Skip to main content

Circumvention Issues Continue to Heat Up, Fourth Administrative Review Under Way

For this month’s update we’ll discuss administrative reviews, update scope requests, and developments in circumvention cases.  Each one has several moving pieces, so I’ll only address the key highlights.  However, this month we have the added story of how the AEC’s lobbying efforts help form U.S. trade policy in landmark legislation that recently became law. AECmembers: read the July issue of the AEC member newsletter, essentiALs, for more information.

The fourth administrative review has just begun.  Every year at this time, the Department of Commerce (DOC) reviews import data to select top aluminum extrusions exporters from the People’s Republic of China.  From this list, they will pick two or three companies for the Anti-Dumping (AD) case, and a similar number for the Countervailing Duty (CVD) case.  Chinese extruders are also offered a chance to seek a special rate by agreeing to disclose all of their production and/or sales data.  We will know which companies the DOC selects in the next few weeks.

The third administrative review is entering its final phase.  As reported last month, the DOC issued an incomplete preliminary ruling on the CVD case, and made an obvious error in its calculation in the AD case.  We expect to see a post-preliminary announcement from Commerce in mid-to-late August.  There is a growing optimism that the DOC will actually increase the rates.

Based on incoming evidence that we believe will be quite helpful in our 5xxx series alloy case, we have requested an extension to prepare our arguments.  That extension was granted.  I will update our progress next month.  Elsewhere on the scope request front, there were no new scope determinations announced by Commerce, and only two new requests.  Liberty Hardware Manufacturing Company asked for an exclusion on their shower door kits.  We will enter an appearance and ask for more information before going farther.  There was also a request from Ace Hardware regarding an extension pole product.  Products similar to this have already been excluded.  In cases with a strong precedent we generally do not respond.  We prefer to preserve our resources for more productive pursuits.

Circumvention issues continue to heat up.  I’ve received two more reports in the last month.  Both of them came from U.S. extrusion customers.  These are buyers of domestic aluminum extrusions that are abiding by the orders, but have competitors still importing product from China.  One of them filed an e-Allegation through the U.S. Customs’ website four years ago, yet has not heard a word from the government since.  It is frustrating for companies to go through this process. I’m learning that our current system is built so reporters of violations are required to use this system, but don’t get any feedback.  The pending Customs Re-Authorization Bill working its way through Congress now aims to address that issue.  I will address that in my special legislative report.

In summary, we’ve been encouraged that this year’s administrative review may be developing in a way that could lead higher tariffs for our orders.  That will be a first, if it happens.  While we anxiously want a ruling on the 5xxx series issue, new evidence will bolster our case thus causing us to seek an extension.  And, finally, circumvention reports and issues continue to be the hot topic.  We have a lot of resource aimed at these efforts that we expect will bring a result like we saw in Puerto Rico and Florida in recent months.

As always, I am grateful for your continued support!  Please direct comments to me directly at jhenderson@tso.net.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Victories and Struggles: Our Mission Persists

 On December 3, 2024, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took action in issuing a forced labor finding against Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. (“Kingtom”).  This victory for U.S. extruders is a culmination of years of effort between the AEC and United Steel Workers (USW), which started with the initial Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) allegation filed in 2019.  As a result of this finding, CBP has authorized all port directors to seize imports of aluminum extrusions from Kingtom.   For almost 15 years the Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) has worked on a wide variety of trade activities.  In defending the China I case, the AEFTC has navigated the 232 Tariffs and has worked with other organizations on EAPA allegations, along with circumvention and transshipment issues.  Thank you to all who have contributed time and resources over the years!  However, there will be more work to do.  With a new administration and 2025 fast approa...

Section 232 Implications: Get the Latest

 Recently, the AEC released a detailed fact sheet outlining the implications of Section 232 tariffs on aluminum imports, available for review on our website here. This document underscores our ongoing commitment to transparency and informed decision-making within our member base. Previously, we updated the 232 Derivative Products List to include a comprehensive breakdown of HTSUS codes and product descriptions, aimed at providing clarity for our stakeholders accessible here . Additionally, The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) within the Department of Commerce established a formal process for the addition of aluminum products designated the USHTS codes. The first window for submission opened on May 1, 2025, and closed on May 15, 2025. After the posting and public comment period occurs the BIS will make a final determination within 60 days. In addition to these regulatory updates, the Trump Administratio...

The 232 Takes Center Stage

The 232 exclusion requests, objections, rebuttals and surrebuttals process continues with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC).  Since the exclusion process on aluminum extrusions restarted in June, AEC members have logged more than 500 objections and over 40 surrebuttals with the DOC.  While there have been a few very specific exclusion requests (i.e., hard alloy, seamless tube, etc.), objections have been limited to only one producing company.  As an industry, we have mounted a stellar defense with all exclusion requests receiving three or more objections from member companies.  At this point, there have yet to be any exclusion requests to make it to the final determination and we are hoping to have the first round of results to share at the Fall Management Conference .  However, if we do start to receive results before mid-September, we will make sure to communicate results as they are made available.  The number of 232 exclusion requests greatly decrea...