Skip to main content

Special Report: Details Behind the China Zhongwang Case Filing

As noted in our post from October 23, the Aluminum Extruders Council filed a Circumvention and Scope Clarification case against China Zhongwang (ZW).  Mounting evidence from private investigators, testimony from former employees, data from online import and export databases, and anecdotal evidence from a variety of reporters and other sources made it quite clear that ZW has consistently and systematically been exporting aluminum extrusions that are simply welded together into what are essentially aluminum slabs.  While they claim these so-called ‘deep-processed’ extrusions are aluminum pallets, there is no evidence that ZW or any of its U.S. based operations market such a product.  It is simply incomprehensible that a company would export hundreds of millions of pounds of these extrusions into the U.S. without even marketing them.

The feedback we’ve received so far indicate that ZW intends to do with these extrusions what they have done in Mexico and Vietnam with similar schemes: send them to a ZW-owned re-melt facility to convert them back into billet.  This is problematic for the industry on several fronts.  First, it is important to understand that Chinese aluminum costs are so heavily subsidized that most of the margins calculated in our case come from the primary metal inputs.  So, these Chinese extrusions that will find their way into the U.S. extrusion market have not been taxed to account for those subsidies.  This is a critical issue.  In the case of ZW, those duties could be as high as 180%.  Without that duty, this metal represents an unfair advantage to ZW-owned U.S. extrusion operations.  Secondly, since these slabs are destined to be scrapped, a U.S. extruder could gain an unfair advantage when it competes for LEED programs on the building and construction front.  Lastly, our trade orders are quite clear.  The entire U.S. aluminum extrusion market must abide by those rules, and for the most part they have.  Allowing the largest extruder in China to sustain a program like this is unfair to the industry.  ZW must operate within the Department of Commerce (DOC) orders in our case.

Prior to filing this case, the AEC, and others, went to U.S. Customs to address the allegations made in the Dupre Report about transshipments from ZW into the U.S. through Vietnam and Malaysia.  The way our system works, is that an e-allegation made to Customs goes into a queue wherein they decide whether or not to investigate.  We will not be informed of an investigation. So, we intend to keep the pressure on Customs to investigate these very serious charges.

Having now filed the case, the DOC has 45 days to determine whether or not it will launch an investigation.  In order to help the DOC make the right call, we have asked AEC members to reach out to their Senators to sign a letter we are circulating.  The letter is being co-led by Senators Portman (R- OH) and Brown (D - OH).  It should be noted that the letter is addressed to both the DOC for the circumvention case, and U.S. Customs to investigate the transshipment claims.  We will have a House letter very soon.  Also, I, along with our legal team, will be visiting with the DOC later this month to make our case face-to-face.

As always, we will stay in touch with AEC members as this process unfolds.  We will be asking for another set of letters to go out once we get to the House side, and I suspect a trip to D.C. in December and/or January will be required.  Again, thank you for your continued support for this most vital program!


Popular posts from this blog

Fair Trade Update: Curtain Wall, Door Thresholds & Vietnam

Well, our year is off and running with a bang. Scope issues, Administrative Review, and circumvention top our list in early 2018.

This month we learned that there will be an appeal in the curtain wall scope case.  Permasteelisa and Jangho filed a notice of appeal last week.  It is expected that Yuanda will almost surely file their own notice of appeal by the deadline, which is February 12. The Chinese industry signaled that they would appeal in a recent article in US Glass magazine.   

Additionally, our scope challenge related to door thresholds continues to move forward.  This is a significant case because door thresholds are expressly mentioned as subject merchandise in our trade orders.  So, to lose this application could open the door to many applications clearly covered by our case.  Finally, we continue to await the judges’ (there are more than one judge at the CIT) decision in the appliance handles cases we defended last fall.  We believe we will win.  However, we are mostly i…

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…

Our China Trade Case – Remember That?

It’s sometimes hard to remember that the AEC has a trade case against China.  With all of the news regarding the 232 Investigation, the Russian Sanctions, and the fallout we’ve experienced, I find myself having to leave tasks on my calendar to be sure I am dialed into the ins and outs of our anti-dumping/countervailing duties (AD/CVD) cases.  When I do review the cases and get dialed in again, I am quite happy with how it’s going.

That’s because our initiatives are starting to gain traction.  Take, for example, our Vietnam Circumvention case.  The deadline for filing briefs in this matter has come and gone with no reply from the other side.  Therefore, we are in a strong position to ask the Department of Commerce for their preliminary ruling so that duties can be applied at once.  The final ruling in this matter is due December 24, 2018.  However, the sooner we can get to a preliminary decision, the better for our domestic industry.  There will be more to come on this in the coming we…