Skip to main content

Fair Trade - What’s at stake?

AEC Past Chairman Duncan Crowdis
In the last two blogs, we have talked about what it takes to be successful in a fair trade case such as the one the extrusion industry brought before the U.S. government. The process is long and arduous. It takes a focused commitment from the entire industry. And it takes money. On top of that, the drive must be maintained for the long run. This is not a sprint; it is a marathon.

So, is it worth it? What’s at stake?

As we mentioned in last week’s blog, the Chinese will NOT give up. They have extremely strong strategic, economic and political reasons to vigorously continue to fight this battle. The Chinese extrusion industry has built a capacity that far exceeds their current and future domestic need and, in fact, could supply a good part of the global requirement. Their desperate need to create employment significantly outweighs any supply/demand rational for this build-up in capacity.

Once you buy the argument that the Chinese extrusion industry will do everything in their power (legal or otherwise) to penetrate markets outside China to the extent possible, with the U.S. being the largest and most attractive target, it’s simply a question of – is it worth the fight to defend our business? So let’s take a look at what is at stake.

Our industry is incredibly diverse. It is one of our greatest strengths. We have operations in more than 40 states with over 300 presses that have a combined capacity of more than 4.5 billion pounds annually.

Here are some statistics that, while not backed up by a complex industry-wide survey (only governments can afford to do this), the data has been pulled together by a number of us that have been in the industry a long time and undoubtedly represent several hundred years of experience.

How many people do we impact?
  • In total our industry directly employs more than 20,000 Americans
  • When taking into consideration the supplier base, this number likely doubles to more than 40,000 employees
  • These 40,000 employees support over 100,000 children, spouses and aging parents.
The bottom line: there are more than 150,000 real people in the United States that count on our industry to feed them, clothe them, send them to school and support them in many, many other ways. They are counting on us; counting on you! Is that not enough reason to fight for what is right?

If not, let’s look at a high-level view of the financial side of our industry:
  • The domestic industry in the U.S. is currently operating at about 3.5 billion pounds per year with an estimated total  annual revenue of close to $8 billion
  • In 2009/2010, prior to the Department of Commerce applying the preliminary duties, imports from China reached a running rate of close to 20% of the total U.S. market, which would translate into an annualized reduction in domestic production of about 700,000 lb. today.
    • This level of production represents approximately 45 full presses and revenues of about $1.5 billion
  • And, unless a supplier to this industry has a business model that can easily shift their marketing efforts and production to China, the impact would be just as dramatic. Consider these products that are purchased by our industry:
    • Billet – Billet producers would see a reduction in domestic billet demand of about 900,000 lb. or $1 billion in revenue
    • Paint – assuming 15% of the domestic extrusion production is painted, paint suppliers would experience a reduction in revenue of over $25 million
    • Anodizing Chemicals – based on similar assumptions, this industry could anticipate a reduction in revenue of about $25 million
    • Dies –  Die makers would see a reduction of about 40,000 dies per year or about $40 million of revenue
    • And then there are all of the other supplies (packaging, maintenance, etc.)
And all of this assumes that the Chinese were not interested in any more than a 20% market share. This has not been the experience in other markets they have targeted (a subject of a future blog) and it would be a dangerous assumption for us in the U.S. to make.

While I would argue that these numbers are extremely conservative and that, in fact, our industry as we know it is completely at risk without concerted and industry-wide intervention, if anyone believes that these numbers seem exaggerated, divide them in half. The logic to fight is, quite frankly, no less compelling.

So, whether a player in our industry is driven by a sense of responsibility to 40,000 employees and their families or simply driven by a desire to have a financially strong and sustainable business, THE STAKES ARE EXTREMELY HIGH  and worth the fight.      

If you feel as passionate as we do and want to do something more than be an “interested by-stander”, contact the AEC to find out how you can help to control YOUR future.

Visit www.AECfairtrade.org for more information.

This post was written by AEC Past Chairman Duncan Crowdis

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Nice Win to Start the Year!

 For months you’ve read my blog posts bemoaning the terrible decisions coming out of Washington D.C. related to our case.  Well, with the New Year, we have a fresh start.  And it’s a good one!  The industry has won its first Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) case involving fencing extrusions.  On December 20, 2023, Fortress withdrew its request for an administrative review, prompting U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) to terminate the administrative review entirely. Termination of the review makes the CBP’s affirmative determination of evasion final.  When terminating the review, CBP clarified that termination does not in any way preclude CBP or other agencies from pursuing additional enforcement actions against Fortress or imposing penalties should the need arise. The other EAPA fencing case is pending, and it appears the respondent is not participating.  We submitted voluntary factual information and the company in question did not submit written arguments by the November 6, 202

Keep That Ram Moving Forward

By Jason Weber, AEC VP of Government Affairs   On June 17 th , the International Trade Commission (ITC) will issue the Final Producer Questionnaire in the Aluminum Extrusion AD/CVD cases .  The questionnaire is due 30 days after it is issued .  As always, we continue to update membership with Trade Alerts as appropriate to keep them informed .  Beyond the Final Producer Questionnaire, key upcoming dates are the Final Hearing on September 9, 2024, the Final Vote on October 23, 2024, and the Final Determination on November 11 , 2024.   In last month’s essentiALs article and Fair Trade blog post, I outlined the recent Department of Commerce (DOC) changes to the 232 Aluminum Tariffs .  In that article, I outlined the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes that were removed from the General Approved Exclusions (GAEs):    GAE. 1.A : HTS 7609000000 (Aluminum tube or pipe fittings (for example, couplings, elbows, sleeves);   GAE. 4.A : HTS 7604210010 (Hollow profiles of aluminum

Aluminum 232 Exclusion/Objection Process in Full Swing

Since our last update, the 232 exclusion/objection process is in full swing.  Over the last several weeks we have continued to refine the workflow and communication of the exclusion requests to make sure membership continues to receive the communications and objects when appropriate. For those members that have been working through the process we at AEC HQ thank you.  If for some reason you’re an AEC Extruder Member who should be receiving these communications, please let me know at jweber@tso.net and we’ll make sure you’re added to the distribution list. Although there are new companies submitting requests, we continue to see the same entities entering the bulk of the exclusion requests.  However, for the most part the exclusion requests are much the same with slight changes here and there.  This does simplify the objection process in a way where similar objections can be filed for multiple exclusion requests. As a reminder, price is not a valid reason for a company to seek an exclusi