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!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Nice Win to Start the Year!

 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...

Keep That Ram Moving Forward

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 : ...

Aluminum 232 Exclusion/Objection Process in Full Swing

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...