 |
| AEC Past Chairman Duncan Crowdis |
At this point, the answer is an easy one – ABSOLUTELY. There are several key metrics to consider.
The first is where we are winning and where we are losing on the various
decisions from the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the US International Trade
Commission (ITC) that support our case that Chinese aluminum extrusions were
being illegally imported. The second question is the one that really counts: whether
the orders of the DOC on duties related to aluminum extrusion imports from
China are effective.
Let’s first look at the decisions of the DOC and ITC. The big
win was the obvious one that culminated in the ITC decision in early 2011 that
our industry was being injured by imported Chinese extrusions and then in April
2011 by the DOC that the Chinese producers were causing this injury through
government subsidies and by “dumping” extrusions illegally into the U.S. Their
decision to help “level the playing field” resulted in duties of up to 400
percent.
Subsequent to this obvious win, the DOC has dealt with
numerous appeals (both from us, as well as the importers) and what are known as
“scope requests”, which are simply requests for a decision on a specific
product from a U.S. importer who believes the products they import from China
do not fall under the scope of the Department of Commerce orders. Over the past
26 months, we have had 27 appeals and 51 scope requests. This process has
involved the Department of Commerce, the Federal Court of Appeals and the Court
of International Trade (CIT). In terms of strategy, we have tried to focus only
on key cases which we defined as ones that have either a large direct impact on
our industry or that, while perhaps representing a small part of the market,
could create a precedent leading to decisions in the future that could be very significant
for our industry.
Of the total 78 appeals and scope requests, 28 have been
ruled in our favor, 10 have gone against us and 40 remain on-going – A LOT OF
WORK and still a lot more to do.
As I mentioned in the last blog, we are currently fighting
to turn around a recent trend of the Department of Commerce to simplify their
decision-making process which has led to 6 negative rulings in the past 6 months.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE WON A LOT!
Without our involvement, this ratio would have been significantly weighted
against us, effectively whittling away the positive impact we have experienced
since the end of 2011 with a dramatic reduction in illegal imports. To give you a feel, here are some significant
wins on products that were challenged and ruled “in scope” by the Department of
Commerce:
- Unitized curtain wall systems – this was huge!!
- The use of aluminum extrusions in heating and cooling systems
- Solar shading systems
- Kitted fencing systems
- Awnings and railing systems
- Drapery rail kits
Another big win for us was
mentioned in the last blog, where we involved ourselves in the GPX tire case in
order to attempt to turn around an incredibly negative and ridiculous ruling by
the Federal Court of Appeals related to the ability of the DOC to apply
countervailing subsidy duties to “non-market” economies like China. In the end,
legislative changes were made that ensures both the countervailing subsidy and
anti-dumping duties would live on in our case. In addition, we have won several
appeals from companies attempting to get “special” rates.
But as you can see, we haven’t won them all. Several examples of products ruled
“out-of-scope” (i.e. no duties applied) were;
- Heat sinks with significant fabrication called “finished heat sinks”
- Solar mounting kits
- Kitted stands and displays
The second key metric is THE goal that we started with and
continue to hold up as the only real measurement of success: the need to “level
the playing field”. And by doing so, has the industry been able to compete on
what truly counts – quality and service? The answer to how effective this has
been is a resounding ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
We continue to use the following chart that shows the
amazingly dramatic and quick drop-off in imports that perfectly aligns with the
dates of the preliminary ruling in Q3 2011. The nearly 500 million pounds that
has “come back” to the domestic industry is the equivalent of about 33-35 8”
presses working at 100% capacity. I
can’t think of anything more significant to our industry than this and, for
now, the level of imports remains at these very low levels:
And so our actions have met with amazing success; however
the resilience and persistence of the Chinese industry is clearly not going
away and the moment we let down our guard, their march will continue. I got involved because I care deeply about our
business, our employees, our suppliers and our industry. Anyone that feels
similarly and wants a hand in helping shape the future of our industry and YOUR
BUSINESS should contact Rand Baldwin of the AEC.
For more information, please visit www.AECFairTrade.org.
This post was written by AEC Past Chairman Duncan Crowdis
Comments
Post a Comment