smh.com
Chinese challenge aluminium dumping ruling
Edited by : AL CIRCLE
2 min read
CHINESE manufacturers accused of dumping aluminium products on the Australian market are seeking to have the dumping notice overturned in the Federal Court.
The legal action is expected to examine the close links between Chinese enterprise and government, and what constitutes a ''public body'' in China.
After Australian aluminium producer Capral notified the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service four years ago of suspected dumping, customs identified more than 300 importers of Chinese aluminium products.
It concluded products had been dumped with margins ranging from 2.7 to 25.7 per cent, and subsidised with margins from 3.8 to 18.4 per cent. Capral had suffered a notable fall in sales and had been forced to lower its price to try to match the Chinese prices.
PanAsia Aluminium (China) Ltd and Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co Ltd were identified in a group of seven importers which accounted for more than half the goods imported. Customs imposed countervailing duties of 13.6 per cent and 7.4 per cent.
The Federal Court action challenges the decision of the then attorney-general Robert McClelland, who reaffirmed the dumping conclusions reached by customs.
Capral has just recorded an after-tax loss of $8 million, from revenues of $348 million. Its results were sheeted to a weak construction sector and ''dumped extrusions'', which had captured 35 per cent of the market.
The interplay of state-owned industrial enterprises, government industry policy and their flow-on effects to commercial companies in China was investigated by customs. It found that regardless of ownership, ''the level of control and regulation by the Chinese government in the aluminium industry in China is so significant that primary aluminium producers and suppliers are in fact responding to the government's industrial development policy''.
Beijing has made a submission that it considers state-owned enterprises to be commercial bodies that should not be defined as public bodies under the anti-dumping laws.
It's not a view shared by Capral boss Phil Jobe. ''It's plainly absurd to argue … that the Chinese government doesn't have a big impact.
''This is not a cry for protectionism. It's just a cry for free and fair trade.''
The legal action is expected to examine the close links between Chinese enterprise and government, and what constitutes a ''public body'' in China.
After Australian aluminium producer Capral notified the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service four years ago of suspected dumping, customs identified more than 300 importers of Chinese aluminium products.
It concluded products had been dumped with margins ranging from 2.7 to 25.7 per cent, and subsidised with margins from 3.8 to 18.4 per cent. Capral had suffered a notable fall in sales and had been forced to lower its price to try to match the Chinese prices.
PanAsia Aluminium (China) Ltd and Tai Shan City Kam Kiu Aluminium Extrusion Co Ltd were identified in a group of seven importers which accounted for more than half the goods imported. Customs imposed countervailing duties of 13.6 per cent and 7.4 per cent.
The Federal Court action challenges the decision of the then attorney-general Robert McClelland, who reaffirmed the dumping conclusions reached by customs.
Capral has just recorded an after-tax loss of $8 million, from revenues of $348 million. Its results were sheeted to a weak construction sector and ''dumped extrusions'', which had captured 35 per cent of the market.
The interplay of state-owned industrial enterprises, government industry policy and their flow-on effects to commercial companies in China was investigated by customs. It found that regardless of ownership, ''the level of control and regulation by the Chinese government in the aluminium industry in China is so significant that primary aluminium producers and suppliers are in fact responding to the government's industrial development policy''.
Beijing has made a submission that it considers state-owned enterprises to be commercial bodies that should not be defined as public bodies under the anti-dumping laws.
It's not a view shared by Capral boss Phil Jobe. ''It's plainly absurd to argue … that the Chinese government doesn't have a big impact.
''This is not a cry for protectionism. It's just a cry for free and fair trade.''
Previous article
State urges Hindalco to promote downstream units
Next articleAlcoa Among Top Ten Great Places to Work in Mexico
Grow with
AL Circle
