Skip to main content

Scope Requests: A Slippery Slope Worth Defending

AEC Board of Directors Member Jeff Henderson
I’m delighted to contribute to the Aluminum Extruders Council’s blog, So far the topics have been devoted to the Chinese aluminum extrusion imports trade case with the United States. Like me, many of you have volunteered your time, energy, and resources to this case.  For those on the Fair Trade Committee, we have learned a valuable lesson: this case is not going away!  The number of hours, the attention to detail--and yes, the money--has all been much greater than we ever imagined.  Those that continue to support illegal and unfair trade practices have been persistent in their mission to find cracks in the original orders.  As a result, scores of appeals, scope requests, court decisions, and even legislative actions have pummeled our industry in an effort to find those cracks.

After nearly 18 months of defending the orders, it is clear that we have the talent, drive, and resources required to preserve the orders.  The passion and tenacity exhibited by aluminum extruders, and their suppliers, demonstrates our resolve to keep up the fight.  I am convinced that as long as the extrusion industry keeps fighting we will keep illegal and unfair imports from destroying our marketplace.  However, it won’t be easy.  We all must contribute and make our dedication known to the Department of Commerce (DOC), Chinese exporters of aluminum extrusions, and our industry. 

Over the last couple of years we have fought dozens of scope requests that seek exclusion from tariffs.  In most cases they contend the product in question is a finished kit.  The orders clearly state that a product must be shipped complete and ready-to-assemble (or already assembled) in order to be excluded.  As each scope request is debated we must consider not only the ‘product’ in question, but also the precedent the exclusion might create.  In many recent scope requests, prior exclusions have been cited by new importers’ scope requests as motivation for the DOC to exclude their product. Those that have volunteered their time to represent the industry must weigh the nature of the product requested to be excluded, the resources and funding required to fight the request, and then determine the best legal approach. To date over 90 percent of all scope requests have been challenged by the Fair Trade Committee and our win-loss record is impressive.  

However, with every request we lose or forfeit, a new precedent is established that could result in even more requests.  It is a tough call, and one that shouldn’t be complicated by funding issues.  For this reason, we must all reach farther into our budgets and find ways to contribute the monies needed to stay vigilant.

We have also taken our case to Washington DC.  It’s not enough for us to simply fight this battle through the DOC and the courts. We need to let our elected representatives know that job retention and growth is on the line. They need to actively fight for us.  Some members from the Fair Trade Committee made a recent trip to DC and spoke with the staffs of over 10 Senators and Congressmen to get their support.  Our trip was quite successful and all of these officials gave us their loud and clear support.  Now it’s time to put that support to work!  In the coming months it is critical we continue to build on all areas of support.  There are a number of issues yet to be addressed, and as we end our first annual review we must remain resolute.


For more on the Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Initiative, visit www.aecfairtrade.org.

This post was written by AEC Board of Directors Member Jeff Henderson of Sapa, Inc. 

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