Skip to main content

What does the Threat from China Really Look Like?

AEC Past Chairman Duncan Crowdis
Many are questioning whether the recent drive by the Chinese Extrusion Industry to export products off-shore, and particularly into the North American market, is a long term play or simply a temporary solution to satisfy a short term supply-demand imbalance while their domestic demand improves.

It’s a great question and once you look at the data there is an obvious answer and it is about supply and demand. Clearly the domestic industry has been expanding its capacity well beyond the requirement to supply domestic needs within China.

First of all let’s consider the domestic demand in China for aluminum extrusions. In looking at the trend over the past decade, it has been anything but anemic. With domestic GDP running well into the double digits over this period, the demand for aluminum extrusions in the Transportation and Building and Construction industries alone have been able to support a significant increase in domestic capacity. So an increase in domestic capacity was necessary. However as you will see below, the domestic industry has been building capacity well beyond the rate at which demand has been escalating. And it is highly unlikely given the current robust domestic demand trends, that the Chinese industry is building capacity to significantly exceed what the industry has been experiencing.

The next part of the equation is the supply or capacity side.  Based on research by the U.S. International Trade Commissions (ITC) as part of the original fair trade case, the Chinese domestic industry isn’t a lot different than the North American industry, it’s just much larger. In terms of size, the ITC discovered that the production in 2009 was just over 18 billion lbs. which is close to 4 times the size of the U.S. industry. Similar to North America, the Chinese industry is also fragmented with over 700 extruders making up the 18 billion lbs. of production capacity. They have their “big dogs” as well, with 15 companies with more than 220MM lb. of production capacity and the largest one, Zhongwang, at 1.4 billion lbs. Other than overall size, the big difference with our industry is the magnitude of their expansion plans. In 2010, at the time of the ITC study, there were 40 expansion projects on-the-go, which will add another 10 billion lbs of capacity or an increase of almost 60 percent.

That’s right 10 billion lbs., more than twice the total capacity of the US industry!  

That will take them to over 28 billion lb. of capacity.  Zhongwang continues to lead the show with “incremental” capacity that will take them to a total of 1.8 billion lbs. When a Chinese extruder expands, it isn’t like in the U.S. with the addition of a press or two. As an example, the ITC discovered that the Haomei Aluminum Company is expanding by adding 450MM lb. of capacity over a three-year period. This size of expansion is relatively common place with the capacity growth that we are seeing.

Exports from China increased over 10 fold since 2001 and were estimated at 1.5 billion lbs. at the end of 2007. Very little of this went into the US. That all changed in late 2008 and through 2009 as windows into other markets such as Canada and Australia started to close due to new duties on extruded aluminum imports from China being applied by those countries. That was the time when we started to see the impact of what was clearly an “export driven” strategy.

So clearly the Chinese industry is expanding its capacity well beyond any thought that it will be absorbed by future increases in domestic demand. Their expansion plans will take their capacity upwards of 28-30 billion lbs., almost enough to supply the world demand. It is for this reason that the ITC found that, not only was the U.S. domestic industry being harmed by the influx of illegal Chinese imports, but that the infrastructure that is currently being built in China is a Clear and Present Danger to the future of our industry.

If there is any question about the ability, the where-with-all and the strategy of the Chinese industry in terms of exports, the math should make it clear. If we want our industry in North America to survive, we MUST stay the course and fight for Fair Trade practices.

FAIR TRADE: It Matters!

To get involved, contact Rand Baldwin, President of the Aluminum Extruders Council at For more on the Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Initiative, visit

This post was written by AEC Past Chairman Duncan Crowdis


Popular posts from this blog

Fair Trade Update: Curtain Wall, Door Thresholds & Vietnam

Well, our year is off and running with a bang. Scope issues, Administrative Review, and circumvention top our list in early 2018.

This month we learned that there will be an appeal in the curtain wall scope case.  Permasteelisa and Jangho filed a notice of appeal last week.  It is expected that Yuanda will almost surely file their own notice of appeal by the deadline, which is February 12. The Chinese industry signaled that they would appeal in a recent article in US Glass magazine.   

Additionally, our scope challenge related to door thresholds continues to move forward.  This is a significant case because door thresholds are expressly mentioned as subject merchandise in our trade orders.  So, to lose this application could open the door to many applications clearly covered by our case.  Finally, we continue to await the judges’ (there are more than one judge at the CIT) decision in the appliance handles cases we defended last fall.  We believe we will win.  However, we are mostly i…

AEC Duties Unchanged; “Trumponomics” Impacts Extruders

Our 6th Annual Administrative Review results have been announced.  As previously reported, the Department of Commerce (DOC) maintained extrusion tariffs at 86.01% for our subsidy, or countervailing duty (CVD), case and 20% for our anti-dumping (AD) case.  The combined duty of 106% has been stable since 2016.  This is a good number for the industry, which continues to contain Chinese aluminum extrusion at less than 1% market share. Furthermore, the DOC also assigned the Adverse Facts Available (AFA) rate of 198.61% to the two mandatory respondents, Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd. and Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd., which has been the AFA rate since the 5th review.  The 7th Annual Administrative Review has begun with the selection of mandatory respondents. 

Elsewhere in our case, there is nothing new to report on the scope issues we are battling.  We continue to wait for court dates or decisions depending on the matter.  Our trade enforcement actions and results have ma…

Our China Trade Case – Remember That?

It’s sometimes hard to remember that the AEC has a trade case against China.  With all of the news regarding the 232 Investigation, the Russian Sanctions, and the fallout we’ve experienced, I find myself having to leave tasks on my calendar to be sure I am dialed into the ins and outs of our anti-dumping/countervailing duties (AD/CVD) cases.  When I do review the cases and get dialed in again, I am quite happy with how it’s going.

That’s because our initiatives are starting to gain traction.  Take, for example, our Vietnam Circumvention case.  The deadline for filing briefs in this matter has come and gone with no reply from the other side.  Therefore, we are in a strong position to ask the Department of Commerce for their preliminary ruling so that duties can be applied at once.  The final ruling in this matter is due December 24, 2018.  However, the sooner we can get to a preliminary decision, the better for our domestic industry.  There will be more to come on this in the coming we…