Skip to main content

Making Our Case Known

In case you missed it, the Wall Street Journal wrote back-to-back articles about Zhongwang and Aluminum Shapes.  In a scathing indictments the Journal linked Zhongwang to the massive inventory of aluminum extrusions in Mexico and connected Aluminum Shapes to Zhongwang about the so-called aluminum pallets.  Consequently, both Zhongwang and Aluminum Shapes came out with their denials.  Regardless, the issue certainly has grabbed the attention of the Department of Commerce (DOC) and Customs.

For the AEC the timing was perfect.  With our fall conference located in Washington DC, we were able to take our case to Capitol Hill asking for support in pressing Commerce on a decision about the pallets.  We expect the DOC to rule in our favor on the pallet issue by declaring them within the scope of our orders and therefore subject to tariffs and fines.  If the DOC should decide not to call the pallets in scope, then our petition calls on them to immediately launch a circumvention investigation.  Either way, we are in a strong position to bring this issue to justice.

For those awaiting a decision from Commerce on the 5000-series alloy issue, we continue to press the DOC to send additional questionnaires to all known importers and exporters of these extrusions, which are clearly a circumvention scheme.  I should also comment that I am hearing rumors that the next substitution the Chinese will try to exploit is 7000-series alloyed extrusions.  I am asking AEC members to send me any details and news they are seeing in the field related to this issue.

During the AEC Management Conference, Robert DeFrancesco, our lead attorney from Wiley Rein, outlined the next steps in our Sunset Review.  The International Trade Commission will be issuing new questionnaires for our industry participants.  We expect to see those forms very soon, and anticipate them to be due back to the International Trade Commission (ITC) before the end of 2016.  Stay tuned for more information on this.  While we don’t expect any opposition to our base extrusion case, the ITC will hear ‘like product’ arguments from companies buying and selling heat sinks, appliance handles, and heat exchanger units.  The petitioners in the ITC hearing will be arguing that their product is distinct and different from extrusions.  While these are similar arguments we’ve seen in scope challenges at the DOC, they are different.  We will certainly be arguing that these products have generally been considered in the scope of our orders, and allowing them into our market will cause harm to our industry.

Recently, the AEC went on the record in opposition to the proposed purchase of Aleris by Zhongwang.  We’ve added our voice to others, including the United Steel Workers, in an effort to educate law makers about the potential harms to our industry and the overall aluminum industry.
Clearly, the AEC has been busy getting its voice heard all over the world!  The number of news outlets that covered the Wall Street Journal article is in the hundreds.  In fact, the news that the Mexican metal horad could account for 6% of all the aluminum in the world went viral.  It is great to see the coverage on these issues and for the AEC generally.  As you now know, we will not back down.  Instead we aim to keep the pressure on as we await the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) decision on China’s request for market economy status.  With all of the recent revelations about the largest extruder in China, we believe we are doing more than our fair share of bringing these issues to light.

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...