Skip to main content

Circumvention Has Become Biggest Issue with AEC Fair Trade

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

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…