Skip to main content

AEC China Trade Case – 2015 Outlook

This year has started off with a bang!  The recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that affirmed the Court of Internal Trade’s (CIT) determination in the curtain wall units and parts appeal was outstanding for the industry.  You can read more about that in the trade alert we sent the day the decision was announced here (http://aluminumextruderscouncil.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-court-of-appeals-for-federal.html))  Like this decision, there are a number of open issues we expect to see resolved in 2015. 
The Department of Commerce (DOC) released its final determination in the second annual review in late December.  Overall, the final results were largely consistent with the Department’s preliminary results. With regard to the countervailing duty (CVD) results, by successfully persuading the Department not to use LME-based benchmarks, we were able to preserve much of the CVD margins.

This is a good long-term precedent.  However, you will note that the mandatory and non-selected respondents’ margins declined slightly from those issued in the preliminary results due to the way in which the Department averaged its data. The CVD AFA/PRC-wide rate increased slightly over the preliminary rate.   Here are the announced rates:

Anti-Dumping (AD) Results: 
Kromet: 0.00%
Jangho: 33.28% (PRC-wide rate)
Guang Ya: 33.28% (PRC-wide rate)
All Others (non-selected): 32.79%
PRC-Wide: 33.28%

CVD Results:
Kromet/Alnan: 10.32%
Jiangsu Changfa: 2.94%
All Others (non-selected, 59 companies): 8.54%
AFA/PRC: 160.09%

The Third Administrative Review is well underway.  In the AD case, the Department chose the Guang Ya Group/Zhongya/Xinya and Jangho as mandatory respondents. On November 6, however, Guang Ya withdrew its participation in the AD review.  The Department selected Union as an alternative.  Union entered an appearance and appears to be participating.  On the CVD side, the Department chose Guang Ya and Jangho as mandatory respondents. Questionnaires were issued on October 14, 2014, and we have been filing comments on the responses as they are filed.  We will keep you posted as the process develops.

However, not all the news coming out of 2014 was good.  The AEC’s Fair Trade lobbying team and our legal team from Wiley Rein had been working with the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) office to appeal the MacLean-Fogg decision.  As you may recall, this decision reversed the DOC’s policy to NOT include the margins calculated for voluntary respondents in Administrative Reviews.  The DOC believes, and we agree, that allowing voluntary respondents’ result in the final margin calculations could allow for the Chinese to ‘game’ the system.  Unfortunately, the USTR was unsuccessful in securing an appeal hearing on the matter.  So, we will find another path to get this done.  The pending Trade Promotion Authority bill gives us that path.  Our team is working with legislators to include language in that bill to address the MacLean-Fogg ruling.   This is a perfect example of how the AEC is widening its strategy to include lobbying in addition to legal actions. 

And finally, the 5xxx series case.  Our team has been in contact with the DOC arguing our case.  One way or another we will get this issue settled in 2015.  While we will not be discussing our legal strategies openly, rest assured that we are convinced we have a winning case.  Updates will be announced as they come.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate the AEC and its members on the efforts and results achieved in 2014.  A year ago today we were heavily focused on funding and scope issues, surrogate countries, Barstow, etc.  That is not the case this year.  Our funding is secure.  We have shown a good record on scope requests in 2014. The Philippines is not even an option for the DOC as a surrogate country in 2015, and the Barstow project is dead.  So now, we will continue to build on our momentum with an expanded lobbying effort, continue the good fight in our scope and administrative review cases, and continue to work on circumvention issues wherever they may arise.  Thank you for your continued support.  Without that, none of this would be possible.

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 writte...

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 : ...

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...