ***. ***. 
III-5 

Over the period examined, nine U.S. producers indicated that they closed 16 aluminum extrusion 

plants. *** indicated it closed an extrusion plant. *** closed an extrusion facility located in *** in 2008, 

although *** did relocate some of the productive assets of the *** facility to its other production location 

in ***. *** completely closed its extrusion operations in *** in December 2008. *** indicated it closed 

three extrusion plants over the period examined including: a facility in *** in July 2007; a facility in *** 

in September 2009; and a facility in *** in December 2009. *** indicated that it closed its *** aluminum 

extrusion facility in December 2008, in addition to significantly reducing its aluminum extrusion capacity 

in a restructuring of its *** plant in the first half of 2009. *** indicated it closed an aluminum extrusion 

facility in *** in the second half of 2008. *** closed its *** facility in May 2009. *** indicated that the 

following plant locations were closed over the period examined: ***. *** closed a specialty extrusion 

plant in ***. 

In addition to the outright plant closures discussed above, 22 U.S. producers indicated that their 

operations experienced prolonged shutdowns or production curtailments at over 30 different locations 

during the period examined. Most of these prolonged shutdowns or production curtailments occurred in 

second half of 2008 and in calendar year 2009, which corresponds to a period of both lower domestic 

demand and increased supply of Chinese product in the market place. The various firms responded in 

different ways to these conditions ranging from idling specific presses, consolidating operations, laying 

off workers, reducing hours, eliminating entire shifts, and applying targeted temporary furloughs. 

At the same time that overall industry capacity was contracting and U.S. producers were reducing 

output, several firms either expanded or upgraded their operations. Most notably Sapa Extrusions (a 

global producer of aluminum extrusions) significantly expanded its U.S. operations by acquiring the 

assets of Indalex, a former U.S. producer of aluminum extrusions that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 

2009.24 A handful of other U.S. producers conducted targeted expansions or upgrades during the period. 

*** installed a new extrusion press at its *** facility in 2009. *** added an extrusion press and 

automated another. *** upgraded an extrusion press in August 2009. *** added a press to its *** 

facility. *** added an extrusion press and painting line in 2008. 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORTS 

Over the period examined, U.S. commercial shipments account for the vast majority of U.S. 

producers’ revenue in this industry. U.S. producers generally supplied the domestic U.S. market and not 

foreign markets. Between 2007 and 2009, the value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments declined by nearly 

47 percent, with most of this decline occurring between 2008 and 2009. Unit values for shipments of all 

U.S.-produced aluminum extrusions decreased between 2008 and 2009, which paralleled the market price 

for primary aluminum as reported on the London Metals Exchange (LME).25 Table III-3 presents U.S. 

producers’ U.S. shipments, export shipments, and total shipments. 

 24 Conference transcript, pp. 20-21, 141 (Henderson). 

25 Conference transcript, p. 77 (Woodings). Additional information on LME prices is provided in Part V of this 

report. 
III-6 

Table III-3 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, exports shipments, and total shipments, 

2007-09 

Item 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 

Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. commercial shipments 1,138,220 1,008,911 741,754

Internal consumption 12,066 10,316 7,640

Transfers to related firms 13,849 11,928 9,352

U.S. shipments 1,164,135 1,031,154 758,746

Export shipments 24,111 25,882 29,415

Total shipments 1,188,246 1,057,036 788,161

Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. commercial shipments 4,931,256 4,337,912 2,630,048

Internal consumption 33,767 31,114 15,673

Transfers to related firms 48,318 41,272 24,678

U.S. shipments 5,013,341 4,410,299 2,670,399

Export shipments 134,053 134,085 119,882

Total shipments 5,147,394 4,544,383 2,790,281

Unit value (per short ton) 

U.S. commercial shipments 4,332 4,300 3,546

Internal consumption 2,799 3,016 2,052

Transfers to related firms 3,489 3,460 2,639

U.S. shipments 4,306 4,277 3,519

Export shipments 5,560 5,181 4,076

Total shipments 4,332 4,299 3,540

Share of quantity (percent) 

U.S. commercial shipments 95.8 95.4 94.1

Internal consumption 1.0 1.0 1.0

Transfers to related firms 1.2 1.1 1.2

U.S. shipments 98.0 97.6 96.3

Export shipments 2.0 2.4 3.7

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES 

Four U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions also imported the subject merchandise over the 

period examined, while two U.S. producers purchased imported aluminum extrusions. Table III-4 

presents U.S. producers’ production, imports or purchases of imported aluminum extrusions, and the ratio 

of their imports or purchases to U.S. production over the period for which data were gathered. 
III-7 

Table III-4 

Aluminum extrusions: Select producers’ U.S. production, imports or purchases of imports, and 

imports or purchases as a ratio to production, 2007-09 

* * * * * * * 

*** indicated that it imported aluminum extrusions from ***.26 Relative to its U.S. production, 

*** imports of aluminum extrusions were small. *** indicated that it purchased aluminum extrusions 

imported from ***.27 Relative to its U.S. production, *** purchases of imports of aluminum extrusions 

were small. *** indicated that it imported aluminum extrusions ***. *** imports of aluminum 

extrusions accounted for a third to a half of its U.S. production, and although both its domestic production 

and its imports decreased over the period, *** domestic production decreased more than its imports over 

the period examined. *** only imported aluminum extrusions from nonsubject sources.28 *** indicated 

that it imported aluminum extrusions from ***.29 Relative to its U.S. production, *** imports of 

aluminum extrusions were small, and ***. *** indicated that it imported aluminum extrusions from 

***.30 Relative to its U.S. production, *** imports of aluminum extrusions were small and decreasing 

over the period. *** indicated that it purchased aluminum extrusions imported from ***,31 while it 

imported from ***.32 Relative to its U.S. production, *** purchases of imports of aluminum extrusions 

accounted for large and increasing shares, both for purchases from China and from all other sources. 

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES 

Table III-5 presents U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these inventories to 

U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments over the period examined. In general, 

U.S. producers maintained less than a month’s worth (14 to 18 days) of inventories. 

Table III-5 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2007-09 

Calendar year 

Item 2007 2008 2009 

Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. inventories 47,331 45,602 37,194

Ratio (percent) 

Ratio to production 4.0 4.3 4.7

Ratio to U.S. shipments 4.1 4.4 4.9

Ratio to total shipments 4.0 4.3 4.7

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 26 *** U.S. importers’ questionnaires response, question II-4. 

27 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaires response, question II-13. 

28 *** U.S. importers’ questionnaires response, question II-4. 

29 *** U.S. importers’ questionnaires response, question II-4. 

30 *** U.S. importers’ questionnaires response, question II-4. 

31 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaires response, question II-13. 

32 *** U.S. producers’ questionnaires response, question II-13. 
III-8 

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY 

Table III-6 shows U.S. producers’ employment-related data during the period examined. 

Table III-6 

Aluminum extrusions: Average number of production and related workers, hours worked, wages 

paid to such employees, hourly wages, productivity, and unit labor costs, 2007-09 

Item 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 

PRWs (number) 12,407 10,611 7,929

Hours worked (1,000) 23,486 21,915 16,103

Wages paid ($1,000) 434,287 442,278 327,445

Hourly wages $18.49 $20.18 $20.33

Productivity (short tons per hour) 0.05 0.05 0.05

Unit labor costs (short tons) $367 $417 $417

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

By 2009, U.S. producers employed 4,478 fewer production and related workers (PRWs) than in 

2007, representing a 36.1 percent decline in employment in the industry over the two year period. In 

2009, U.S. producers contracted 7,383 fewer hours for the production of aluminum extrusions than they 

did in 2007, representing a decline of 31.4 percent in hours worked over the period. These declines 

confirm the narrative description of widespread layoffs and production cutbacks described earlier in this 

part of the report. 
IV-1 

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION, AND 

MARKET SHARES 

Part IV of this report presents information on imports of subject merchandise and overall U.S. 

market composition. Reported imports are based on the U.S. Customs data that the U.S. Census Bureau 

used to generate official Commerce import statistics. For the purposes of the preliminary phase of these 

investigations, the universe of imported product considered to be subject merchandise has been limited to 

official Commerce statistics for the primary HTS numbers for aluminum extrusions as defined in the 

petition and in Commerce’s notice of initiation of investigation.1

 Data gathered in response to 

Commission questionnaires has been used to supplement the official data where appropriate. The 

Commission received useable data from 24 firms that were identified as U.S. importers of the subject 

merchandise within proprietary Customs data.2

 

U.S. IMPORTERS 

Table IV-1 presents data on the major U.S. importers of aluminum extrusions, as identified in 

response to Commission questionnaires. 

Table IV-1 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. importers by source, January 2007 to December 2009 aggregated 

* * * * * * * 

U.S. IMPORTERS’ U.S. IMPORTS 

Table IV-2 and figure IV-1 present information on U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions over the 

period examined. U.S. imports from subject sources first decreased and then increased over the period 

examined, and resulted in a level of imports that was 88 percent higher in 2009 than in 2007, while at the 

same time, U.S. imports from nonsubject sources decreased in each year over the period, and resulted in a 

level of imports that was 40 percent lower in 2009 than in 2007.3

 

 1

 The petition and Commerce’s notice of initiation of investigation identified certain secondary HTS numbers 

under which some subject aluminum extrusions may be imported. Data gathered in response to Commission 

questionnaires indicates that imports of subject merchandise under HTS numbers outside of the primary numbers are 

minimal. Of the data reported in questionnaire responses, 92.3 percent of reported quantities entered under the 

primary HTS numbers, 4.7 percent of reported quantities entered under the secondary numbers, and 3.0 percent of 

reported quantities entered under other HTS numbers not identified in the petition or in Commerce’s notice of 

initiation of investigation. 2

 Staff estimates that questionnaire data cover between 53 and 55 percent of U.S. imports of aluminum 

extrusions from China, and between 46 and 49 percent of U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions from all sources. 3

 The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports of the subject 

merchandise are found to be negligible. Negligible imports are generally defined in the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic like product where such imports 

account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise imported into the United States in the most 

recent 12-month period for which data are available that precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the 

investigation. In these investigations, imports of aluminum extrusions from China are not negligible. In the most 

recent 12-month period for which data are available (March 2009 through February 2010), U.S. imports of 

aluminum extrusions from China accounted for 73 percent of total imports. 
IV-2 

Table IV-2 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. imports by source, 2007-09 

Source 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 

Quantity (short tons) 

China1 113,150 90,085 212,717

Canada 87,695 79,886 58,458

All other sources 57,295 47,335 28,909

Subtotal, nonsubject 144,990 127,221 87,367

Total imports 258,141 217,306 300,085

Value (1,000 dollars) 

China1 410,220 339,612 551,164

Canada 366,975 333,234 201,876

All other sources 317,325 294,476 156,245

Subtotal, nonsubject 684,300 627,709 358,121

Total imports 1,094,520 967,322 909,285

Unit value (per short ton) 

China1 $3,625 $3,770 $2,591

Canada 4,185 4,171 3,453

All other sources 5,538 6,221 5,405

Subtotal, nonsubject 4,720 4,934 4,099

Total imports 4,240 4,451 3,030

Share of quantity (percent) 

China1 43.8 41.5 70.9

Canada 34.0 36.8 19.5

All other sources 22.2 21.8 9.6

Subtotal, nonsubject 56.2 58.5 29.1

Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 Includes imports from the Chinese Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. 

Source: Official import statistics, HTS 7604.21, 7604.29, and 7608.20.

As is reflected both in data the Commission received in response to its U.S. importers’ 

questionnaire and in proprietary Customs data, four firms account for the vast majority of the increase in 

imports of Chinese aluminum extrusions in 2009 over 2008: ***.4 5 6

 4

 Of these four firms, only *** imported aluminum extrusions prior to 2009; the other three firms first began 

import operations in 2009 according to U.S. Customs data and corroborated by their responses to Commission 

questionnaires. Together the four firms account for 76 percent of official Commerce statistics in 2009; Prior to 

2009 *** imports accounted for under 10 percent of U.S. imports from China. 5

 At the staff conference, Peng Cheng indicated that it did not increase its imports in 2009 in relation to 2008. 

However, *** in 2009 compared with 2008. 

6

 *** did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire. 
IV-3 

Figure IV-1 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. imports by status, 2007-09 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2007 2008 2009

Calendar year

Quantity

(short tons)

Subject imports Nonsubject imports

Source: Table IV-2. 

The average unit value of U.S. imports from each source decreased significantly in 2009 

compared with 2008, largely reflecting the evolution of global primary aluminum prices as reported on 

the LME.7

 However, the average unit value of U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions from China 

remained 14 to 15 percent below the average unit value of U.S. imports of these products from all sources 

over the period. 

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND U.S. MARKET SHARES 

Table IV-3 presents data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares over the period 

examined. In 2009, U.S. imports from China gained nearly 13 percentage points of market share by 

quantity in the United States, displacing primarily U.S. producers’ market share. This surge in market 

share was the result of both the large increase in the absolute quantities of U.S. imports from China and 

the decline in apparent U.S. consumption of aluminum extrusions. 

Table IV-3 

Aluminum extrusions: Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares, 2007-09 

Source 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 

Quantity (short tons) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,164,135 1,031,154 758,746

U.S. imports from-- 

China 113,150 90,085 212,717

Nonsubject sources 144,991 127,221 87,367

All import sources 258,141 217,306 300,085

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,422,275 1,248,460 1,058,830

Table continued on next page. 

 7

 Conference transcript, p. 77 (Woodings). Additional information on LME prices is provided in Part V of this 

report. 
IV-4 

Table IV-3--Continued

Aluminum extrusions: Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares, 2007-09 

Source 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 

Value (1,000 dollars) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 5,013,341 4,410,299 2,670,399

U.S. imports from-- 

China 410,220 339,612 551,164

Nonsubject sources 684,300 627,709 358,121

All import sources 1,094,520 967,322 909,285

Apparent U.S. consumption 6,107,861 5,377,621 3,579,684

Market share by quantity (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 81.9 82.6 71.7

U.S. imports from-- 

China 8.0 7.2 20.1

Nonsubject sources 10.2 10.2 8.3

All import sources 18.1 17.4 28.3

Market share by value (percent) 

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 82.1 82.0 74.6

U.S. imports from-- 

China 6.7 6.3 15.4

Nonsubject sources 11.2 11.7 10.0

All import sources 17.9 18.0 25.4

Source: Tables III-3 and IV-2.

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION 

Table IV-4 presents data on the ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production. 

Table IV-4 

Aluminum extrusions: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, 2007-09 

Source 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 

Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent) 

China 9.6 8.5 27.1

Nonsubject imports 12.3 12.0 11.1

Total imports 21.8 20.5 38.2

Source: Tables III-2 and IV-2.
 1

 The Midwest price includes a premium for shipping and handling. Transcript, p. 30 (Brown).

 2

 ***. Staff telephone interview with ***, May 7, 2010.

 3

 Transcript, pp. 73, 126-127 (Brown, Jones).

 4

 Transcript, p. 126 (Woodings).

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw material costs accounted for approximately 62.4 percent of U.S. producers’ total cost of

goods during 2009. Per-unit raw material costs decreased by 27.7 percent between 2007 and 2009 from

$1.44 per pound in 2007 to $1.04 per pound in 2009. Aluminum is the main raw material used to produce

aluminum extrusions. The London Metal Exchange (LME) price of aluminum has fluctuated

substantially since 2007 increasing by 24 percent between January 2007 and June 2008, decreasing by 64

percent between June 2008 and February 2009, and then increasing by 126 percent between February

2009 and April 2010 (see figure V-1). The Shanghai Metal Exchange (SHME) price of aluminum

followed a similar trend between January 2007 and April 2010 as the LME price and at market exchange

rates had a higher dollar value for most months.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Transportation costs for U.S. inland shipments of aluminum extrusions generally account for a

small-to-moderate share of the delivered price of these products. U.S. producers reported that the costs

ranged from 1 to 10 percent of the delivered price of aluminum extrusions, while most U.S. importers

reported that the costs ranged from 1 to 7.2 percent.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Aluminum extrusions sold using short or long term contracts are typically quoted on the basis of

the LME aluminum price, plus a per-pound fabrication charge. Twenty-three of 26 producers and 11 of

16 importers reported that the metals costs in their short term contracts depend on a benchmark price, and

all 11 responding producers and four of six responding importers indicated that this was also the case with

their long term contracts. In most cases the benchmark price was the either the LME or Midwest metals

price.1

 One producer (***) reported using the *** as benchmark for both its short and long term

contracts.2

 One importer (***) reported using either the LME or Shanghai Futures Exchange price for its

short term contracts. 

Petitioners indicated that they do not know what price Chinese producers pay for aluminum.3

However, they noted that even though conversations or contacts between importers and customers may

reference the LME, it does not necessarily mean that Chinese producers are paying the LME price for

aluminum.4

Twenty-four of 35 producers and 16 of 25 importers reported using transaction-by-transaction

negotiations for at least some of their sales of aluminum extrusions. In addition, 17 producers and 11

importers reporting using contracts for at least some of their sales and six producers and six importers

also reporting using a price list. Nineteen of 35 responding producers and 7 of 19 responding importers 
 5

 *** reported a lead time from inventory of 2 weeks and *** reported a lead time from production of 6-8 weeks.

V-2

Figure V-1

Aluminum extrusions: Aluminum Alloy, Nasaac-LME official, spot ask and SHME in dollars and

renminbi (rmb), by month, January 2007-April 2010

Note: The monthly SHME price for aluminum in renminbi is an average of daily prices reported by Metal

Bulletin in renminbi. The SHME price for aluminum in dollars is based on the monthly average SHME

price in renminbi and the monthly average renminbi exchange rate reported by IFS.

Source: American Metal Markets, downloaded May 7, 2010, Metal Bulletin, downloaded May 4, 2010, and

IFS, downloaded May 5, 2010.

reported making their sales on a f.o.b. basis only. Fifteen producers and 11 importers reported making

their sales on a delivered basis only and the remaining responding producers and importers reported

making their sales on both f.o.b. and delivered bases. Twenty-six of 35 responding producers and 14 of

22 importers reported that at least 90 percent of their sales of aluminum extrusions are made to order. 

Two responding producers and six importers reported that at least 90 percent of their sales are from

inventory.

Twenty-two of 35 responding producers and six of 17 responding importers reported making at

least 74 percent of their sales on a spot basis and four producers and eight importers reported making at

least 64 percent of their sales on a short-term contract basis. Five importers reported making at least 90

percent of their sales on a short term contract basis, which typically runs from 4 months to a year. One

producer and one importer reported making at least 83 percent of their sales on a long-term contact basis.

Lead Times

All but one U.S. producer reported lead times from inventory of up to one week and all but one

U.S. producer reported lead times for sales of product-to-order of three days to six weeks.5

 Lead times for

delivery for all but two U.S. importers ranged up to three weeks on sales from inventory and all 
 6

 *** reported a lead time from inventory of 12 weeks and *** reported a lead time from inventory of 10 to 12

weeks.

 7

 Data reported by several producers and importer were not included in the pricing data. U.S. producer ***

reported quantities for products 1-5 for 2007-2009, but only reported values for the last two quarters of 2009 because

***. Therefore, only its data for the second two quarters of 2009 are included. U.S producer *** reported data for

several products produced from *** that are not included. U.S. producer *** reported data for product 1, but

(continued...)

V-3

importers reported lead times on sales of product produced-to-order ranging from 2 to 16 weeks.6

Twenty-seven of 34 responding producers and 22 of 24 responding importers reported that they generally

arrange for the transportation to their customers’ locations. Twenty-four of 35 responding U.S. producers

and eight of 22 responding importers reported making at least 50 percent of their sales within 101 to

1,000 miles of their storage or production facilities. No responding producers and four responding

importers reported making at least 70 percent of their sales over 1,000 miles from their storage or

production facilities and five responding producers and nine responding importers reported making at

least 55 percent of their sales within 100 miles of their storage or production facilities. 

Sales Terms and Discounts

Seventeen producers and eight importers reported the use of quantity discounts; seven producers

and five importers reported using annual volume discounts; and ten producers and 15 importers reported

having no discount policy. In addition, 11 producers and five importers reported using other types of

discounts including customer specific discounts and rebates, discounts for particular end uses, and

discounts for marketing expenses.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers of aluminum extrusions to provide

quarterly data for quantity and f.o.b. value for the following aluminum extrusions products that were

shipped to unrelated U.S. customers during 2007-09:

Product 1.–Mullions & Split-Mullions, Anodized Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6063 - Size: 1.75" x

3" to 3" x 8", Weight: 0.6 lb/ft to 7 lb/ft

Product 2.–Door/Window Frames & Sashes, Painted Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6063 - Size: CCD:

0.75" to 6", Weight: 0.2 lb/ft to 2 lb/ft

Product 3.– Hand Rails, Painted Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6063 - Size: CCD: 0.5" to 6", Weight:

0.15 lb/ft to 8.25 lb/ft

Product 4.– Tub and shower components, Anodized and Bright Dip Finishes, Unworked, Alloys

6063 & 6463 - Size: CCD: 0.6" to 3", Weight: 0.1 lb/ft to 1 lb/ft

Product 5.– Pipe, Mill Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6061 - Size: 1" to 5" Schedule 40 @ 0.5 lb/ft to

5 lb/ft

Twenty-five U.S. producers, 11 importers of aluminum extrusions from China, and three

importers of aluminum extrusions from Canada provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.7

 Pricing data reported by
 7

 (...continued)

indicated that it “could not break out its data by product type” and is therefore not included. U.S. importer ***

reported price data which it indicated was for finished products that is not included.

V-4

these firms accounted for approximately 9.3 percent of U.S. producers’ shipments of aluminum

extrusions, 5.8 percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports from China, and 3.7 percent of U.S.

shipments of nonsubject imports from Canada in 2009.

 

Price Trends

Price data are shown in tables V-1 to V-5 and figure V-2. Price trend summary data are presented

in table V-6. Weighted-averaged sales prices for U.S.-produced products 1-5 decreased by 0.7 to 22.2

percent. Weighted average sales prices of products 1-5 imported from China decreased by 18.9 to 46.1

percent. 

Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling for the period are presented in table V-7. As can be seen

from the table, prices for aluminum extrusions imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced

aluminum extrusions in 51 of 54 instances; margins of underselling ranged from 2.1 to 55.0 percent. In

the remaining 3 instances, prices for aluminum extrusions imported from China were above those for

U.S.-produced aluminum extrusions; margins of overselling ranged from 3.5 to 10.6 percent.
V-5

Table V-1

Aluminum extrusions: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 11 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, 2007-09

Period

United States China Canada

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.35 12,558,491 $*** *** *** $*** ***

 Apr.-June 2.41 12,202,474 2.16 1,274,856 10.4 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.37 12,139,274 *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.33 10,094,918 2.58 746,789 (10.6) *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.33 11,037,353 *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.58 10,255,673 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.60 9,950,396 2.22 594,909 14.3 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.54 9,265,212 *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.01 7,187,554 *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.11 5,779,848 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.06 8,327,937 *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.34 7,616,250 *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 1: Mullions & Split-Mullions, Anodized Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6063 - Size: 1.75" x 3" to 3" x 8",

Weight: 0.6 lb/ft to 7 lb/ft. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-6

Table V-2

Aluminum extrusions: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 21 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, 2007-09

Period

United States China Canada

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.21 36,219,270 $*** *** *** $*** ***

 Apr.-June 2.20 39,400,736 1.99 1,346,215 9.8 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.17 38,440,561 1.75 3,425,400 19.2 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.10 31,125,199 1.91 2,311,297 9.1 *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.14 26,647,296 1.97 3,029,657 7.6 *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.27 31,038,021 1.93 2,767,802 14.9 *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.31 29,701,022 1.99 2,026,826 13.7 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.03 21,861,406 1.79 1,510,557 11.8 *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.70 17,506,789 1.53 1,573,407 10.1 *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.75 22,472,825 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.87 27,706,238 1.19 3,187,005 36.1 *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.91 20,079,741 *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 2: Door/Window Frames & Sashes, Painted Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6063 - Size: CCD: 0.75" to 6",

Weight: 0.2 lb/ft to 2 lb/ft.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-7

Table V-3

Aluminum extrusions: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 31 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, 2007-09

Period

United States China

Price 

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $*** *** $*** *** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.85 154,393 *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.99 507,272 *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.10 689,163 *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.98 990,074 *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.82 458,426 *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. *** *** *** *** ***

 1 Product 3: Hand Rails, Painted Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6063 - Size: CCD: 0.5" to 6", Weight: 0.15 lb/ft to 8.25

lb/ft.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-8

Table V-4

Aluminum extrusions: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 41 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

Aluminum extrusions: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product 51 and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, 2007-09

Period

United States China Canada

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

Margin

(percent)

Price 

(per

pound)

Quantity

(pounds)

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. $1.86 1,253,176 - 0 - $*** ***

 Apr.-June 1.90 1,442,288 - 0 - *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.78 1,527,384 $*** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.74 1,313,527 - 0 - *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.75 1,729,570 - 0 - *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.92 1,374,060 - 0 - *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.89 1,475,007 *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.66 1,367,771 *** *** *** *** ***

2009:

 Jan.-Mar. 1.37 1,112,344 *** *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 1.37 1,033,093 *** *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 1.50 1,124,968 *** *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 1.57 1,102,600 - 0 - *** ***

 1 Product 5: Pipe, Mill Finish, Unworked, Alloy 6061 - Size: 1" to 5" Schedule 40 @ 0.5 lb/ft to 5 lb/ft.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Figure V-2

Aluminum extrusions: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported

product, by quarters, 2007-09

* * * * * * *
V-9

Table V-6

Aluminum extrusions: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-5 from the United

States and China

Item Number of quarters

Low price 

(per pound)

High price

(per pound)

Change in price1

(percent)

Product 1 

United States 12 2.01 2.60 (0.7)

China 12 1.26 2.58 (41.7)

Product 2 

United States 12 1.70 2.31 (13.5)

China 12 1.08 2.00 (46.1)

Product 3 

United States 12 1.68 2.90 (10.6)

China 12 1.26 1.84 (18.9)

Product 4 

United States 12 2.12 3.17 (22.2)

China 12 1.86 2.62 (20.0)

Product 5 

United States 12 1.37 1.92 (15.5)

China 6 1.08 1.68 (33.0)

 1 Percentage change from the first quarter in which price data were available to the last quarter in which price data

were available, based on unrounded data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table V-7

Aluminum extrusions: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of

margins, 2007-09

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

China 51 2.1 to 55.0 18.8 3 3.5 to 10.6 7.5

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 8

 In addition, petitioner provided *** allegations without enough contact information for staff to verify the

allegations. These allegations were totaled $*** in value. 

V-10

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. producers of aluminum extrusions to report any instances of lost

sales or revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of aluminum extrusions from China

since January 2007. Petitioners provided both allegations of lost sales and revenues in the petition. Of

the 21 responding non-petitioning U.S. producers, 11 reported that they had to either reduce prices or roll

back announced price increases and 14 producers indicated that they had lost sales of aluminum

extrusions to imports from China. Ten of these producers provided additional lost revenue and lost sales

allegations. The 104 lost sales allegations made by producers totaled $116 million and involved more

than 56 million pounds of aluminum extrusions and the 21 lost revenues allegations totaled more than $8

million and involved more than 21 million pounds of aluminum extrusions.8

 Staff attempted to contact all

of these purchasers, and a summary of the information obtained follows (tables V-8 and V-9).

Ten of 25 responding purchasers named in lost sales and lost revenue allegations indicated that

they switched purchases of aluminum extrusions from U.S. producers to suppliers of aluminum extrusions

from China since January 2007. Four of these ten purchasers indicated that price was the reason for the

shift. Of the five purchasers that indicated that price was not the reason for the shift, three purchasers

(***) cited better quality, two cited better processing abilities, two cited better service, one cited the

ability to produce lighter product, one cited much tighter tolerances, and one purchaser (***) indicated

that it had closed its manufacturing facility that was using aluminum extrusions. *** reported it purchases

only one type aluminum extrusion outside the United States primarily due to quality requirements.

Purchaser *** responded “yes/no” and indicated that both price and developing a supplier in China that

was already supplying local markets, and developing a multiple sourcing strategy were the reasons for the

switch. Five of 18 responding purchasers (***) named in lost sales and lost revenue allegations indicated

that U.S. producers reduced their prices of aluminum extrusions in order to compete with prices of

aluminum extrusions from China since January 2007.

*** agreed with the lost sales allegation made involving his company. However, he noted that

“this is clearly a stacked deck” since he sources aluminum from China though not at the low price

indicated in the allegation. He indicated that the Chinese product is higher quality than the American or

Mexican product and that Chinese suppliers are more often able to supply the quantity needed. ***

indicated that U.S. companies are not able to provide capacity like the Chinese suppliers can.

*** of *** neither agreed or disagreed with the lost sales allegation involving his firm. He

indicates the parts named in the allegation (***) have been made for his firm in China since 2005 by ***,

but that his company requested a competitive bid from U.S. producer *** based on its good performance

as a supplier, and in recognition that it had added new capabilities which might allow it to offer

acceptable prices, taking into account transportation costs. *** noted that the U.S. producer’s quoted

prices were nearly *** times higher than those of its supplier in China, who has a good record of making

high quality parts which meet its specifications. He also indicated that the actual quantity was much

lower than the alleged quantity (***) and that the value is also similarly considerably smaller than the

numbers stated above.

*** indicates that purchases of other machined parts made from aluminum extrusions have been

shifted from U.S. producers and machine shops to suppliers in China who have the capability to extrude,

machine, finish, assemble, and package the complete assemblies for him. He noted that the quantities

purchased from China are very small, with an estimated annual usage of less than 1 ton. *** indicated that

Chinese suppliers have gained his business by offering faster delivery times, consistent and very high

quality, and by providing all the processing steps required. He indicated that most of the firm’s U.S.

suppliers have, so far, been unwilling or unable to provide the same levels of quality, price, and service.
V-11

Table V-8

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

*** of *** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations and the lost revenue allegation made

involving his company. He indicated that his company purchased no aluminum extrusions from China

the year during which the allegations were made (2008). *** also reported that since 2007 his firm had

not switched purchases from U.S. producers to suppliers of certain aluminum extrusions from China. 

However, he did note that his company dropped a domestic source in early 2009 due to poor performance

and added a Chinese source in the same year due to competitive pricing and quality. *** also indicated

that he did not know any price changes by U.S. producers since 2007 due to imports from China.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made against his company. He indicated that

the purchase did not occur. He also indicated that since 2007 his firm had not switched purchases from

U.S. producers to suppliers of certain aluminum extrusions from China and that U.S. producers had not

reduced their prices in order to compete with prices of certain aluminum extrusions imported from China.

*** of *** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegation made involving his company. He

indicated that purchases of product imported from China *** from $*** in 2007 (compared to the $***

alleged import quote) to $*** in 2008 (compared to the $*** alleged import quote), and then *** to $***

in 2009. *** indicated his company planned purchases of $*** in 2010. He indicated that his company

switched some of its purchasing volume to China for several reasons including competitive pricing, using 

multiple sources, developing a supplier in China that is currently a supplier for the company from other

Asian countries, and using the same supply base as ***. *** indicated that his company received only

one price reduction from their domestic supplier since January 1, 2007 and that it was a two to three

percent price reduction that came into effect in March 2010.

*** of *** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations made involving his company. He

indicated that the products in question were never imported from China, but that *** uses the products for

manufacturing in China. *** noted that the “lost” sale was “mostly” due to quality issues and the

supplier's inability to meet the company’s specifications. He also indicated this U.S. supplier recently

approached his company proposing to supply these products out of the supplier’s facility in China and

that his company declined because the supplier again could not guarantee that it could meet the ***

specification. *** also noted that the correct price per unit for these products provided to *** by its U.S.

supplier was approximately $*** per unit. He also indicated that since 2007 his firm had not switched

purchases from U.S. producers to suppliers of certain aluminum extrusions from China and that U.S.

producers had not reduced their prices in order to compete with prices of certain aluminum extrusions

imported from China.

*** somewhat agreed with the lost sales allegation made involving his company. He indicated

that the purchase was for ***. *** indicated that most of his savings came from ***. Although he is not

able to differentiate between savings from ***, he estimated that the accepted quote was *** compared to

the alleged rejected quote for the U.S. product of ***. 

*** of *** agreed with one of the *** lost sales allegations made involving his company, and

disagreed with the rest of the allegations. *** agreed with the 2009 allegation involving *** tons of ***

for $*** and indicated the accepted quote for the Chinese product was $***. He indicated that his firm

purchased from domestic sources for the remainder of the quotes; making ***. 
V-12

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales and lost revenue allegation involving his company. He

indicated that his company did not request any contracts with U.S. producers in 2010 and to only order on

a month to month basis from them. *** noted that this was because of issues with the painting capabilities

and lack of flexibility with deliveries during 2009 with U.S. producer ***. He also reported that his

company’s purchases of imports from China were less from 2007 to 2009 than in 2006 and that they have

not specifically discussed with any U.S. producers a price reduction to compete with Chinese producers.

*** of *** disagree with *** lost sales and *** lost revenue allegation and indicated that his

company did not receive nor reject any quote for $*** of aluminum extrusion in 2009 or 2010 as alleged

in another lost sales allegation involving his company. Regarding the lost revenue allegation, he

indicated that the supplier reduced prices as result of a competitive bid process with another domestic

source and were not competing against any Chinese supplier. Regarding the $*** allegation, ***

indicated that one supplier did submit a quote in 2010 for a portion of the aluminum extrusions sourced

domestically and that the same supplier requested the opportunity to quote on the product sourced from

overseas after the bid process had already been closed for that portion of the business. He indicated that

the supplier never submitted a quote to replace the company’s aluminum extrusions sourced in China. ***

indicated that in *** which was driven by a frustration with some domestic suppliers who could not meet

predefined standards for quality, process capability, and service. He indicated that in *** companies

from China and *** from India were selected as suppliers because they demonstrated superior process

capability, and a greater attention to quality and service. *** indicated that, for example, the Chinese

suppliers were willing to work within much tighter tolerances on critical dimensions, and their track

record for quality has been superior to similar domestic suppliers. He indicated that ***'s supply chain

strategy calls for the selection of highly quailed, financially viable companies with superior process

capability and control, who provide excellent service and that price only becomes a factor once a supplier

has been qualified. *** indicates that *** continues to purchase product from China, however a

significant portion of his company’s purchases of aluminum extrusion are sourced from domestic

suppliers. Regarding the $*** lost sales allegation, he indicated that although Chinese suppliers received

a large portion of the orders due to lower prices, the Chinese suppliers would have received a larger

portion of the orders even if prices were equal have proven to be superior in quality and delivery

performance.

*** of *** agreed with *** of the of the lost allegations made involving his company and

indicated that he did not have any records regarding the remaining *** allegations. He indicated that the

accepted prices for imports of Chinese produced aluminum extrusions for *** allegations he agreed with

were *** percent less than the rejected prices for U.S. product.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made involving their company. They indicate

they were forced to import due to diminished capacities and poor business practices of their current

supplier (***). They added that in order to continue purchasing domestic product, they would have had

to pay tremendous freight costs from the “further distant suppliers.” *** note that other suppliers required

very large minimum purchases per part, making it difficult to control their inventories and manage their

competitive margins. They also indicated that pound for pound, the mill finish price was not that

different. *** noted that in 2005, their current domestic supplier ***. *** indicated that they then added a

second source from China.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation involving his company. He indicated that his

company paid a higher average price to Chinese suppliers than U.S. suppliers in 2007 (the year of the

allegation). *** noted that his company paid an average of $*** per pound to U.S. suppliers and $*** per

pound to Chinese suppliers compared to the alleged rejected U.S. price of $*** per pound and the alleged

accepted Chinese import price of $*** per pound. He also indicated that ***’s purchases of imports from

China have decreased from *** percent of all purchases in 2007 to *** percent in 2009.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made involving his company. He indicated

that the product mentioned in the allegation refers to *** and are not are not the primary aluminum

extrusions that make up *** but rather manufactured parts. *** indicates that the U.S.-produced
 9

 Staff telephone interview with ***, April 13, 2010.

V-13

components were not cost competitive with *** and until November, 2008, ***. He noted that in

November 2006, his company requested price quotations from two suppliers, Chinese supplier *** and

U.S. supplier ***, both of which were cost prohibitive and they therefore elected to ***. *** indicated

that in October 2007 his company requested a price quotation from another supplier, ***, and concluded

that it could realize a cost savings compared to *** by outsourcing these parts to ***. He noted that had

his company not received the favorable quote from ***, it would not have purchased the components

from any domestic supplier but rather would have continued to produce the parts in-house. 

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation made involving his company, indicating his firm

received the alleged quote for U.S. produced product, but decided to maintain the level of its purchases of

product imported from China.9

 However, he indicated that since 2007 his firm had not switched

purchases from U.S. producers to suppliers of certain aluminum extrusions from China and that U.S.

producers had not reduced their prices in order to compete with prices of certain aluminum extrusions

imported from China.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made involving his company. He indicated

that the pricing is not correct and that his company did not have a U.S. firm quote this quantity of

material. *** indicated that *** purchased its *** from importer ***. He indicated his company paid

“full domestic pricing” for some of the material and that they were given an “international price” for some

material. *** also indicated that since 2007 his firm has switched purchases from U.S. producers to

suppliers of certain aluminum extrusions from China because of quality problems and because the U.S.

producer was in financial difficulty. *** specifically indicated that the U.S. producer was not able or

willing to supply *** in the quantities needed.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made involving his company. He indicated

that a review of his company’s purchasing and quoting activity did not reveal any transactions similar to

the alleged transaction, although he did find a quote in *** that he believes could be related to the alleged

quote. He noted that the quantity should be *** instead of ***. *** notes that in *** his company

requested quotes from two domestic and import vendors. He indicated that his primary domestic supplier

provided a quote of $*** per pound, his primary import vendor provided a quote of $*** per pound, and

a secondary domestic extruder provided a quote of $*** per pound. *** reported that his company

intends to purchase from the primary domestic extruder. He also noted that historically import suppliers

have the willingness and apparently the capability to extrude aluminum profiles that are 27 to 31 percent

thinner than that of U.S. extruders, allowing for a significant weight reduction and cost savings. *** also

reported that there has been a minimum shift in his company’s purchases since 2007. He indicated that in

some cases pricing was the reason for the shift, but that the major reason for shift was service issues

relating to a *** U.S. extruder.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation involving his company. He indicated that his

company ***. *** indicated that extrusion production and associated costs and competitive pricing of the

aluminum product had nothing to do with his company’s purchasing decision. However, he noted that

since 2007 his firm has switched purchases from U.S. producers to suppliers of certain aluminum

extrusions from China because his company ***.

*** of *** neither agreed nor disagreed with the allegation involving his company. He indicated

that a competitive quoting exercise was undertaken involving a number of U.S. producers and suppliers of

Chinese imports of aluminum extrusions and that the Chinese suppliers offered a five percent savings

over the lowest priced U.S. producer. However, *** notes that this level of savings was considered

inadequate and that the business was retained by U.S. producers. He also responded that U.S. producers

have not reduced their prices to compete with prices of certain aluminum extrusions imported from China

since 2007.
V-14

*** of *** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations made involving his company. He

indicated that the product description is not accurate and fails to take into consideration the costs to

machine and process aluminum extrusion into ***. *** further indicated that his company did not

purchase aluminum extrusions, ***. 

*** of *** disagreed with the two lost sales allegations involving his firm. He indicated that ***.

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation involving his firm. *** indicate that since 2007

her firm has not switched purchases from U.S. producers to suppliers aluminum extrusions imported from

China, but that U.S. producers had lowered their prices since 2007 in order to compete with prices of

imports from China.

*** of *** disagreed with one lost sales allegation involving his firm. He indicated that the

referenced quote was rejected because the U.S. supplier could not manufacture the product with the

specific type of finish required. *** noted that the product must have ***. He indicated that since ***

was unable to locate any U.S. producer that could manufacture the product with the desired finish, his

company located a foreign manufacturer with the required capability. *** noted that his company

purchases only one type of aluminum extrusion that is manufactured outside the United States and is not

aware of any price reduction by U.S. producers in order to compete with price of aluminum extrusions

imported from China.

*** of *** agreed with the lost sales allegation involving his company, although he indicated that

the pounds and quote values are incorrect. He indicated that his company has found the Chinese product

to be cheaper than the U.S. produced product, although his company has purchased U.S. produced

aluminum extrusions for the plant that he works in.

*** of *** disagreed with the lost sales allegation made involving his company. He indicated

that the quote did not meet his company’s specifications of ***. He also indicated that since 2007 his

firm had not switched purchases from U.S. producers to suppliers of certain aluminum extrusions from

China, but that U.S. producers had reduced their prices in order to compete with prices of certain

aluminum extrusions imported from China. He indicated that a supplier had reduced his pricing, but

could not meet the parts specification of ***.

*** of *** was not able to comment on the lost sales allegation made involving his company. 
PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Thirty four producers reported usable financial results on their aluminum extrusion operations. 

The financial results reported by the majority of companies were based on U.S. GAAP and reflect

calendar-year periods.1

 Revenue primarily reflects commercial sales (U.S. commercial shipments and a

small share of exports). Smaller levels of internal consumption, transfers, and tolling revenue were also

reported by U.S. producers and are reflected in total sales.2

 

As indicated above, the U.S. industry is made up of a large number of producers. On a

cumulative basis, Sapa Extrusions is the largest and accounted for *** percent of cumulative sales volume

with the next five largest U.S. producers ranging from *** percent. The remaining 28 U.S. producers

range from *** percent of cumulative sales volume.3

OPERATIONS ON ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS 

Income-and-loss data for U.S. producers’ operations on aluminum extrusions are presented in

table VI-1 and on an average unit basis in table VI-2. A variance analysis of overall aluminum extrusions

financial results is not presented because, as noted below, changes in average sales values, notably

between 2007 and 2008, reflect changes in underlying product mix. Selected financial information on a

company-specific basis is presented in appendix D of this report.

Revenue

As noted in part V of this report, aluminum extrusion sales revenue generally includes a

commodity component which reflects the passthrough of the underlying aluminum cost to the customer. 

Direct follow-up with U.S. producers confirmed that this is a common industry practice and that the

commodity component is based on the average of a published index.4

 The aluminum component is also

secured pursuant to fixed price contracts in which a specific aluminum extrusion sales volume is agreed to

and for which a specific per pound aluminum cost is established. With respect to fixed price contracts,

Bonnell’s parent company describes the mechanism for securing the cost of the aluminum component as

representing a combination of forward purchase commitments and futures contracts. Similarly, Kaiser

Aluminum indicates that fixed price contracts require a “back-to-back hedge.” 5

 

The period examined was characterized by consecutive declines in sales volume. As shown in

table VI-2, declining sales volume was also accompanied by lower average sales values which

contributed to the overall decline in revenue.6

 While the decline in 2008 average sales value is, at least in

part, due to a shift in product mix, the lower average sales value in 2009 primarily reflects a reduction in

the cost of aluminum.7

 

 1 ***. USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes. 

 2 ***. Ibid. 

 3 ***. 

 4 ***. USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes. March 31, 2010 Kaiser Aluminum Investor Presentation, p. 35.

 5 Tredegar 2009 10-K, p.32. March 31, 2010 Kaiser Aluminum Investor Presentation, p. 35. 

 6 ***. E-mail from *** to USITC auditor, April 28, 2010. ***. USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes.

 7 As shown in appendix D, there were company-specific exceptions to the general pattern of declining average

sales values during the period examined. In particular, it should be noted that in 2008 the majority of U.S. producers

reported higher average sales values with the pattern largely reflecting higher company-specific raw material costs. 

(continued...)

VI-1
Table VI-1

Aluminum Extrusions: Results of operations, 2007-09

Item

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Quantity (short tons)

Total net sales quantity 1,113,241 992,024 729,929

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales value 4,918,361 4,341,480 2,637,337

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw material cost 3,215,281 2,868,950 1,525,112

 Direct labor 471,813 419,103 307,702

 Other factory costs 836,814 836,525 610,963

 Total cost of goods sold 4,523,907 4,124,579 2,443,777

Gross profit 394,453 216,901 193,560

Selling expenses 107,598 106,637 93,876

General and administrative expenses 174,187 163,865 155,903

 Total SG&A expenses 281,785 270,502 249,779

Operating income or (loss) 112,668 (53,601) (56,220)

Interest expense 38,068 23,121 32,868

Other expenses 11,765 11,360 7,357

Other income items 6,038 6,918 3,736

Net income or (loss) 68,873 (81,163) (92,709)

Depreciation/amortization 124,808 108,454 95,683

Estimated cash flow from operations 193,681 27,291 2,974

Table continued on next page.

 7(...continued)

As noted below, company-specific average raw material cost, principally representing aluminum in either billet

and/or ingot and scrap form, reached its highest level for a number of companies in 2008 and then declined in 2009. 

At the staff conference, the consensus appeared to be that for the industry as a whole changes in average sales value

were related more to changes in the cost of aluminum, as opposed to changes in product mix. Conference transcript,

p. 116 (Crowdis). ***. USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes. 

VI-2
Table VI-1--Continued

Aluminum Extrusions: Results of operations, 2007-09

Item

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Raw material cost 65.4 66.1 57.8

Direct labor 9.6 9.7 11.7

Other factory costs 17.0 19.3 23.2

 Cost of goods sold 92.0 95.0 92.7

Gross profit 8.0 5.0 7.3

SG&A expenses 5.7 6.2 9.5

Operating income or (loss) 2.3 (1.2) (2.1)

Net income or (loss) 1.4 (1.9) (3.5)

Number of companies reporting

Operating losses 7 11 18

Data 34 34 34

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VI-2

Aluminum Extrusions: Results of operations (per short ton), 2007-09

Item

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Unit value (per short ton)

Total net sales 4,418 4,376 3,613

Cost of goods sold:

 Raw materials 2,888 2,892 2,089

 Direct labor 424 422 422

 Other factory costs 752 843 837

 Total cost of goods sold 4,064 4,158 3,348

Gross profit 354 219 265

SG&A expenses 253 273 342

Operating income or (loss) 101 (54) (77)

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VI-3
Cost of Goods Sold 

As noted in a previous section of this report, aluminum is the single most important cost in the

production of aluminum extrusions.8

 Depending on the level of vertical integration, the aluminum

component can represent either a finished aluminum billet or aluminum ingot and scrap; i.e., nonintegrated producers purchase billet, while integrated producers generally cast their own billet. As a

practical matter, the raw material costs reported by U.S. producers represent a hybrid of primary

aluminum, scrap, alloys, and transferred/purchased billet.9

 

On a cumulative basis total raw material costs represented 68.6 percent of total cost of goods sold

(COGS) during the period examined; ranging from a high of 71.1 percent of total COGS in 2007 to a low

of 62.4 percent of total COGS in 2009. While the majority of U.S. producers reported higher average raw

material costs in 2008 compared with 2007, the pattern of period-to-period change was not uniform. In

contrast, ***, all U.S. producers reported substantially lower average raw material costs in 2009

compared with 2008 (see appendix D).10 As shown in table VI-1, overall average per short ton raw

material cost increased modestly in 2008 and then declined sharply in 2009. 

 The overall pattern of other factory costs and direct labor is generally consistent with declining

sales volume during the period. Notwithstanding differences in cost classification and the level of

integration, company-specific variations in average other factory costs can be attributed, at least in part, to

differences in value-added fabrication.11 Period-to-period changes in other factory costs also reflect

variability in factors such as primary energy costs, capacity utilization, and the inclusion of some

company-specific non-recurring charges.12 13 As shown in appendix D, ***.14

 8 Although the Commission’s questionnaire separated costs into “aluminum feedstock” and “other raw

materials,” a single raw material cost line item is presented and referenced in this section. In addition to differences

in the integrated producers’ cost classification, some producers indicated that they were unable meaningfully to

separate raw material costs into the aluminum feedstock and other raw material components. While a function of

company-specific activity, when other raw materials were separately reported they generally represented paint,

anodizing, fabrication-related consumables, and packing. USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes. 

 9 While the operations of integrated producers can be generalized in terms of their internal billet production, the

raw material costs of the integrated producers were not reported in a uniform manner to the Commission. ***. 

USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes. E-mail from *** to USITC auditor, April 27, 2010. E-mail with

attachment from *** to USITC auditor, April 29, 2010. 

 10 As noted in part V of this report, aluminum bid prices declined notably in October 2008 and subsequently

reached their lowest point in February 2009. While the cost of aluminum is generally passed through as a separate

component of sales value, the balancing of aluminum inventory with actual sales orders is also important. ***. 

USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes.

 11 Conference transcript, p. 100 (Johnson). Exhibit 1 (response to staff questions) of petitioners’ post conference

brief, pp. 1-2. 

 12 ***. USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes. ***. Ibid.

 13 ***. E-mail from *** to USITC auditor, May 5, 2010. 

 14 ***. E-mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor, April 27, 2010. ***. E-mail with attachment from

*** to USITC auditor, April 29, 2010. ***. 

 With regard to restructuring activity related to aluminum extrusions, Kaiser Aluminum states in its 2009 10-K

that “{i}n December 2008, we announced plans to close operations at our Tulsa, Oklahoma extrusion facility and

significantly reduce operations at our Bellwood, Virginia facility in response to lower demand for products produced

at these locations. These actions resulted in a restructuring charge of $8.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2008

related to employee termination benefits and asset impairment .” Kaiser 2009 10-K, p. 25. Subsequently, “{i}n the

first quarter of 2009, we {Kaiser Aluminum} incurred restructuring costs and other charges in connection with the

closure of our Tulsa, Oklahoma facility. Such costs consisted principally of contract termination and facility shut-

(continued...)

VI-4
Financial Results

While company-specific patterns varied, the majority of U.S. producers managed to generate

gross profit throughout the period, albeit at lower absolute levels, despite declining sales volume (see

appendix D). With respect to larger volume producers, ***.15

 Appendix D indicates that there were varying levels of company-specific operating margins at the

beginning of the period and that ***. The industry’s overall operating profit margin, however, was not

particularly strong in 2007 which, at least in part, reflects reduced sales to the residential market.16 As the

period progressed, a relatively modest contraction in gross profit margin and somewhat higher SG&A

expense ratios combined to generate operating losses in both 2008 and 2009.17 While SG&A expenses

include a minor amount of non-recurring charges, the absolute level of SG&A expenses declined

throughout the period.18 As such, the higher SG&A expense ratios noted above, which contributed to the

U.S. industry’s overall operating losses in 2008 and 2009, primarily reflect declining sales revenue.19

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, 

ASSETS, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses, assets, and return on

investment are presented in table VI-3. Appendix D presents company-specific capital expenditures,

R&D expenses, total assets, and return on investment.

***.20

The relatively large increase in the U.S. industry’s total capital expenditures in 2008 is ***.21

While ***.22

 14(...continued)

down costs. In the second quarter of 2009, we curtailed operations at our Bellwood, Virginia facility to focus solely

on drive shaft and seamless tube products and shut down the Bellwood, Virginia facility temporarily during the

month of July 2009, in response to planned shutdowns in the automotive industry and continued weak economic and

market conditions. In addition, we reduced our personnel in certain other locations in the second quarter in an effort

to streamline costs. In connection with these plans, we recorded restructuring costs and other charges of $5.4

million, principally related to involuntary employee termination and other personnel costs.” Ibid. 

 15 ***. E-mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor, April 27, 2010. 

 16 Conference transcript, pp. 117-118 (Crowdis).

 17 The extent of engineering expenses related to product design and customer support may help to explain some

of the differences in company-specific SG&A expense ratios shown in appendix D. ***. USITC auditor

preliminary-phase notes.

 18 ***. 

 19 Similar to the pattern of absolute gross profit, company-specific changes in operating results were not uniform

during the period examined. Nonetheless, over half of the U.S. producers reported period-to-period declines in their

operating results. ***. E-mail from *** to USITC auditor, April 28, 2010. 

 ***. E-mail from *** to USITC auditor, April 27, 2010. 

 20 E-mail from *** to USITC auditor, May 5, 2010. ***. Ibid. 

 21 ***. USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes. ***. E-mail with attachment from *** to USITC auditor, April

29, 2010.

 22 The *** of Bonnel’s 2009 capital expenditure represent a new 5,500-ton press line at its Carthage, TN plant. 

The new press line reportedly increases Bonnell’s product range to 16-inch (406 mm) wide profiles. Aluminum,

March 2009, p. 54. 

VI-5
Table VI-3

Aluminum Extrusions: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and return on investment,

2007-09

Item

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Capital expenditures ($1,000)

Total capital expenditures 96,294 145,810 62,096

R&D expenses ($1,000)

Total R&D expenses 15,497 11,989 11,020

Assets ($1,000)

1

Total assets 1,990,093 1,747,890 1,708,858

Return on investment (percent)

1

Average return on investment 5.5 (3.2) (3.4)

1

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

R&D expenses, which were reported by ***, primarily represent engineering product support.23

While the level and type of such activity varies from company to company, it is likely that more U.S.

producers would have reported R&D expenses had their definition of this term included ongoing

engineering activity.

While restructuring and related activity impacted the balance of total assets, part of the overall

decline in total assets shown in table VI-3 was due solely to reductions in current assets, such as

receivables and inventory, which is consistent with the period’s reduced sales activity.24

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of aluminum extrusions from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital,

existing development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the product), or the scale of capital investments. Responses are presented in appendix E. 

 23 USITC auditor preliminary-phase notes.

 24 ***. E-mail from *** to USITC auditor, May 5, 2010. 

VI-6
VII-1 

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION 

ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES 

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that-- 

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened with 

material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the 

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other relevant 

economic factors1

-- 

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be 

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the subsidy 

(particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy 

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and whether 

imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase, 

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial 

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the 

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise 

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export 

markets to absorb any additional exports, 

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of 

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of 

substantially increased imports, 

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that 

are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on 

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports, 

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise, 

(VI) 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, 

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both a 

raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv)) and 

any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the likelihood 

that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there 

is an affirmative determination by the Commission under section 705(b)(1) 

or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw agricultural product or the 

processed agricultural product (but not both), 

 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider 

{these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are 

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension 

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to 

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination 

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.” 
VII-2 

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development 

and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts to 

develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like 

product, and 

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability 

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for 

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually being 

imported at the time).2

Information in relation to subsidies in China is presented in Part I; information on the volume and 

pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and V; and information on the 

effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing development and production 

efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ 

operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and 

any dumping in third-country markets, follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information 

obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries and the global market. 

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA 

The petition identified 114 potential producers of aluminum extrusions in China. The 

Commission received questionnaire responses from 12 producers or exporters of aluminum extrusions in 

China. Tables VII-1 and VII-2 present information on the responding Chinese producers and exporters of 

aluminum extrusions based on questionnaire responses received. Based on their reported exports to the 

United States, these firms account for 35-40 percent of U.S. imports in 2007 and 2008, but only 12 

percent of U.S. imports from China in 2009. Based on estimates provided in their questionnaire 

responses, these 12 firms account for an estimated 10 to 12 percent of total production of aluminum 

extrusions in China.3

 

 2

 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping 

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as 

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or 

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of 

material injury to the domestic industry.” 

3

 This estimate does not take into account responses provided by two smaller specialty extrusion firms whose 

estimates of Chinese production deviated substantially from those provided by other foreign producer questionnaire 

responses. The estimated average Chinese production of aluminum extrusions is between 4.6 and 5.5 million short 

tons a year in 2009, which was approximatley 3 to 3.5 times the size of the U.S. industry that year. In a public 

offering statement, the holding company that owns China’s largest aluminum extruder reported that the top 10 

largest aluminum extruders in China had a reported capacity to produce 2.1 million short tons of aluminum 

extrusions in 2007 (see Petitioners' postconference brief, exh. 3, p. 77). This figure is 4.4 times more capacity than 

responding Chinese producers reported for 2007. See table VII-2. 
VII-3 

Table VII-1 

Aluminum extrusions: Producers and exporters of aluminum extrusions in China, locations, 

production, and shares of reported production, 2009 

Firm Loca tion(s) 

Production in 

2009 (short 

tons) 

Share of reported 

production 

(percent) 

Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory 

Co., Ltd. 

Zhaoqing, Guangdong *** ***

Zhongya Shaped Aluminium 

(H.K.) Holding Ltd. 

Hong Kong (headquarters) 

Foshan, Guangdong 

Zhaoqing, Guangdong 

*** ***

Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium 

Extrusion Co., Ltd. 

Taishan, Guangdong *** ***

OPAL (Macao Commercial 

Offshore) Limited1

 

Macao (headquarters) 

Zengcheng, Guangdong 

*** ***

Alnan Aluminium Co., Ltd. Nanning, Guangxi *** ***

Fujian Minfa Aluminium, Inc. Nan’an, Fujian *** ***

Guangdong Grand Shine 

Construction Material Co., Ltd. 

Guangzhou, Guangdong *** ***

China Square Industrial, Ltd. Hong Kong (headquarters) 

Zhaoqing, Guangdong 

*** ***

Tianjin Ruixin Electric Heat 

Transmission Technology Co., 

Ltd. 

Tianjin *** ***

Changshu Changsheng 

Aluminium Products Co., Ltd. 

Changshu, Jiangsu *** ***

Wuxi Xintai Aluminum Seamless 

Tubing Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

Wuxi, Jiangsu *** ***

Shanghai Sanyuan Alu Co., Ltd. Shanghai *** *** 1

 OPAL’s response includes information on the operations of PanAsia Aluminum (China), Ltd. 2

 ***. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VII-4 

Table VII-2 

Aluminum extrusions: Data for capacity, production, shipments, and inventories of producers in 

China, 2007-09 and projected 2010-11 

Items 

Actual experience Projections 

Calendar year 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Quantity (short tons) 

Capacity 497,530 514,867 540,313 545,153 547,153

Production 311,848 372,455 344,700 371,327 395,276

Purchases 1,914 1,673 800 1,000 1,000

End-of-period inventories 16,253 21,703 22,971 23,470 19,974

Shipments: 

Internal consumption/ 

transfers 5,043 4,049 4,509 4,370 4,370

Home market 182,679 246,025 243,076 265,101 288,409

Exports to: 

United States 43,271 37,667 27,238 27,538 27,605

All other markets 72,754 76,233 64,690 70,210 74,821

Total exports 116,025 113,900 91,928 97,749 102,427

Total shipments 303,747 363,974 339,513 367,220 395,206

Ratios and shares (percent) 

Capacity utilization 62.7 72.3 63.8 68.1 72.2

Inventories/production 5.2 5.8 6.7 6.3 5.1

Inventories/shipments 5.4 6.0 6.8 6.4 5.1

Share of total shipments: 

Internal consumption/ 

transfers 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1

Home market 60.1 67.6 71.6 72.2 73.0

Exports to: 

United States 14.2 10.3 8.0 7.5 7.0

All other markets 24.0 20.9 19.1 19.1 18.9

Total exports 38.2 31.3 27.1 26.6 25.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table VII-3 presents information on the largest exporters in China of aluminum extrusions based 

on proprietary U.S. Customs data. 
VII-5 

Table VII-3 

Aluminum extrusions: Major Chinese exporters to the United States, 2007-09 

* * * * * * * 

The Liaoning Zhongwang Group, ***, did not provide a response to the Commission’s foreign 

producers’ questionnaire. ***. *** between 2008 and 2009.4

 

Table VII-4 combines responding Chinese producers’ data from table VII-2 with data on 

Liaoning Zhongwang Group available from proprietary Customs data and from public sources.5

 

Including data on the Liaoning Zhongwang Group demonstrates the near double digit growth of the 

Chinese aluminum extrusions industry in 2009, and projected for 2010 and 2011.6

 Based on estimates 

provided in questionnaire responses, table VII-4 data would account for an estimated 15 to 18 percent of 

total production of aluminum extrusions in China in 2009, *** percent of U.S. imports in 2007 and 2008, 

and *** percent of U.S. imports from China in 2009. 

Table VII-4 

Aluminum extrusions: Data for capacity, production, exports to the United States of responding 

producers and the Liaoning Zhongwang Group in China, 2007-09 and projected 2010-11 

Actual experience Projections 

Calendar year 

Items 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

Quantity (short tons) 

Capacity 1,054,197 1,104,604 1,201,700 1,316,771 1,429,002

Production 580,812 706,455 807,082 993,251 1,106,046

Exports to the United States *** *** *** *** ***

Ratios and shares (percent) 

Capacity utilization 55.1 64.0 67.2 75.4 77.4

Ratio of exports to 

production *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, proprietary Customs data, 

Petitioners' postconference brief, pp. 40-42, exh. 3, 4, 28, 29.

U.S. INVENTORIES OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE 

Table VII-5 presents data on U.S. importers’ reported inventories of aluminum extrusions. U.S. 

inventories of Chinese-origin aluminum extrusions more than tripled between 2008 and 2009. 

 4

 Proprietary Customs data. ***; ***. 

5

 Petitioners' postconference brief, exh. 3, 4, 28, 29. 

6

 Table VII-2 (without The Liaoning Zhongwang Group) reports growth for 2009 in Chinese capacity of 4.9 

percent, but projects smaller capacity increases for 2010, an increase of 0.9 percent, and 2011, an increase of 0.4 

percent. Table VII-4 (including publicly available data on the historical and projected capacity of The Liaoning 

Zhongwang Group) reports stronger growth in Chinese capacity in 2009 at 8.8 percent, and even larger increases in 

projected capacity for 2010, an increase of 9.6 percent, and 2011, a further increase of 8.5 percent. 
VII-6 

Table VII-5 

Aluminum extrusions: U.S. importers’ inventories, 2007-09 

* * * * * * * 

U.S. IMPORTERS’ OUTSTANDING ORDERS 

U.S. importers reported 51,057 short tons of outstanding orders from China since January 1, 

2010. Official Commerce statistics already show 36,393 short tons of imports of aluminum extrusions 

from China in January and February 2010. 

ANTIDUMPING OR COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS 

On March 17, 2009, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal made affirmative injury 

determinations in its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imports of aluminum 

extrusions from China and instructed the Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA) to apply its final 

dumping and subsidy margins on imports of aluminum extrusions into Canada from China. Table VII-6 

presents the final rates of dumping and subsidization of Chinese producers found in the Canadian 

investigations. 

Table VII-6 

Aluminum extrusions: Dumping and subsidization rates found for select Chinese producers or 

exporters to Canada, July 2008 to June 2009 

Firm 

Margin of dumping 

(percent) 

Amount of subsidy 

(renminbi per kilogram) 

Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co., Ltd. 27.8 3.88

Press Metal International Ltd. 35.2 15.84

Panasia Aluminium (China) Limited 31.4 3.51

Guangdong Weiye Aluminium Factory Co., 

Ltd. 42.4 3.65

Guangdong Jianmei Aluminum Profile Factory 

Co., Ltd. 28.5 2.59

China Square Industrial Limited 1.7 2.82

Foshan Guangcheng Aluminum Co., Ltd. 33.8 2.95

Guang Ya Aluminum Industries Co., Ltd. 40.4 3.07

All other exporters 101.0 15.84

Source: Statement of reasons concerning the making of final determinations with respect to the dumping and 

subsidizing of aluminum extrusions originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China, Canada 

Border Services Agency, March 3, 2009, Appendix 1. 

On November 3, 2009, Australia issued affirmative preliminary margins of dumping and 

subsidization related to imports of aluminum extrusions into Australia from China.7 Table VII-7 presents 

the preliminary rates of dumping and subsidization of Chinese producers found in the Australian 

investigations. 

 7

 The Australian investigations cover both soft- and hard-alloy aluminum extrusions. 
VII-7 

Table VII-7 

Aluminum extrusions: Dumping and subsidization rates found for select Chinese producers or 

exporters to Australia, July 2008 to June 2009 

Firm 

Margin of dumping 

(percent) 

Amount of subsidy 

(renminbi per kilogram) 

Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion 

Co., Ltd. 11.2 3.8

Tai Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd. de minimus de minimus

Panasia Aluminium (China), Ltd. 10.4 8.8

Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminium Co., Ltd. 3.4 7.7

Residual exporters 7.1 6.8

Non-cooperating exporters 25.7 19.0

Source: Statement Of Essential Facts No.148 Certain Aluminium Extrusions Exported To Australia From The 

People’s Republic of China, March 1, 2010, pp. 7-8. 

Table VII-8 presents reported exports of aluminum extrusions from China. Chinese export 

statistics are directly comparable to U.S. import data because the primary HTS numbers at the 10-digit 

level used to generate U.S. import statistics are the universe of statistical reporting numbers under the 6 

digit headings of 7604.21, 7604.29, and 7608.20 at the harmonized level among countries. 

 

Table VII-8 

Aluminum extrusions: Chinese exports, 2007-09, January-March 2009, and January-March 2010 

Destination market 

Calendar year January-March 

2007 2008 2009 2009 2010 

Quantity (short tons) 

United States 106,337 57,667 205,052 14,556 87,381

Hong Kong 90,383 46,458 34,625 3,196 8,013

Korea South 114,218 8,929 1,063 61 356

Australia 33,543 33,026 34,199 5,779 8,939

United Kingdom 20,268 21,541 22,844 3,067 6,616

Nigeria 15,778 19,342 26,588 4,281 4,458

Canada 23,965 21,072 3,643 854 744

Malaysia 32,825 6,840 6,127 940 2,709

Germany 19,578 16,358 8,764 1,349 2,690

Subtotal 456,896 231,234 342,905 34,083 121,906

All other destination markets 304,035 187,963 239,687 36,414 66,112

Total 760,931 419,197 582,591 70,497 188,018

Source: Global Trade Atlas, www.gtis.com.

The Chinese industry sharply cut exports to the Canadian market for aluminum extrusions 

following the successful antidumping and countervailing duty case brought by Canadian extruders, while 

data through March 2010 indicate that Chinese producers have still been able to supply the Australian 

market with aluminum extrusions despite the application of preliminary duties due to that country’s 

antidumping and countervailing duty investigations beginning in November 2009. 
VII-8 

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT SOURCES 

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury 

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all 

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be 

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”8

 

Part IV presents information of U.S. imports of aluminum extrusions, including major nonsubject sources 

of imports. According to official Commerce statistics, Canada was the single largest nonsubject source of 

aluminum extrusions in the U.S. market, accounting for 19.5 percent of total imports in 2009; All other 

nonsubject sources combined accounted for less than 10 percent of total U.S. imports in 2009. 

Canada 

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) identified 12 Canadian manufacturers of 

aluminum extrusions in 2008 and 2009.9

 Those producers identified included Almag, Apel, Can Art, 

Daymond, Extrudex, Kaiser, Indalex (headquartered in the United States),10 Kawneer, Kromet, Metra, 

Signature, and Spectra. All Canadian domestic producers manufactured aluminum extrusions in both 

custom shapes and standard shapes, except for Daymond, Kawneer, and Kromet who manufactured 

custom-shaped aluminum extrusions exclusively. A review of company websites revealed that most firms 

produced 1000, 3000, and 6000 series alloy extrusions, with most firms concentrating their production 

within the 6000 series of extrusions. 

According to the CITT, Canadian domestic production of aluminum extrusions rose 6 percent to 

240,000 short tons in 2006 before declining to 219,000 short tons in 2007. Production during the first 9 

months of 2008 declined by 4 percent compared to the same period a year earlier to 161,000 short tons. 

Also, according to the CITT, Canadian exports of aluminum extrusions rose 8 percent to 105,000 short 

tons in 2006 before declining 13 percent to 91,000 short tons in 2007. Canadian exports during the first 9 

months of 2008 rose to 71,000 short tons, or by 3 percent compared to the same period a year earlier. 

Canadian domestic producers’ export sales accounted for 41 percent of their total production during 2007. 

Export sales of aluminum extrusions to the United States increased by 22 percent between 2005 and 2007 

and by 27 percent when comparing the first 9 months of 2008 with the first 9 months of 2007. A number 

of U.S. manufacturers of aluminum extrusions, such as Sapa, own extrusion facilities in both the United 

States and Canada and actively ship product between the two countries based on the extrusion and 

finishing capabilities of particular plants within each nation. 11

 8

 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting 

from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52; 

see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

9

 Aluminum Extrusions, Inquiry No. NQ-2008-003, Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Findings issued 

March 17, 2009), p. 16. 

10 Currently owned by Sapa Extrusions. 

11 Aluminum Extrusions-Custom Shapes and Aluminum Extrusions-Standard Shapes, Staff Report, Canadian 

International Trade Tribunal, p. 2. 
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

17436 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Notices 

1The Committee is comprised of the following 

members: Aerolite Extrusion Company, Younstown, 

OH; Alexandria Extrusion Company, Alexandria, 

MN; Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., Medley, 

FL; William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., Newnan, 

GA; Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Corona, CA; 

Futura Industries Corporation, Clearfield, UT; 

Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., Linthicum, 

MD; Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Foothill Ranch, 

CA; Profile Extrusion Company, Rome, GA; Sapa 

Extrusions, Inc., Des Plaines, IL; and Western 

Extrusions Corporation, Carrollton, TX. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7688 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–475 and 731– 

TA–1177 (Preliminary)] 

Certain Aluminum Extrusions From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations and 

scheduling of preliminary phase 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of investigations 

and commencement of preliminary 

phase antidumping and countervailing 

duty investigations Nos. 701–TA–475 

and 731–TA–1177 (Preliminary) under 

sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 

1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine 

whether there is a reasonable indication 

that an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from China of certain aluminum 

extrusions, primarily provided for in 

subheadings 7604.21.00, 7604.29.10, 

7604.29.30, 7604.29.50, and 7608.20.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that are alleged to be 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value and alleged to be subsidized by 

the Government of China. Unless the 

Department of Commerce extends the 

time for initiation pursuant to sections 

702(c)(1)(B) or 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

(19 U.S.C. 1671a(c)(1)(B) or 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in 45 days, or in this case 

by Monday, May 17, 2010. The 

Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by Monday, May 24, 2010. 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of these investigations and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Russell Duncan 

(russell.duncan@usitc.gov, 202–708– 

4727), Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. These investigations are 

being instituted in response to a petition 

filed on March 31, 2010, by the 

Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 

Committee (‘‘Committee’’) 1 and the 

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union (‘‘USW’’). 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list. Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations. The 

Secretary will prepare a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to these investigations 

upon the expiration of the period for 

filing entries of appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list. Pursuant to section 

207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the 

Secretary will make BPI gathered in 

these investigations available to 

authorized applicants representing 

interested parties (as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 

investigations under the APO issued in 

the investigations, provided that the 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference. The Commission’s 

Director of Investigations has scheduled 

a conference in connection with these 

investigations for 9:30 a.m. on 

Wednesday, April 21, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, 

DC. Parties wishing to participate in the 

conference should contact Russell 

Duncan (russell.duncan@usitc.gov, 202– 

708–4727) not later than Friday, April 

16, 2010, to arrange for their 

appearance. Parties in support of the 

imposition of antidumping duties in 

these investigations and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

Monday, April 26, 2010, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigations. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain BPI, 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 6, 2010 / Notices 17437 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 31, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7683 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–705] 

In the Matter of Certain Notebook 

Computer Products and Components 

Thereof; Notice of Commission 

Decision Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Correcting the Claims 

Asserted From U.S. Patent No. 

7,156,693 in the Complaint and Notice 

of Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 6) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-referenced investigation 

correcting the claims asserted from U.S. 

Patent 7,156,693 (‘‘the ’693 patent’’) in 

the complaint and notice of 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on February 24, 2010, based on a 

complaint filed by Toshiba Corporation 

of Japan (‘‘Toshiba’’). 75 FR 8400. The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain notebook 

computer products and components 

thereof by reason of infringement of the 

’693 patent and U.S. Patent No. 

5,430,867. The complaint names three 

respondents. 

On March 8, 2010, Toshiba moved to 

amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to correct the claims 

asserted from the ’693 patent. In 

particular, Toshiba’s motion indicates 

that claim 7 was erroneously identified 

instead of claim 4. Neither the 

Commission Investigative Attorney nor 

any of the respondents opposed this 

motion. 

On March 9, 2010, the ALJ issued the 

subject ID correcting the claims asserted 

from the ‘693 patent to include claims 

1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 15–17, and 20–22. No 

petitions for review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the ALJ’s ID. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

section 210.42 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42). 

Issued: March 31, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7681 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (10–040)] 

NASA Advisory Council; Audit, 

Finance and Analysis Committee; 

Meeting 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 

Law 92–463, as amended, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

announces a meeting of the Audit, 

Finance and Analysis Committee of the 

NASA Advisory Council. 

DATES: Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 9 a.m.– 

11 a.m. CDT. 

ADDRESSES: NASA Johnson Space 

Center, Gilruth Conference Center, 

Lonestar Room, 2101 NASA Parkway, 

Houston, TX 77058. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Charlene Williams, Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration 

Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546. 

Phone: 202–358–2183, fax: 202–358– 

4336. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

agenda for the meeting includes the 

following topic: 

• GAO High Risk List 

The meeting will be open to the public 

up to the seating capacity of the room. 

It is imperative that the meeting be held 

on this date to accommodate the 

scheduling priorities of the key 

participants. 

Dated: March 31, 2010. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–7770 Filed 4–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (10–039)] 

NASA Advisory Council; Commercial 

Space Committee; Meeting 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 

Law 92–463, as amended, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

announces a meeting of the Commercial 

Space Committee of the NASA Advisory 

Council. 

DATES: Monday, April 26, 2010, 1:30 

p.m.–6 p.m. CDT. 

ADDRESSES: NASA Johnson Space 

Center, Gilruth Conference Center, 2101 

NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Emond, Innovative Partnerships 

Program, Office of the Chief 

Technologist, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, Washington, DC, 

20546. Phone 202–358–1686, fax: 202– 

358–3878, john.l.emond@nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

agenda for the meeting includes a NASA 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 22109 

3 If one of the above-named companies does not 

qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) who have not qualified 

for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this 

review as part of the single PRC entity of which the 

named exporters are a part. 

4 If the above-named company does not qualify 

for a separate rate, all other exporters of Circular 

Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are 

deemed to be covered by this review as part of the 

single PRC entity of which the named exporters are 

a part. 

5 If one of the above-named companies does not 

qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of 

Glycine from the PRC who have not qualified for 

a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this 

review as part of the single PRC entity of which the 

named exporters are a part. 

1The Aluminum Extrusions fair Trade Committee 

is comprised of Aerolite Extrusion Company, 

Alexandria Extrusion Company, Benada Aluminum 

of Florida, Inc., William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., 

Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries 

Corporation, Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., 

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile Extrusions 

Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc. and Western 

Extrusions Corporation. 

2See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Petitioner’s Response to the 

Department’s April 6, 2010, Request for 

Clarification of Certain Items Contained in the 

Petition, dated April 9, 2010 (‘‘Supplement to 

General Issues Petition’’). 

3See Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China: Petitioner’s Response to the 

Department’s April 7, 2010, Request for 

Clarification of Certain Items Contained in the 

Petition, dated April 19, 2010 (‘‘Supplement to the 

AD Petition’’). 

Period to be 

reviewed 

Samin Chemical Co., Ltd. 

Shaanxi Maxsun Trading Co., Ltd. 

Shijiazhuang Green Ccarbon Products Co., Ltd. 

Showa Denko K.K. 

Sinochem Qingdao Company, Ltd. 

Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Company.

Yuki Gosei Kogyo Co., Ltd. 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings 

None. 

Suspension Agreements 

None. 

During any administrative review 

covering all or part of a period falling 

between the first and second or third 

and fourth anniversary of the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a 

determination under 19 CFR 

351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or 

suspended investigation (after sunset 

review), the Secretary, if requested by a 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, will 

determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. 

United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 

2002), as appropriate, whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. The request must 

include the name(s) of the exporter or 

producer for which the inquiry is 

requested. 

For the first administrative review of 

any order, there will be no assessment 

of antidumping or countervailing duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption during the relevant 

provisional-measures ‘‘gap’’ period, of 

the order, if such a gap period is 

applicable to the POR. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective orders in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures (73 FR 3634). Those 

procedures apply to administrative 

reviews included in this notice of 

initiation. Parties wishing to participate 

in any of these administrative reviews 

should ensure that they meet the 

requirements of these procedures (e.g., 

the filing of separate letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

These initiations and this notice are 

in accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1765(a)), and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: April 19, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9491 Filed 4–23–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–967] 

Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty Investigation 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Hollwitz, Andrea Staebler Berton or 

Charles Riggle, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, (202) 482–2336, (202) 482– 

4037 or (202) 482–0650, respectively; 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

31, 2010, the Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) received a petition 

concerning imports of aluminum 

extrusions from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 

Committee,1 and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China dated March 

31, 2010 (‘‘Petition’’). On April 6 and 

April 7, 2010, the Department issued 

requests for information and 

clarification of certain areas of the 

Petition. Petitioners timely filed 

additional information on April 9, 

2010,2 and on April 19, 2010.3 On April 

14, 2010, the Department asked 

Petitioners additional questions 

regarding the re–bracketing of certain 

information. Petitioners responded to 

the Department’s questions in the 

Second Supplement to the AD Petition, 

dated April 15, 2010 (‘‘Second 

Supplement to the AD Petition’’). 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2009, through December 31, 

2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

In accordance with section 732(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, (‘‘the Act’’), 

Petitioners allege that imports of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

22110 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

within the meaning of section 731 of the 

Act, and that such imports are 

materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, an industry in the 

United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are an interested party, as defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), and (F) of the Act, 

and have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

antidumping duty investigation that 

Petitioners are requesting the 

Department to initiate (see 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ section below). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are aluminum extrusions 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

‘‘Scope of Investigation,’’ in Appendix I 

of this notice. 

Comments on Scope of the Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

regulations (Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are 

setting aside a period for interested 

parties to raise issues regarding product 

coverage. The Department encourages 

interested parties to submit such 

comments by Monday, May 10, 2010, 

which is twenty calendar days from the 

signature date of this notice. Comments 

should be addressed to Import 

Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit, 

Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

The period of scope consultations is 

intended to provide the Department 

with ample opportunity to consider all 

comments and to consult with parties 

prior to the issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Comments on Product Characteristics 

for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires 

We are requesting comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

appropriate physical characteristics of 

aluminum extrusions to be reported in 

response to the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaires. This 

information will be used to identify the 

key physical characteristics of the 

merchandise under consideration in 

order to more accurately report the 

relevant factors and costs of production, 

as well as to develop appropriate 

product comparison criteria. 

Interested parties may provide 

information or comments that they 

believe are relevant to the development 

of an accurate listing of physical 

characteristics. Specifically, they may 

provide comments as to which 

characteristics are appropriate to use as: 

1) general product characteristics; and 

2) the product comparison criteria. We 

note that it is not always appropriate to 

use all product characteristics as 

product comparison criteria. We base 

product comparison criteria on 

meaningful commercial differences 

among products. In other words, while 

there may be some physical product 

characteristics utilized by 

manufacturers to describe aluminum 

extrusions, it may be that only a select 

few product characteristics take into 

account commercially meaningful 

physical characteristics. In addition, 

interested parties may comment on the 

order in which the physical 

characteristics should be used in 

product matching. Generally, the 

Department attempts to list the most 

important physical characteristics first 

and the least important characteristics 

last. 

In order to consider the suggestions of 

interested parties in developing and 

issuing the antidumping duty 

questionnaires, we must receive 

comments at the above–referenced 

address by May 10, 2010. Additionally, 

rebuttal comments must be received by 

May 17, 2010. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method to poll the 

industry. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), 

which is responsible for determining 

whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has 

been injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (see section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

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 title.’’ Thus, the 

reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

aluminum extrusions constitute a single 

domestic like product and we have 

analyzed industry support in terms of 

that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Antidumping 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘Checklist’’), at 

Attachment II, Industry Support, on file 

in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 

of the main Department of Commerce 

building. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing under section 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 22111 

732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigations’’ section above. 

To establish industry support, 

Petitioners provided their production of 

the domestic like product in 2009. See 

Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–3. 

In addition Petitioners provided letters 

of support from ten additional 

companies that produce the domestic 

like product. See id. Petitioners 

compared their production and the 

production of the supporters of the 

Petition to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition at 3–4 and 

Exhibits I–3 and I–4. Petitioners 

estimated total industry production of 

the domestic like product for 2009 using 

industry wide shipment data from the 

Aluminum Association, which 

according to Petitioners is ‘‘an 

independent and authoritative source 

for aluminum industry data.’’ See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 3. We have 

relied upon data Petitioners provided 

for purposes of measuring industry 

support. For further discussion, see 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and 

Checklist at Attachment 2. Second, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for at least 25 percent of the 

total production of the domestic like 

product. See Checklist at Attachment II. 

Finally, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petition account for more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

Petition. Accordingly, the Department 

determines that the Petition was filed on 

behalf of the domestic industry within 

the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the 

Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because it is an 

interested party as defined in section 

771(9)(C), (D), and (F) of the Act and it 

has demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

duty investigation that it is requesting 

the Department initiate. See id. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners alleged that the U.S. 

industry producing the domestic like 

product is being materially injured, or is 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of the imports of the subject 

merchandise sold at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners 

alleged that subject imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contended that the 

industry’s injured condition is 

illustrated by reduced market share, 

increased raw material cost, declining 

capacity, production, shipments, 

underselling and price depression or 

suppression, reduced employment, 

hours worked, and wages paid, declines 

in financial performance, lost sales and 

revenue, and an increase in import 

penetration. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at 16, 19–27, 30–33, and 

Exhibits I–10 through I–15, III–33; and 

Supplement to AD/CVD Petitions, dated 

April 9, 2010, at 8–9, and Attachment 4. 

We have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Checklist at Attachment III. 

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value 

The following is a description of the 

allegations of sales at less than fair value 

upon which the Department based its 

decision to initiate this investigation of 

imports of aluminum extrusions from 

the PRC. The sources of data for the 

deductions and adjustments relating to 

the U.S. price and the factors of 

production are also discussed in the 

initiation checklist. See Checklist. 

U.S. Price 

Petitioners calculated export price 

(‘‘EP’’) based on documentation of offers 

for 

sale obtained from a confidential 

source. See Checklist; see also Volume 

II of the Petition, at 1 and Exhibits II– 

1 and II–2. Based on the terms of sale, 

Petitioners adjusted the export price for 

brokerage and handling and foreign 

domestic inland freight. See Checklist; 

see also Volume II of the Petition, at 1– 

2 and Exhibits II–2 and II–3. 

Normal Value 

Petitioners claim the PRC is a non– 

market economy (‘‘NME’’) country and 

that no determination to the contrary 

has been made by the Department. See 

Volume II of the Petition, at 2. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, the presumption of NME status 

remains in effect until revoked by the 

Department. The presumption of NME 

status for the PRC has not been revoked 

by the Department and, therefore, 

remains in effect for purposes of the 

initiation of this investigation. 

Accordingly, the NV of the product for 

the PRC investigation is appropriately 

based on factors of production valued in 

a surrogate market–economy country in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act. In the course of this investigation, 

all parties, including the public, will 

have the opportunity to provide relevant 

information related to the issue of the 

PRC’s NME status and the granting of 

separate rates to individual exporters. 

Petitioners contend that India is the 

appropriate surrogate country for the 

PRC because: 1) it is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC and 2) it is a significant 

producer and exporter of comparable 

merchandise. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 3–5, and Exhibits II–4 and 

II–16. Based on the information 

provided by Petitioners, we believe that 

it is appropriate to use India as a 

surrogate country for initiation 

purposes. After initiation of the 

investigation, interested parties will 

have the opportunity to submit 

comments regarding surrogate country 

selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production within 40 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

Petitioners calculated NV and the 

dumping margins using the 

Department’s NME methodology as 

required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 

and 19 CFR 351.408. In calculating NV, 

Petitioners based the quantity of each of 

the inputs used to manufacture 

aluminum extrusions in the PRC on 

product–specific production costs and/ 

or consumption rates of an aluminum 

extrusions producer in the United States 

(‘‘Surrogate Domestic Producer’’) for 

identical or similar merchandise during 

the POI. See Volume II of the Petition, 

at 5–8 and Exhibits II–2, II–6, II–7 and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

22112 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 

II–9. Petitioners state that the actual 

usage rates of the foreign manufacturers 

of aluminum extrusions are not 

reasonably available; however, 

Petitioners note that according to the 

information available, the production of 

aluminum extrusions relies on similar 

production methods to the Surrogate 

Domestic Producer. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 5 and Exhibit II–8. 

As noted above, Petitioners 

determined the consumption quantities 

of all raw materials based on the 

production experience of the Surrogate 

Domestic Producer. Petitioners valued 

most of the factors of production based 

on reasonably available, public 

surrogate country data, specifically, 

Indian import statistics from the Global 

Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’). See Volume II of 

the Petition, at 6–8; see also Second 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 

Exhibit S–2. Petitioners excluded from 

these import statistics imports from 

countries previously determined by the 

Department to be NME countries. 

Petitioners also excluded import 

statistics from Indonesia, the Republic 

of Korea, and Thailand, as the 

Department has previously excluded 

prices from these countries because they 

maintain broadly available, non– 

industry-specific export subsidies. See 

Second Supplement to the AD Petition, 

at Exhibit S–2. Petitioners valued 

certain other factors of production using 

price data obtained from the Bombay 

Metal Exchange, as published by 

Reuters India. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 7, and Second Supplement 

to the AD Petition, at Exhibit S–1. In 

addition, Petitioners made currency 

conversions, where necessary, based on 

the POI–average rupee/U.S. dollar 

exchange rate, as reported on the 

Department’s web site. See Volume II of 

the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit II–11. 

Petitioners determined labor costs using 

the labor consumption, in hours, 

derived from the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer’s experience. See Volume II of 

the Petition, at 7 and Exhibits II–6 and 

II–9. Petitioners valued labor costs using 

the Department’s NME Wage Rate for 

the PRC at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ 

07wages/final/final–2009–2007– 

wages.html. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 7 and Exhibit II–13. For 

purposes of initiation, the Department 

determines that the surrogate values 

used by Petitioners are reasonably 

available and, thus, acceptable for 

purposes of initiation. 

Petitioners determined electricity 

costs using the electricity consumption, 

in kilowatt hours, derived from the 

Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 7 and Exhibit II–14; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition at 

Exhibit S–3. Petitioners valued 

electricity using the Indian electricity 

rate reported by the Central Electric 

Authority of the Government of India. 

See Supplement to the AD Petition, at 

7 and Exhibit S–3. Petitioners 

determined natural gas costs using the 

natural gas consumption, in million 

British thermal units (‘‘mmBtu’’), 

derived from the Surrogate Domestic 

Producer’s experience. See Volume II of 

the Petition, at 8, and Exhibit II–6 and 

II–9. Petitioners valued natural gas 

using the same methodology the 

Department used in the recent initiation 

of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for 

High–Quality Print Graphics Using 

Sheet–Fed Presses from Indonesia and 

the People’s Republic of China, which 

was based on Indian import statistics. 

See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and 

Exhibit II–15. 

Petitioners determined packing costs 

using data from the GTA, derived from 

the Surrogate Domestic Producer’s 

experience. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at Exhibit II–6; see also 

Supplement to the AD Petition, at 4 and 

Exhibits S–4 and S–6. 

Petitioners based factory overhead, 

selling, general and administrative 

expenses, and profit on data from Jindal 

Aluminium, Ltd., a producer of 

aluminum extrusions, for the 2008 2009 

fiscal year. See Volume II of the 

Petition, at 8 and Exhibit II–16. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioners, there is reason to believe 

that imports of aluminum extrusions 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value. Based on a comparison of 

U.S. prices and NV calculated in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, as described above, the estimated 

dumping margins for aluminum 

extrusions from the PRC range from 

32.57 percent to 33.32 percent. See 

Checklist and Second Supplement to 

the AD Petition at Exhibit S–2. 

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation 

Based upon the examination of the 

Petition on aluminum extrusions from 

the PRC, the Department finds the 

Petition meets the requirements of 

section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 

initiating an antidumping duty 

investigation to determine whether 

imports of aluminum extrusions from 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value. In accordance with section 

733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will 

make our preliminary determinations no 

later than 140 days after the date of this 

initiation. 

Targeted Dumping Allegations 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an interim final rule 

for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 

351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory 

provisions governing the targeted 

dumping analysis in antidumping duty 

investigations, and the corresponding 

regulation governing the deadline for 

targeted dumping allegations, 19 CFR 

351.301(d)(5). See Withdrawal of the 

Regulatory Provisions Governing 

Targeted Dumping in Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930 

(December 10, 2008). The Department 

stated that ‘‘withdrawal will allow the 

Department to exercise the discretion 

intended by the statute and, thereby, 

develop a practice that will allow 

interested parties to pursue all statutory 

avenues of relief in this area.’’ Id. at 

74931. 

In order to accomplish this objective, 

if any interested party wishes to make 

a targeted dumping allegation in this 

investigation pursuant to section 

777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such allegation 

is due no later than 45 days before the 

scheduled date of the preliminary 

determination. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

will request quantity and value 

information from known exporters and 

producers identified with complete 

contact information in the Petition. The 

quantity and value data received from 

NME exporters/producers will be used 

as the basis to select the mandatory 

respondents. 

The Department requires that the 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate–rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

See Circular Welded Austenitic 

Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 

FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005). On 

the date of the publication of this 

initiation notice in the Federal Register, 

the Department will post the quantity 

and value questionnaire along with the 

filing instructions on the Import 

Administration web site at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and– 

news.html, and a response to the 

quantity and value questionnaire is due 

no later than May 11, 2010. Also, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 22113 

Department will send the quantity and 

value questionnaire to those PRC 

companies identified in the Petition in 

Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit I–8. 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Instructions for filing such applications 

may be found on the Department’s web 

site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/apo. 

Separate Rates Application 

In order to obtain separate–rate status 

in NME investigations, exporters and 

producers must submit a separate–rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate–Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non–Market Economy Countries, dated 

April 5, 2005 (‘‘Policy Bulletin’’), 

available on the Department’s web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05– 

1.pdf. Based on our experience in 

processing the separate–rate 

applications in previous antidumping 

duty investigations, we have modified 

the application for this investigation to 

make it more administrable and easier 

for applicants to complete. See, e.g., 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic 

Off–the-Road Tires From the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 43591, 43594– 

95 (August 6, 2007). The specific 

requirements for submitting the 

separate–rate application in this 

investigation are outlined in detail in 

the application itself, which will be 

available on the Department’s web site 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlightsand–news.html on the date of 

publication of this initiation notice in 

the Federal Register. The separate–rate 

application will be due 60 days after 

publication of this initiation notice. For 

exporters and producers who submit a 

separate–rate status application and 

subsequently are selected as mandatory 

respondents, these exporters and 

producers will no longer be eligible for 

consideration for separate rate status 

unless they respond to all parts of the 

questionnaire as mandatory 

respondents. As noted in the 

‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section above, 

the Department requires that 

respondents submit a response to both 

the quantity and value questionnaire 

and the separate rate application by the 

respective deadlines in order to receive 

consideration for separate–rate status. 

Use of Combination Rates in an NME 

Investigation 

The Department will calculate 

combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. The 

Policy Bulletin states: 

{}hile continuing the practice of 

assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its 

NME investigations will be specific 

to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that 

one rate is calculated for the 

exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period 

of investigation. This practice 

applies both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate 

rate as well as the pool of non– 

investigated firms receiving the 

weighted–average of the 

individually calculated rates. This 

practice is referred to as the 

application of ‘‘combination rates’’ 

because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one 

or more producers. The cash– 

deposit rate assigned to an exporter 

will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm 

that supplied the exporter during 

the period of investigation. 

See Policy Bulletin at 6 (emphasis 

added). 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), copies of the public versions 

of the Petition have been provided to 

the representatives of the Government of 

the PRC. Because of the large number of 

producers/exporters identified in the 

Petition, the Department considers the 

service of the public version of the 

Petition to the foreign producers/ 

exporters satisfied by the delivery of the 

public version to the Government of the 

PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiations, as required by section 732(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

no later than May 17, 2010, whether 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of aluminum extrusions from 

the PRC are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to a U.S. 

industry. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, this investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Attachment I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by these 

investigations is aluminum extrusions 

which are shapes and forms, produced 

by an extrusion process, made from 

aluminum alloys having metallic 

elements corresponding to the alloy 

series designations published by The 

Aluminum Association commencing 

with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or 

proprietary equivalents or other 

certifying body equivalents). 

Specifically, the subject merchandise 

made from aluminum alloy with an 

Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 1 contains not less than 99 

percent aluminum by weight. The 

subject merchandise made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 3 

contains manganese as the major 

alloying element, with manganese 

accounting for not more than 3.0 

percent of total materials by weight. The 

subject merchandise made from an 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 6 

contains magnesium and silicon as the 

major alloying elements, with 

magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 

percent but not more than 2.0 percent of 

total materials by weight, and silicon 

accounting for at least 0.1 percent but 

not more than 3.0 percent of total 

materials by weight. The subject 

aluminum extrusions are properly 

identified by a four–digit alloy series 

without either a decimal point or 

leading letter. Illustrative examples from 

among the approximately 160 registered 

alloys that may characterize the subject 

merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, 

and 6060. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and 

imported in a wide variety of shapes 

and forms, including, but not limited to, 

hollow profiles, other solid profiles, 

pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum 

extrusions that are drawn subsequent to 

extrusion (‘‘drawn aluminum’’) are also 

included in the scope. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and 

imported with a variety of finishes (both 

coatings and surface treatments), and 

types of fabrication. The types of 

coatings and treatments applied to 

subject aluminum extrusions include, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

22114 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 

1The individual members of the Aluminum 

Extrusions Fair Trade Committee are Aerolite 

Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion 

Company, Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., 

William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., Frontier 

Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries 

Corporation, Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., 

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile Extrusion 

Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western 

Extrusions Corporation. 

but are not limited to, extrusions that 

are mill finished (i.e., without any 

coating or further finishing), brushed, 

buffed, polished, anodized (including 

bright–dip anodized), liquid painted, or 

powder coated. Aluminum extrusions 

may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for 

assembly. Such operations would 

include, but are not limited to, 

extrusions that are cut–to-length, 

machined, drilled, punched, notched, 

bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, 

mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. 

The subject merchandise includes 

aluminum extrusions that are finished 

(coated, painted, etc.), fabricated, or any 

combination thereof. 

Subject aluminum extrusions may be 

described at the time of importation as 

parts for final finished products that are 

assembled after importation, including, 

but not limited to, window frames, door 

frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or 

furniture. Such parts that otherwise 

meet the definition of aluminum 

extrusions are included in the scope. 

The scope includes aluminum 

extrusions that are attached (e.g., by 

welding or fasteners) to form 

subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled 

merchandise. 

Subject extrusions may be identified 

with reference to their end use, such as 

heat sinks, door thresholds, or carpet 

trim. Such goods are subject 

merchandise if they otherwise meet the 

scope definition, regardless of whether 

they are finished products and ready for 

use at the time of importation. 

The following aluminum extrusion 

products are excluded: aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designations commencing with the 

number 2 and containing in excess of 

1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 5 and containing in excess of 

1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and 

aluminum extrusions made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 7 and 

containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc 

by weight. 

The scope also excludes finished 

merchandise containing aluminum 

extrusions as parts that are fully and 

permanently assembled and completed 

at the time of entry, such as finished 

windows with glass, doors, picture 

frames, and solar panels. The scope also 

excludes finished goods containing 

aluminum extrusions that are entered 

unassembled in a ‘‘kit.’’ A kit is 

understood to mean a packaged 

combination of parts that contains, at 

the time of importation, all of the 

necessary parts to fully assemble a final 

finished good. 

The scope also excludes aluminum 

alloy sheet or plates produced by other 

than the extrusion process, such as 

aluminum products produced by a 

method of casting. Cast aluminum 

products are properly identified by four 

digits with a decimal point between the 

third and fourth digit. A letter may also 

precede the four digits. The following 

Aluminum Association designations are 

representative of aluminum alloys for 

casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, 

C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 

366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 

514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also 

excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in 

any form. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are 

provided for under the following 

categories of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’): 

7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 

7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 

7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 

7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The 

subject merchandise entered as parts of 

other aluminum products may be 

classifiable under the following 

additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 

7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 

7616.99 as well as under other HTS 

chapters. While HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope in this proceeding is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9743 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–968) 

Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran and Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1503 and (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 31, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition 

concerning imports of certain aluminum 

extrusions from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 

Committee1 and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See The 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

Against Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

March 31, 2010 (the Petition). On April 

6, 2010, the Department issued requests 

to Petitioners for additional information 

and for clarification of certain areas of 

the Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners filed a supplement 

to the Petition, regarding general issues, 

on April 9, 2010 (‘‘Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions’’). 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that 

producers/exporters of aluminum 

extrusions from the PRC received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of 

the Act, and that imports from these 

producers/exporters materially injure, 

and threaten further material injury to, 

an industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties, as defined in 

section 771(9)(C),(D), and (F) of the Act, 

and have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

investigation that they request the 

Department to initiate (see 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are aluminum extrusions 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

22114 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 

1The individual members of the Aluminum 

Extrusions Fair Trade Committee are Aerolite 

Extrusion Company, Alexandria Extrusion 

Company, Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., 

William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., Frontier 

Aluminum Corporation, Futura Industries 

Corporation, Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc., 

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Profile Extrusion 

Company, Sapa Extrusions, Inc., and Western 

Extrusions Corporation. 

but are not limited to, extrusions that 

are mill finished (i.e., without any 

coating or further finishing), brushed, 

buffed, polished, anodized (including 

bright–dip anodized), liquid painted, or 

powder coated. Aluminum extrusions 

may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for 

assembly. Such operations would 

include, but are not limited to, 

extrusions that are cut–to-length, 

machined, drilled, punched, notched, 

bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, 

mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. 

The subject merchandise includes 

aluminum extrusions that are finished 

(coated, painted, etc.), fabricated, or any 

combination thereof. 

Subject aluminum extrusions may be 

described at the time of importation as 

parts for final finished products that are 

assembled after importation, including, 

but not limited to, window frames, door 

frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or 

furniture. Such parts that otherwise 

meet the definition of aluminum 

extrusions are included in the scope. 

The scope includes aluminum 

extrusions that are attached (e.g., by 

welding or fasteners) to form 

subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled 

merchandise. 

Subject extrusions may be identified 

with reference to their end use, such as 

heat sinks, door thresholds, or carpet 

trim. Such goods are subject 

merchandise if they otherwise meet the 

scope definition, regardless of whether 

they are finished products and ready for 

use at the time of importation. 

The following aluminum extrusion 

products are excluded: aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designations commencing with the 

number 2 and containing in excess of 

1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 5 and containing in excess of 

1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and 

aluminum extrusions made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 7 and 

containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc 

by weight. 

The scope also excludes finished 

merchandise containing aluminum 

extrusions as parts that are fully and 

permanently assembled and completed 

at the time of entry, such as finished 

windows with glass, doors, picture 

frames, and solar panels. The scope also 

excludes finished goods containing 

aluminum extrusions that are entered 

unassembled in a ‘‘kit.’’ A kit is 

understood to mean a packaged 

combination of parts that contains, at 

the time of importation, all of the 

necessary parts to fully assemble a final 

finished good. 

The scope also excludes aluminum 

alloy sheet or plates produced by other 

than the extrusion process, such as 

aluminum products produced by a 

method of casting. Cast aluminum 

products are properly identified by four 

digits with a decimal point between the 

third and fourth digit. A letter may also 

precede the four digits. The following 

Aluminum Association designations are 

representative of aluminum alloys for 

casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, 

C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 

366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 

514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also 

excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in 

any form. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are 

provided for under the following 

categories of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’): 

7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 

7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 

7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 

7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The 

subject merchandise entered as parts of 

other aluminum products may be 

classifiable under the following 

additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 

7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 

7616.99 as well as under other HTS 

chapters. While HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope in this proceeding is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9743 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–968) 

Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation 

of Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran and Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1503 and (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petition 

On March 31, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition 

concerning imports of certain aluminum 

extrusions from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by 

the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade 

Committee1 and the United Steel, Paper 

and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, 

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 

Workers International Union 

(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See The 

Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duties 

Against Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

March 31, 2010 (the Petition). On April 

6, 2010, the Department issued requests 

to Petitioners for additional information 

and for clarification of certain areas of 

the Petition. Based on the Department’s 

requests, Petitioners filed a supplement 

to the Petition, regarding general issues, 

on April 9, 2010 (‘‘Supplement to the 

AD/CVD Petitions’’). 

In accordance with section 702(b)(1) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), Petitioners allege that 

producers/exporters of aluminum 

extrusions from the PRC received 

countervailable subsidies within the 

meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of 

the Act, and that imports from these 

producers/exporters materially injure, 

and threaten further material injury to, 

an industry in the United States. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because Petitioners 

are interested parties, as defined in 

section 771(9)(C),(D), and (F) of the Act, 

and have demonstrated sufficient 

industry support with respect to the 

investigation that they request the 

Department to initiate (see 

‘‘Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition’’ below). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is January 

1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. 

Scope of Investigation 

The products covered by this 

investigation are aluminum extrusions 

from the PRC. For a full description of 

the scope of the investigation, please see 

the ‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in 

Appendix I of this notice. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 22115 

Comments on Scope of Investigation 

During our review of the Petition, we 

discussed the scope with Petitioners to 

ensure that it is an accurate reflection of 

the products for which the domestic 

industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as 

discussed in the preamble to the 

Department’s regulations (Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997)), we are setting aside a period for 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage of the scope. 

The Department encourages all 

interested parties to submit such 

comments by May 10, 2010, twenty 

calendar days from the signature date of 

this notice. Comments should be 

addressed to Import Administration’s 

APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. The period of 

the scope consultations is intended to 

provide the Department with ample 

opportunity to consider all comments 

and to consult with parties prior to the 

issuance of the preliminary 

determination. 

Consultations 

Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act, on April 1, 2010, the 

Department invited representatives of 

the Government of the PRC (GOC) for 

consultations with respect to the CVD 

petition. On April 12, 2010, the 

Department held consultations with 

representatives of the GOC via 

conference call. See Ex–Parte 

Memorandum on Consultations 

regarding the Petition for Imposition of 

Countervailing Duties on Aluminum 

Extrusions from the People’s Republic 

of China. Further discussions were held 

with representatives of the GOC on 

April 19, 2010. See Ex–Parte 

Memorandum on Meeting with 

Ambassador Zhang Yesui. 

Determination of Industry Support for 

the Petition 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

that a petition be filed on behalf of the 

domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) 

of the Act provides that a petition meets 

this requirement if the domestic 

producers or workers who support the 

petition account for: (i) at least 25 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product; and (ii) more 

than 50 percent of the production of the 

domestic like product produced by that 

portion of the industry expressing 

support for, or opposition to, the 

petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) 

of the Act provides that, if the petition 

does not establish support of domestic 

producers or workers accounting for 

more than 50 percent of the total 

production of the domestic like product, 

the Department shall: (i) poll the 

industry or rely on other information in 

order to determine if there is support for 

the petition, as required by 

subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine 

industry support using a statistically 

valid sampling method. 

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines 

the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a 

whole of a domestic like product. Thus, 

to determine whether a petition has the 

requisite industry support, the statute 

directs the Department to look to 

producers and workers who produce the 

domestic like product. The U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), 

which is responsible for determining 

whether ‘‘the domestic industry’’ has 

been injured, must also determine what 

constitutes a domestic like product in 

order to define the industry. While both 

the Department and the ITC must apply 

the same statutory definition regarding 

the domestic like product (section 

771(10) of the Act), they do so for 

different purposes and pursuant to a 

separate and distinct authority. In 

addition, the Department’s 

determination is subject to limitations of 

time and information. Although this 

may result in different definitions of the 

like product, such differences do not 

render the decision of either agency 

contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 

2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 

United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 

(CIT 1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 

1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989). 

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the 

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.’’ Thus, 

the reference point from which the 

domestic like product analysis begins is 

‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’ 

(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to 

be investigated, which normally will be 

the scope as defined in the petition). 

With regard to the domestic like 

product, Petitioners do not offer a 

definition of domestic like product 

distinct from the scope of the 

investigation. Based on our analysis of 

the information submitted on the 

record, we have determined that 

aluminum extrusions constitute a single 

domestic like product and we have 

analyzed industry support in terms of 

that domestic like product. For a 

discussion of the domestic like product 

analysis in this case, see Countervailing 

Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 

Aluminum Extrusions from the PRC 

(‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at Attachment II, 

dated concurrently with this notice and 

on file in the Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the main Department of 

Commerce building. 

In determining whether Petitioners 

have standing, under section 

702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered 

the industry support data contained in 

the Petition with reference to the 

domestic like product as defined in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section above. 

To establish industry support, 

Petitioners provided their production of 

the domestic like product in 2009. See 

Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I–3. 

In addition, Petitioners provided letters 

of support from ten additional 

companies that produce the domestic 

like product. See id. Petitioners 

compared their production and the 

production of the supporters of the 

Petition to the estimated total 

production of the domestic like product 

for the entire domestic industry. See 

Volume I of the Petition at 3–4 and 

Exhibits I–3 and I–4. Petitioners 

estimated total industry production of 

the domestic like product for 2009 using 

industry–wide shipment data from the 

Aluminum Association, which 

according to Petitioners is ‘‘an 

independent and authoritative source 

for aluminum industry data.’’ See 

Volume I of the Petition, at 3. We have 

relied upon data Petitioners provided 

for purposes of measuring industry 

support. For further discussion, see 

Checklist at Attachment II. 

Our review of the data provided in the 

Petition, supplemental submissions, and 

other information readily available to 

the Department indicates that 

Petitioners have established industry 

support. First, the Petition established 

support from domestic producers (or 

workers) accounting for more than 50 

percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product and, as such, the 

Department is not required to take 

further action in order to evaluate 

industry support (e.g., polling). See 

section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act and 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. 

Second, the domestic producers (or 

workers) have met the statutory criteria 

for industry support under section 

702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the 

domestic producers (or workers) who 

support the Petition account for at least 

25 percent of the total production of the 

domestic like product. See Initiation 

Checklist at Attachment II. Finally, the 

domestic producers (or workers) have 

met the statutory criteria for industry 

support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of 

the Act because the domestic producers 

(or workers) who support the Petition 

account for more than 50 percent of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

22116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 

production of the domestic like product 

produced by that portion of the industry 

expressing support for, or opposition to, 

the Petition. Accordingly, the 

Department determines that the Petition 

was filed on behalf of the domestic 

industry within the meaning of section 

702(b)(1) of the Act. See id. 

The Department finds that Petitioners 

filed the Petition on behalf of the 

domestic industry because they are 

interested parties as defined in section 

771(9)(C),(D) and (F) of the Act and they 

have demonstrated sufficient industry 

support with respect to the antidumping 

investigation that they are requesting 

the Department initiate. See id. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Act, section 

701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this 

investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must 

determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to, a U.S. industry. 

Allegations and Evidence of Material 

Injury and Causation 

Petitioners allege that imports of 

aluminum extrusions from the PRC are 

benefitting from countervailable 

subsidies and that such imports are 

causing, or threaten to cause, material 

injury to the domestic industry 

producing aluminum extrusions. In 

addition, Petitioners allege that 

subsidized imports exceed the 

negligibility threshold provided for 

under section 771(24)(A) of the Act. 

Petitioners contend that the industry’s 

injured condition is illustrated by 

reduced market share, increased raw 

material cost, lost sales, declining 

capacity, production, shipments, 

underselling and price depression or 

suppression, reduced employment, 

hours worked, and wages paid, declines 

in financial performance, lost sales and 

revenue, and an increase in import 

penetration. See Volume I of the 

Petition, at 16, 19–27, 30–33, and 

Exhibits I–10 through I–15, III–33, and 

Supplement to AD/CVD Petitions, dated 

April 9, 2010, at 8–9, and Attachment 4. 

We have assessed the allegations and 

supporting evidence regarding material 

injury, threat of material injury, and 

causation, and we have determined that 

these allegations are properly supported 

by adequate evidence and meet the 

statutory requirements for initiation. See 

Initiation Checklist at Attachment III. 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation 

Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires 

the Department to initiate a CVD 

proceeding whenever an interested 

party files a petition on behalf of an 

industry that: (1) alleges the elements 

necessary for an imposition of a duty 

under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) 

is accompanied by information 

reasonably available to the petitioner(s) 

supporting the allegations. 

The Department has examined the 

Petition on aluminum extrusions from 

the PRC and finds that it complies with 

the requirements of section 702(b) of the 

Act. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 702(b) of the Act, we are 

initiating a CVD investigation to 

determine whether manufacturers, 

producers, or exporters of aluminum 

extrusions in the PRC receive 

countervailable subsidies. For a 

discussion of evidence supporting our 

initiation determination, see Initiation 

Checklist. 

We are including in our investigation 

the following programs alleged in the 

Petition to have provided 

countervailable subsidies to producers 

and exporters of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC: 

A. Preferential Loans and Interest Rates 

1. Policy Loans to the Aluminum 

Extrusion Producers 

2. Loans and Interest Subsidies 

Provided Pursuant to the Northeast 

Revitalization Program 

B. Income Tax Programs 

1. Tax Exemptions for ‘‘Productive’’ 

FIEs (Two Free, Three Half) 

2. Provincial Tax Exemptions and 

Reductions for ‘‘Productive’’ FIEs 

3. Tax Reductions for FIEs Purchasing 

Chinese–Made Equipment 

4. Tax Reductions for FIEs in 

Designated Geographic Locations 

5. Tax Reductions for Technology- or 

Knowledge- Intensive FIEs 

6. Tax Reductions for FIEs that are 

also HNTEs 

7. Tax Reductions for HTNEs 

Involved in Designated Projects 

8. Tax Offsets for Research and 

Development at FIEs 

9. Tax Credits for Domestically 

Owned Companies Purchasing 

Chinese–Made Equipment 

10. Tax Reductions for Export– 

Oriented FIEs 

11. Tax Refunds for Reinvestment of 

FIE Profits in Export–Oriented 

Enterprises 

12. Accelerated Depreciation for 

Enterprises Located in the 

Northeast Region 

13. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for 

Enterprises in the Old Industrial 

Bases of Northeast China 

C. Other Tax Programs 

1. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on 

Imported Equipment 

2. VAT Rebates on FIE Purchases of 

Chinese–Made Equipment 

3. City Tax and Surcharge Exemptions 

for FIEs 

4. Exemptions from Administrative 

Charges for Companies in Zhaoqing 

HighTech Industry Development Zone 

D. Grant Programs 

1. The State Key Technology 

Renovation Project Fund 

2. ‘‘Famous Brands’’ Awards 

3. Grants to Cover Legal Fees in Trade 

Remedy Cases in Shenzhen 

4. Special Fund for Energy Saving 

Technology Reform: Guangdong 

Province 

5. The Clean Production Technology 

Fund 

6. Grants for Listing Shares: Liaoyang 

City (Guangzhou Province), 

Wenzhou Municipality (Zhejiang 

Province), and Quanzhou 

Municipality (Fujian Province) 

7. The Northeast Region Foreign 

Trade Development Fund 

8. The Northeast Region Technology 

Reform Fund 

E. Government Provision of Goods or 

Services For Less Than Adequate 

Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) 

1. Land Use Rights in the Liaoyang 

High–Tech Industry Development 

Zone 

2. Allocated Land Use Rights for SOEs 

3. Primary Aluminum 

F. Government Purchase of Goods For 

More Than Adequate Remuneration 

(‘‘MTAR’’) 

For further information explaining why 

the Department is investigating these 

programs, see Initiation Checklist. 

We are not including in our 

investigation the following programs 

alleged to benefit producers and 

exporters of the subject merchandise in 

the PRC: 

A. Debt Forgiveness of Asia Aluminum 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

allowed managers of Asia Aluminum to 

buy the company’s assets free of certain 

obligations and prohibited the original 

debt holders from enforcing their legal 

rights, thus effectively mandating 

forgiveness of the company’s debt. 

Petitioners fail to establish a financial 

contribution by the government for the 

alleged debt forgiveness. The facts 

presented do not demonstrate that there 

was a financial contribution on the part 

of the government. Consequently, we do 

not plan on investigating this program. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 22117 

2See Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 37012 

(July 27, 2009)(‘‘KASR from the PRC’’), and 

accompanying IDM at Comment 3. 

B. Debt–to-Equity (‘‘D/E’’) Swaps for 

Companies in the Aluminum Sector 

Petitioners allege that the China 

Development Bank and two state– 

owned asset management corporations 

traded approximately 3.4 billion 

renminbi (‘‘RMB’’) of debt owed by 

Aluminum Corporation of China and 

additional debt owed by Pinguo 

Aluminum for equity in the companies. 

The D/E swaps detailed by Petitioners 

occurred prior to the December 11, 

2001, cut–off date that the Department 

uses for investigating subsidies in the 

PRC. Consistent with recent CVD 

determinations, we continue to find that 

it is appropriate and administratively 

desirable to identify a uniform date from 

which the Department will identify and 

measure subsidies in the PRC for 

purposes of the CVD law, and have 

adopted December 11, 2001, the date on 

which the PRC became a member of the 

WTO, as that date.2 Therefore, 

Petitioners have not provided the 

Department with a factual basis to 

conclude that D/E swaps conferring 

benefits to producers of aluminum 

extrusion occurred in the period in 

which the Department will identify and 

measure subsidies in the PRC for 

purposes of the CVD law. Consequently, 

we do not plan on investigating this 

program. 

C. Tax Exemptions and Reductions for 

Enterprises that Utilize Recycled 

Materials 

Petitioners allege that, as reported to 

the WTO, the GOC has implemented a 

program to assist companies that 

recycle. Petitioners fail to establish that 

any subsidies under the program are 

specific. In particular, they do not 

support their contention that the 

program is limited to an enterprise or 

industry or group of enterprises or 

industries. Consequently, we do not 

plan on investigating this program. 

D. The State Science and Technology 

Support Scheme 

According to Petitioners, this program 

provides grants to promote research 

aimed at resolving scientific or 

technological problems regarding 

economic and social development. The 

Department finds there is insufficient 

evidence to establish specificity for this 

program. While Petitioners allege that 

recipients of benefits under this 

program are selected based on the 

GOC’s designation of certain industries 

for development, the evidence provided 

does not support this claim. 

Consequently, we do not plan on 

investigating this program. 

We are deferring a decision on 

whether to initiate an investigation of 

the following programs: 

A. Land Use Rights Conferred to Asia 

Aluminum 

Petitioners assert that the Zhaoqing 

City High–Tech Development Zone 

allowed aluminum producer Asia 

Aluminum to acquire land use rights for 

50 years, and then later, the 

Development Zone returned the 

payment to Asia Aluminum because of 

the company’s construction of 

infrastructure. The Department will 

decide whether to initiate this allegation 

only if Asia Aluminum is selected as a 

respondent. 

B. Currency Undervaluation 

Petitioners allege that the GOC 

intervenes in the foreign exchange 

market by buying dollars and artificially 

bidding up their value to ensure that the 

RMB/dollar exchange rate understates 

the value of the RMB vis a vis the dollar. 

The Department has carefully 

considered the currency allegation, 

which is similar to an allegation 

currently under consideration in the 

pending coated paper countervailing 

duty investigation from the PRC. At this 

time, given the unique nature of the 

alleged subsidy and the complex 

methodological issues that it raises 

under the CVD law, the Department has 

determined that additional study of the 

allegation is appropriate before an 

initiation decision may be made. 

Respondent Selection 

For this investigation, the Department 

expects to select respondents based on 

CBP data for U.S. imports during the 

period of investigation. We intend to 

make our decision regarding respondent 

selection within 20 days of publication 

of this Federal Register notice. The 

Department invites comments regarding 

the CBP data and respondent selection 

within seven calendar days of 

publication of this Federal Register 

notice. 

Distribution of Copies of the Petition 

In accordance with section 

702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.202(f), a copy of the public version 

of the Petition has been provided to the 

representatives of the Government of the 

PRC. Because of the particularly large 

number of producers/exporters 

identified in the Petition, the 

Department considers the service of the 

public version of the Petition to the 

foreign producers/exporters satisfied by 

the delivery of the public version to the 

Government of the PRC, consistent with 

19 CFR 351.203(c)(2). 

ITC Notification 

We have notified the ITC of our 

initiation, as required by section 702(d) 

of the Act. 

Preliminary Determination by the ITC 

The ITC will preliminarily determine, 

within 45 days after the date on which 

the Petition is filed, whether there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

subsidized aluminum extrusions from 

the PRC are causing material injury, or 

threatening to cause material injury, to 

a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of 

the Act. A negative ITC determination 

will result in the investigation being 

terminated; otherwise, the investigation 

will proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

April 20, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Attachment I 

Scope of the Investigations 

The merchandise covered by these 

investigations is aluminum extrusions 

which are shapes and forms, produced 

by an extrusion process, made from 

aluminum alloys having metallic 

elements corresponding to the alloy 

series designations published by The 

Aluminum Association commencing 

with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or 

proprietary equivalents or other 

certifying body equivalents). 

Specifically, the subject merchandise 

made from aluminum alloy with an 

Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 1 contains not less than 99 

percent aluminum by weight. The 

subject merchandise made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 3 

contains manganese as the major 

alloying element, with manganese 

accounting for not more than 3.0 

percent of total materials by weight. The 

subject merchandise made from an 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 6 

contains magnesium and silicon as the 

major alloying elements, with 

magnesium accounting for at least 0.1 

percent but not more than 2.0 percent of 

total materials by weight, and silicon 

accounting for at least 0.1 percent but 

not more than 3.0 percent of total 

materials by weight. The subject 

aluminum extrusions are properly 

identified by a four–digit alloy series 

without either a decimal point or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

22118 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Notices 

leading letter. Illustrative examples from 

among the approximately 160 registered 

alloys that may characterize the subject 

merchandise are as follows: 1350, 3003, 

and 6060. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and 

imported in a wide variety of shapes 

and forms, including, but not limited to, 

hollow profiles, other solid profiles, 

pipes, tubes, bars, and rods. Aluminum 

extrusions that are drawn subsequent to 

extrusion (‘‘drawn aluminum’’) are also 

included in the scope. 

Aluminum extrusions are produced and 

imported with a variety of finishes (both 

coatings and surface treatments), and 

types of fabrication. The types of 

coatings and treatments applied to 

subject aluminum extrusions include, 

but are not limited to, extrusions that 

are mill finished (i.e., without any 

coating or further finishing), brushed, 

buffed, polished, anodized (including 

bright–dip anodized), liquid painted, or 

powder coated. Aluminum extrusions 

may also be fabricated, i.e., prepared for 

assembly. Such operations would 

include, but are not limited to, 

extrusions that are cut–to-length, 

machined, drilled, punched, notched, 

bent, stretched, knurled, swedged, 

mitered, chamfered, threaded, and spun. 

The subject merchandise includes 

aluminum extrusions that are finished 

(coated, painted, etc.), fabricated, or any 

combination thereof. 

Subject aluminum extrusions may be 

described at the time of importation as 

parts for final finished products that are 

assembled after importation, including, 

but not limited to, window frames, door 

frames, solar panels, curtain walls, or 

furniture. Such parts that otherwise 

meet the definition of aluminum 

extrusions are included in the scope. 

The scope includes aluminum 

extrusions that are attached (e.g., by 

welding or fasteners) to form 

subassemblies, i.e., partially assembled 

merchandise. 

Subject extrusions may be identified 

with reference to their end use, such as 

heat sinks, door thresholds, or carpet 

trim. Such goods are subject 

merchandise if they otherwise meet the 

scope definition, regardless of whether 

they are finished products and ready for 

use at the time of importation. 

The following aluminum extrusion 

products are excluded: aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designations commencing with the 

number 2 and containing in excess of 

1.5 percent copper by weight; aluminum 

extrusions made from aluminum alloy 

with an Aluminum Association series 

designation commencing with the 

number 5 and containing in excess of 

1.0 percent magnesium by weight; and 

aluminum extrusions made from 

aluminum alloy with an Aluminum 

Association series designation 

commencing with the number 7 and 

containing in excess of 2.0 percent zinc 

by weight. 

The scope also excludes finished 

merchandise containing aluminum 

extrusions as parts that are fully and 

permanently assembled and completed 

at the time of entry, such as finished 

windows with glass, doors, picture 

frames, and solar panels. The scope also 

excludes finished goods containing 

aluminum extrusions that are entered 

unassembled in a ‘‘kit.’’ A kit is 

understood to mean a packaged 

combination of parts that contains, at 

the time of importation, all of the 

necessary parts to fully assemble a final 

finished good. 

The scope also excludes aluminum 

alloy sheet or plates produced by other 

than the extrusion process, such as 

aluminum products produced by a 

method of casting. Cast aluminum 

products are properly identified by four 

digits with a decimal point between the 

third and fourth digit. A letter may also 

precede the four digits. The following 

Aluminum Association designations are 

representative of aluminum alloys for 

casting: 208.0, 295.0, 308.0, 355.0, 

C355.0, 356.0, A356.0, A357.0, 360.0, 

366.0, 380.0, A380.0, 413.0, 443.0, 

514.0, 518.1, and 712.0. The scope also 

excludes pure, unwrought aluminum in 

any form. 

Imports of the subject merchandise are 

provided for under the following 

categories of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’): 

7604.21.0000, 7604.29.1000, 

7604.29.3010, 7604.29.3050, 

7604.29.5030, 7604.29.5060, 

7608.20.0030, and 7608.20.0090. The 

subject merchandise entered as parts of 

other aluminum products may be 

classifiable under the following 

additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 

7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 

7616.99 as well as under other HTS 

chapters. While HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope in this proceeding is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9742 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Notice of Invention Available for 

Licensing 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of invention available for 

licensing. 

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is 

owned by the U.S. Government, as 

represented by the Department of 

Commerce. The Department of 

Commerce’s interest in the invention is 

available for licensing in accordance 

with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 

to achieve expeditious 

commercialization of results of federally 

funded research and development. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical and licensing information on 

this invention may be obtained by 

writing to: National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Office of 

Technology Partnerships, Building 222, 

Room A242, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 

Information is also available via 

telephone: 301–975–2649, fax 301–975– 

3482, or e-mail: nathalie.rioux@nist.gov. 

Any request for information should 

include the NIST Docket number or 

Patent number and title for the 

invention as indicated below. The 

invention available for licensing is: 

[NIST Docket Number: 06–011CIP] 

Title: Gradient Elution 

Electrophoresis and Detectorless 

Electrophoresis Apparatus. 

Abstract: A microfluidic apparatus 

and method for performing 

electrophoretic separation of 

compounds. The apparatus comprises: 

(a) A first container for containing a 

sample fluid; (b) a second container for 

containing a separation buffer fluid; (c) 

a channel of a first length having an 

inlet end and an outlet end, the inlet 

end connected to the first container and 

the outlet end connected to the second 

container; (d) a voltage device 

electrically connected to the first 

container and the second container, the 

voltage device facilitating adjustment of 

the amount of voltage to the first 

container and the second container; (e) 

a controller for controlling the velocity 

flow of the sample fluid through the 

channel from the first container towards 

the second container; and (f) a 

measuring device for measuring the 

current through the channel. The 

method comprises the steps of: (a) 

Providing a separation buffer; (b) 

providing a sample solution in fluid 

contact with the separation buffer; (c) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


B-1 

APPENDIX B 

CONFERENCE WITNESSES

B-3 

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC CONFERENCE 

Those listed below are scheduled to appear as witnesses at the United States International Trade 

Commission’s conference: 

Subject: Certain Aluminum Extrusion from China 

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-475 and 731-TA-1177 (Preliminary) 

Date and Time: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 9:30 a.m. 

The conference in connection with these investigations will be held in the Main Hearing Room 

(Room 101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 

OPENING REMARKS: 

Petitioners (Stephen A. Jones, Esq., King & Spalding, LLP) 

TIME ALLOCATION:

5 mins

In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties: 

King & Spalding, LLP 

Washington, DC 

on behalf of: the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee 

(“Committee”)1

 and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International 

Union (“USW”). 

Witness names: 

Duncan A. Crowdis, President 

Bonnell Aluminum 

Jeffrey S. Henderson, Director of Marketing 

Sapa Extrusions, Inc. 

Peter P. Vander Velde, Esq., Group General Counsel 

Sapa Extrusions, Inc. 

Susan D. Johnson, President 

Futura Industries Corp. 

Lynn Brown, Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing 

Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc. 

TIME ALLOCATION:

60 mins

 1

 The Committee is comprised of the following members: Aerolite Extrusion Company, Younstown, OH; Alexandria 

Extrusion Company, Alexandria, MN; Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., Medley, FL; William L. Bonnell Company, Inc., 

Newnan, GA; Frontier Aluminum Corporation, Corona, CA; Futura Industries Corporation, Clearfield, UT; Hydro Aluminum 

North America, Inc., Linthicum, MD; Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, Foothill Ranch, CA; Profile Extrusion Company, Rome, 

GA; Sapa Extrusions, Inc., Des Plaines, IL; and Western Extrusions Corporation, Carrollton, TX. 
B-4 

In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties:--CONTINUED

Linda Andros, Esq., 

United Steelworkers 

Stephen A. Jones, Esq. 

Rebecca L. Woodings, Consultant 

)--OF COUNSEL 

) 

In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties: 

Peng Cheng Aluminum Enterprise, Inc. (USA) 

Walnut, CA 

Witness names: 

Shao Johnson, President 

Peng Cheng Aluminum Enterprise, Inc. (USA) 

Charlie Pok, General Counsel 

Peng Cheng Aluminum Enterprise, Inc. (USA) 

TIME ALLOCATION:

5-10 mins

(requested)

CLOSING REMARKS: 

Petitioners (Stephen A. Jones, Esq., King & Spalding, LLP) 

TIME ALLOCATION:

10 mins
C-1 

APPENDIX C 

SUMMARY TABLES

Table C-1

Aluminum extrusions: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,422,275 1,248,460 1,058,830 -25.6 -12.2 -15.2

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . 81.9 82.6 71.7 -10.2 0.7 -10.9

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 7.2 20.1 12.1 -0.7 12.9

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 6.4 5.5 -0.6 0.2 -0.9

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 3.8 2.7 -1.3 -0.2 -1.1

 Subtotal, nonsubject. . . . . 10.2 10.2 8.3

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 17.4 28.3 10.2 -0.7 10.9

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,107,861 5,377,621 3,579,684 -41.4 -12.0 -33.4

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . 82.1 82.0 74.6 -7.5 -0.1 -7.4

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 6.3 15.4 8.7 -0.4 9.1

 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 6.2 5.6 -0.4 0.2 -0.6

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 5.5 4.4 -0.8 0.3 -1.1

 Subtotal, nonsubject. . . . . 11.2 11.7 10.0

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . 17.9 18.0 25.4 7.5 0.1 7.4

U.S. imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113,150 90,085 212,717 88.0 -20.4 136.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410,220 339,612 551,164 34.4 -17.2 62.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,625 $3,770 $2,591 -28.5 4.0 -31.3

 Ending inventory quantity . 12,610 10,292 32,537 158.0 -18.4 216.1

 Canada:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,695 79,886 58,458 -33.3 -8.9 -26.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366,975 333,234 201,876 -45.0 -9.2 -39.4

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,185 $4,171 $3,453 -17.5 -0.3 -17.2

 Ending inventory quantity . 240 360 491 104.6 50.0 36.4

 Other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,295 47,335 28,909 -49.5 -17.4 -38.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317,325 294,476 156,245 -50.8 -7.2 -46.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,538 $6,221 $5,405 -2.4 12.3 -13.1

 Ending inventory quantity . 1,593 751 921 -42.2 -52.9 22.6

 Subtotal, nonsubject

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144,990 127,221 87,367 -39.7 -12.3 -31.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684,300 627,709 358,121 -47.7 -8.3 -42.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,720 $4,934 $4,099 -13.2 4.5 -16.9

 Ending inventory quantity . 1,833 1,111 1,412 -23.0 -39.4 27.1

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258,140 217,306 300,084 16.2 -15.8 38.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,094,520 967,322 909,285 -16.9 -11.6 -6.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,240 $4,451 $3,030 -28.5 5.0 -31.9

 Ending inventory quantity . 16,276 11,403 33,949 108.6 -29.9 197.7

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

Aluminum extrusions: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09

(Quantity=short tons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per short ton; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . 1,730,651 1,671,426 1,582,980 -8.5 -3.4 -5.3

 Production quantity . . . . . . . 1,181,968 1,060,757 785,626 -33.5 -10.3 -25.9

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . 68.3 63.5 49.6 -27.3 -7.1 -21.8

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,164,135 1,031,154 758,746 -34.8 -11.4 -26.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,013,341 4,410,299 2,670,399 -46.7 -12.0 -39.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,306 4,277 3,519 -18.3 -0.7 -17.7

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,111 25,882 29,415 22.0 7.3 13.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134,053 134,085 119,882 -10.6 0.0 -10.6

 Unit value ($/short ton) . . . 5,560 5,181 4,076 -26.7 -6.8 -21.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . 47,331 45,602 37,194 -21.4 -3.7 -18.4

 Inventories/total shipments ( 4.0 4.3 4.7 0.7 0.3 0.4

 Production workers . . . . . . . 12,407 10,611 7,929 -36.1 -14.5 -25.3

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . 23,486 21,915 16,103 -31.4 -6.7 -26.5

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . 434,287 442,278 327,445 -24.6 1.8 -26.0

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . $18 $20 $20 10.0 9.1 0.8

 Productivity (short tons per h 0.05 0.05 0.05 -3.1 -3.8 0.8

 Unit labor costs ($/short ton) $367 $417 $417 13.4 13.5 -0.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,113,242 992,025 729,930 -34.4 -10.9 -26.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,918,361 4,341,479 2,637,336 -46.4 -11.7 -39.3

 Unit value ($/short ton) . . . 4,418 4,376 3,613 -18.2 -0.9 -17.4

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) 4,523,909 4,124,579 2,443,776 -46.0 -8.8 -40.8

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . 394,452 216,900 193,560 -50.9 -45.0 -10.8

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . 281,785 270,502 249,779 -11.4 -4.0 -7.7

 Operating income or (loss) . 112,668 (53,602) (56,219) (2) (2) -4.9

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . 96,294 145,810 62,096 -35.5 51.4 -57.4

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,064 4,158 3,348 -17.6 2.3 -19.5

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . 253 273 342 35.2 7.7 25.5

 Unit operating income or (los 101 (54) (77) (2) (2) -42.5

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . 92.0 95.0 92.7 0.7 3.0 -2.3

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 -1.2 -2.1 -4.4 -3.5 -0.9

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year bas

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 questionnaires and from official statistics.

of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

C-4
APPENDIX D

SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION BY FIRM

D-1

Table D-1

Aluminum Extrusions: Selected financial information on U.S. producers’ operations, by firm, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

D-3

APPENDIX E

ACTUAL AND ANTICIPATED NEGATIVE IMPACT OF IMPORTS OF

ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FROM CHINA 

E-1

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of aluminum extrusions from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital,

existing development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the product), or the scale of capital investments.1

Actual Negative Effects

Aerolite Extrusion ***. 

Alexandria Extrusion ***.

Astro Shapes ***. 

Benada Aluminum ***.

Bonnell ***. 

Brazeway ***.

Custom Aluminum Products ***.

Empire Resources Extrusions ***.

Extruders ***.

Extrusions ***.

Frontier Aluminum ***.

Futura Industries ***.

General Extrusions ***.

Hydro Aluminum ***. 

International Extrusions ***.

Kaiser Aluminum ***.

Light Metals ***. 

Mid-States Aluminum ***.

MI Metals ***. 

Minalex ***. 

Patrick Aluminum ***. 

Peerless of America ***.

Penn Aluminum ***.

Pennex Aluminum ***. 

Pries Enterprises ***.

Profile Extrusion ***.

Richardson Metals ***. 

Sapa Extrusions ***.

Service Center Metals ***.

Silver City Aluminum ***.

Tower Extrusions ***.

Valmont Industries ***.

Vitex Extrusion ***. 

Wakefield Solutions ***.

Western Extrusions ***.

YKK AP America ***.

 1 ***. 

E-3
Anticipated Negative Effects

Aerolite Extrusion ***.

Alexandria Extrusion ***.

Astro Shapes ***.

Benada Aluminum ***.

Bonnell ***.

Brazeway ***.

Custom Aluminum Products ***.

Empire Resources Extrusions ***.

Extruders ***.

Extrusions ***.

Frontier Aluminum ***.

Futura Industries ***.

General Extrusions ***.

Hydro Aluminum ***.

International Extrusions ***.

Kaiser Aluminum ***.

Light Metals ***.

MI Metals ***.

Mid-States Aluminum ***.

Minalex ***.

Patrick Aluminum ***.

Peerless of America ***.

Penn Aluminum ***.

Pennex Aluminum ***.

Pries Enterprises ***.

Profile Extrusion ***.

Richardson Metals ***.

Sapa Extrusions ***. 

Service Center Metals ***.

Silver City Aluminum ***.

Tower Extrusions ***.

Valmont Industries ***.

Vitex Extrusion ***. 

Wakefield Solutions ***.

Western Extrusions ***.

YKK AP America ***. 

E-4