Skip to main content

Fair Trade Update: AEC Advances Legislative Agenda

Over the last few weeks the Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC), its members, and leadership have made their voice heard in the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill making its way through Congress.  Adding our voice to manufacturers all across the country from the steel, solar panel, and tire industries (just to name a few), we aim to have the pending Customs Bill amendment adding to the historic TPA legislation.  As I write this month’s entry, AEC members and leadership are phoning, faxing, and emailing their elected officials asking for their support.  Hopefully, by the time you read this update, the results will be in, and we will have impacted a huge win for our industry and domestic manufacturing.

Of course, that effort is only part of the agenda being advanced by the AEC.  The Department of Commerce (DOC) issued its decisions regarding IKEA’s cabinet/drawer handles and IKEA’s towel racks. The Department found both sets of products to be in-scope merchandise. IKEA’s handles were each comprised exclusively of a single piece of extruded 6xxx-series aluminum alloy and packaged with steel screws and nuts for attachment onto a cabinet or drawer face.  This decision reinforces earlier precedents set by the DOC regarding extruded parts packaged only with a few fasteners. 

In late April the Chinese government issued a statement removing export duties on certain alloyed semi-fabricated products including rod and bar.  While this should have no direct impact in markets where trade protection exists for extruded products, it does raise concerns about the growing supply of aluminum in China, and how they intend to exhaust it.  Even while the Chinese economy shows signs of slowing its meteoric economic growth, production has not been curtailed.  Forced to find a home for this production, the Chinese continue to incentivize downstream manufacturers to fabricate the metal for export.  Another clear example is the recent announcement by Chinese extruder Guangdong Xingfa Aluminum Holdings, which plans to expand aluminum extrusions capacity to 500,000-tpy.  This comes at a time when Chinese extruders continue to operate at 30-40% of their capacity.  As reports of Chinese exports into third party countries mount, new allegations of circumvention of the U.S. trade orders are growing.  While difficult to draw a direct link, several investigations are underway that could lead to more indictments.

Finally, the DOC’s third annual review of our case is well underway.  A preliminary decision is expected in late June or early July.  We continue to argue for a surrogate country that is very close in its economic development to China.  Further, we have made our case known that if a curtain wall company seeks a special duty rate, then all input costs must be calculated including glass.  These are key issues for us in this cycle.

Next month, I will be heading to Washington D.C. for my final security clearance and first International Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) meeting.  As you may recall, ITAC is a group of committees that represent U.S. industry interests and advises the United States Trade Representatives (USTR) office on trade policy.  I will represent the AEC on committee nine, which deals with non-ferrous and building and construction products.  This represents another big step forward for our industry in making its positions known, and its voice heard.  Once again, thank you for your continual support as we work together to build and defend the aluminum extrusion industry.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Great News! The 5050 Appeal has been Won!

Since the industry won its 5050 alloy circumvention case, extruders across the country saw a return of orders from customers that went that direction.  With this case on appeal, there were legitimate concerns that all of this would be reversed.  However, the Department of Commerce (DOC) won its case at the Court of International Trade (CIT), and the industry is spared another round of disruption.  This is good news, indeed!

This win comes on the heels of our victory in the Vietnam circumvention case.  Since that preliminary decision was made, Vietnam has placed duties on Chinese imports.  We believe this in response to our circumvention case as reported here.

Also noteworthy: on May 1, 2019, the Department initiated anti-circumvention inquiries to determine whether imports of aluminum jalousie shutters that are processed in the Dominican Republic from window frame extrusions produced in China are circumventing the Orders. The Department also self-initiated a scope inquiry to determine…

Work Focuses on Scope Challenges and Imports

This month our Fair Trade focus has shifted back to scope challenges.  At the same time, other issues are developing, which I will touch on in this report.  However, the key decision this month actually came from an adversary.  Whirlpool has dismissed its appeal in the appliance handle case.  This is a great development for us, as we have one less opponent in our quest to push the Department of Commerce (DOC) to return the interpretation of our scope back to the original language and its intent.  This decision from the courts confirms that the DOC cannot rule an item out of scope simply because it has additional non-extruded components.  It also reinforces the principle that a part cannot be ruled out of scope if it is a subassembly of a larger product.  These two issues are the legal pillars that will enhance our ability to keep more applications covered by our orders, and possibly seek a reversal from the DOC on items previously ruled out of scope.

One of those product categories in…