Skip to main content

Circumvention Has Become Biggest Issue with AEC Fair Trade

Image
By
Our trade case continues to be extremely active, especially with the big news generated from the Dupre Analytics report.  There are several issues to report that are changing with each week.

Administrative Reviews

The Department of Commerce (DOC) has still not published the preliminary results from the 3rd annual administrative review. As you may recall, the rates published in June were incomplete and contained a major error.  The DOC says they will come out with those rates in October, but it is looking like they may not do that, and instead, just publish their final numbers in December.
The fourth administrative review has begun.  The DOC is selecting mandatory respondents now.  They rejected our request to select ZhongWang (ZW).  Their reasoning is that ZW is not the exporter of record in the trade data, so they can’t justify selecting them.  Therefore, it is likely we will see some of the same Chinese extruders we’ve seen before.

Scope Issues

We lost a couple of decisions involving tubular products (handles, poles, etc.).  If those parts come in with ‘substantial’ hardware, fasteners, etc. the DOC is excluding them.  If it’s a simple pole with no extraneous parts, it is included.  There was a scope request made for solar mounting systems.  Given the department’s previous ruling on mounting systems, we did not fight this one.  That’s a shame, but we have virtually no chance of winning.  We did win one against a request for extrusions used in automotive.  The DOC characterized them as an incomplete subassembly (metal bushings).  We are still awaiting a decision on 5xxx alloy extrusion (slated for early October).

Circumvention

The Fair Claims Act case out of Florida was finalized with the last of the involved parties cutting their deal with the government. Fines/duties of approximately $500,000 were levied against Wingfield Industries.  This was the fourth of the four companies that were transshipping product through Malaysia.  This case was blown open by a whistleblower that came forward to report the scheme.

The Puerto Rico case is still in the sentencing phase.  Now, the ring leader that was sentenced to jail has joined the other defendants in requesting a jury trial.  We will need to work hard to follow this case in the event we have a chance to testify.  Since our letter writing campaign that caused the judge to issue jail time, the plea deals have been torn up.  So now, the case will essentially start over.

The Zhongwang issue has stolen all the headlines recently.  Dupre Analytics released a report via the Internet exposing ZW fraud on a number of levels.  This report not only validated our concerns, but went even farther.  The AEC is reviewing its options to find the best way to respond.  It is clear that Dupre’s allegation of transshipment through third countries is deeply concerning.  We sent a press release calling for investigations into these allegations.

Summary

Overall the case is going well.  Even though the scope issues have settled into something less than what we wanted, the base case is still unchallenged and effective.  Circumvention has become the biggest issue, and with our added work in D.C. we are starting to gain traction in getting help from the government.  Your continued support and time make all of this happen.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Nice Win to Start the Year!

By
 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Keep That Ram Moving Forward

By
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 : ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Aluminum 232 Exclusion/Objection Process in Full Swing

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more