Skip to main content

The AEC to the DOC: Time’s Up!

For over two years the U.S. aluminum extrusion industry has asked the Department of Commerce (DOC) one simple question: Are the so-called ‘5000-series’ products that have been coming into our market duty-free covered by the scope of our orders or not?  Having anticipated a response last autumn, then this winter, you can imagine our reaction to seeing the can be kicked down the street for another few weeks.

What is different about our approach this time is that in October, we not only filed a scope clarification case, but we also filed a circumvention case.  As a result of that, we are now asking commerce if these extrusions are in scope or a blatant act of circumvention in order to evade duties.  It’s one or the other.  There is nothing on the record that suggests that 5000-series alloy substitution serves any other purpose than to cheat the Federal Government of the United States out of duties and the Aluminum Extruders Council out of the full protection of its orders.

Period.

So, when we learned this week that even framing the question in that form is still not enough to bring this issue to a conclusion, we had to publicly respond. We aren’t alone in our disappointment.  Several Senators supported our filing of our Scope Clarification/Circumvention case against Zhongwang.  When news of these delays came to their attention, they added their voice to the discussion.

Most believed our Zhongwang filing was only about these slabs of welded aluminum extrusions the company claimed were aluminum pallets.  That is part of our case, but not all of it.  In fact, there are essentially four elements to our case: 1) Scope Clarification on these aluminum slabs, 2) Request for investigation of possible circumvention with these aluminum slabs, 3) Scope Clarification on the so-called 5000-series alloy extrusions (previously filed and referenced in this matter), and 4) Request for investigation of possible circumvention using so-called 5000-series alloys.

In December, the Department of Commerce delayed its decision on our four-part filing and requested we break it into three pieces.  Remember the scope request on the 5000-series alloy, the fourth piece, was already in the pipeline - for 2 years!  We, of course, complied.  Having believed we had developed every available legal angle, complied with their request to re-file, we waited with eager anticipation for their decision on January 21, 2016.

Then the snowstorm came.  Washington D.C. was shut down, and no decision was issued.  So, we waited, and waited…

And, now we learn it was postponed again.  This time there is a questionnaire they want us to file.  In so doing, they postpone the decision for 45 days after we return their questionnaire.  While we agree a questionnaire needs to be completed, we think they are asking the wrong party to fill it out!  It’s time for Zhongwang to answer some questions.

Just launch the investigation and submit the questionnaire to them!  That’s all we are asking.  If there is nothing to hide or conceal, then give Zhongwang a chance to do that!  If there is, then let’s get to it!
We realize the DOC team has worked long and hard on our case.  We know it’s been complicated and challenging.  Certainly, many of these folks have put in many long days in a job that may not always be fun, but at least they have jobs.  Would it change their view if they encountered one of the families that have lost their income due to the alleged illegal and unfair trade practices and government indecision?  I imagine it would.  Faced with a similar scene some years ago in rural Louisiana, I can tell you, it changed mine.

AEC members, know this, I will not stop.  We will see this through.  If any of you have heard the rumors I’ve been hearing in recent days, you too may be cautiously optimistic that help is on the way.  On these four matters, and whatever other tentacles may end up being attached to them, know that this fight has only just begun!

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…