Skip to main content

The Aluminum Extruders Council Supports Chinese Imports

I bet you never thought you’d hear me say that, right?

The Fair Trade Committee has worked hard over the last five years to create a fair and level playing field for aluminum extrusion shipments from China.  Over the last couple of years we have seen a combined duty of approximately 42%.  Even though we can’t say with certainty the rate will not change, it seems as though we have hit a plateau.  One interpretation of this is that the U.S. government has looked at our case – now for the fourth time – and concluded that the tariff needed to level the playing field on a fair basis is 42%.  It is on this basis that the AEC can now say it supports Chinese extrusions.  Our ambition from the beginning was to find the right duty that accounts for the unfair and illegal trade practices of Chinese extruders that mercilessly dumped their products into our market during the Great Recession.

Furthermore, it should be noted that if a Chinese exporter or an American importer of aluminum extrusions believes that they do not have an unfair or illegal trade advantage, they can seek a special rate.  First, they could participate in the annual review process and petition the Department of Commerce (DOC) for a special rate.  In each of the first three administrative reviews there have been more than 50 petitioners seeking a special rate on the countervailing duty side, and another 50 or more petitions on the antidumping side. Compare that to the fact the NO Chinese exporters of extrusions came forward in the original investigation.   Secondly, if they believe the products being exported to the U.S. are out of scope and should not be subject to duties, they can file a scope request.  Since the final verdict was reached in late April 2011, there have been over 80 scope requests made to the Department of Commerce.  Many of these have successfully received the exclusion they sought.  In some cases, the AEC did not even oppose the petition. The bottom-line is that a path exists for those that believe they should not be subject to 42% duties to make their case, and if they are correct, they will receive a special rate, or exclusion.

So, this begs the question why a Chinese extruder that wants to compete in the U.S. market would not make every effort to do so.  From the first quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2010 Chinese imports into the U.S. went from approximately 7% of the market to 25%.  With such a strong position in the U.S. market, wouldn't a Chinese exporter pursue every legal option available to compete in the U.S. market?

Why wouldn't a company that’s been given the opportunity to show their books to the DOC prove existing duties is unfair?  Just this year two mandatory respondents in the anti-dumping administrative review dropped out of the process.  In 2010 the largest exporter of Chinese aluminum extrusions into the U.S. was chosen to be a mandatory respondent and declined to participate.  Isn't it odd that companies with such a significant stake in this market have done NOTHING to protect it?

Or have they?

It should be clear to the industry that the AEC will muster whatever resources are required to maintain a free and fair trade zone in the U.S. for its products.  The DOC has established the duties needed to create a fair trade environment.  U.S. and International trade law allow for companies to appeal their rate.  Any company or institution that believes they can circumvent the system, no matter how complex the scheme may be, will learn that it simply won’t work.  Illegal and unfair trade practices will not be tolerated in this market.  Those that believe they are clever enough or powerful enough, to outfox the system will eventually learn how wrong they were.

Comments

Post a Comment

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…

WOW! Did he say ‘Billion’?

The biggest news to hit the trade case came last month.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against Perfectus seeking $1.5 Billion in unpaid duties for the fake pallets exported to the United States.  The DOJ didn’t pull any punches in their submission.  From the complaint, the DOJ stated, “Zhongtian Liu, a Chinese national, is the founder and chairman of China Zhongwang, one of the world’s largest industrial aluminum extrusion companies. Zhongtian Liu controls and is effectively the owner of Perfectus Aluminum, Inc. (“Perfectus”).  Between 2011 and at least 2014, Zhongtian Liu used Perfectus to illegally import more than 2.1 million aluminum “pallets” from China into the United States, as described in detail below.2 The “pallets” were manufactured by China Zhongwang and/or its affiliates and “sold” to Perfectus by several intermediary entities, including Dalian Liwang Trade Co., Ltd., Zhongwang Investment Group, and Yingkou Quianxiang Trading. Many of these intermediar…

Heating Up & Settling Down: The Dichotomy of our Trade Case

The agenda for our trade case continues to be driven by transshipment/circumvention issues and the 232 Investigation.  Meanwhile, our ‘base case’ is so quiet that we’ve been able to free up budget dollars from the Administrative Review to finance our circumvention case against Vietnam.

The Administrative Review is now complete.  The final rates determined by the Department of Commerce are 86% for countervailing duty (CVD) and 16% for anti-dumping duty (AD).  The total of 102% is our highest rate since we first filed the case.

Scope issues have calmed down a lot.  In fact, only the curtain wall case, the appliance handles case, and door threshold cases are on the front burner.  Reports from the hearing for the curtain wall case were very positive.  The attorney leading that effort, David Spooner, is quite confident we will win this round.  Of course, we fully expect another appeal from the Chinese.  We are awaiting the decision from the judge in the appliance handle cases and believe w…