Skip to main content

On the Eve of the Sunset Review

Jeff Henderson
This month representative members of the Aluminum Extruders Council will join me in Washington D.C. to testify before the International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking another five years of trade protection from our orders.  This hearing will be followed by a decision from the ITC to either end or extend our orders.  We are confident in our success. Please note that once again no one representing the Chinese extrusion industry will be present to rebut our testimony.  So, it seems reasonable to expect our petition to be extended.

There will be companies testifying that their particular product should be excluded from the orders because it is not a ‘like product’ to extrusions.  We saw this in 2011 when representatives from the shower and bath industry and from a heat sink manufacturer made their case that they should be excluded because what they bought from extruders was so dissimilar to a ‘real extrusion’.  In that round the shower and bath folks lost, but the heart sink manufacturer walked away with somewhat of a win.  This time we expect to hear from companies making appliance handles, heat exchangers, and possibly some others.  For the most part, none of these items are new to the ITC or DOC.  The question has been argued on the scope request side with the Department of Commerce, and now these companies are taking their case to the ITC.  I don’t believe they will be successful.

Once the Sunset Review is complete, and the orders extended, there could be a period of relative calm. Think of it.  For the last 18 months to 3 years we have been very focused on circumvention and transshipment schemes.  While there will always be battles like these to wage, our most direct challenge has been confronted, and we won!  If that indeed does signal some level of victory for our side, then we may see things settle down this year.

However, headquarters is getting a number of calls about Vietnamese imports.  Many of those reports come with details that suggest these extrusions could actually be coming from China and then shipped to the U.S.  That is a serious offense and criminal charge if proven true.  In cases where hard evidence is gathered, we are in a strong position to take those reports to Customs.  This has been a tactic for some time now.  Many of us have been disappointed in the lack of urgency from our governing bodies.  We are hopeful that the new administration will take a stronger role in enforcement areas like these.

Elsewhere, I want you to be aware that we are awaiting the final determination from Department of Commerce (DOC) in the 5050-alloy case.  Based on their preliminary decision in late 2015, we are confident we will see a similar outcome.  In that preliminary decision the DOC agreed with us that the minor change in chemistry made to these so-called 5xxx alloyed extrusions a clear case of circumvention.  While ZhongWang was the target of our filing, the DOC agreed that this is a bigger scheme than just what ZhongWang was doing.  So, they made the proclamation industry-wide.  Assuming we get that final decision, this is a huge win for the industry.

The other issue of note is the fake pallets case.  In this case the DOC decided that pallets made from unalloyed aluminum extrusions are covered by the scope of our orders.  While we would have preferred to see the decision cover all alloys of these fake pallets, we can reserve the right to make that case if we see further shipments.  In the meantime, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, this case is still being investigated.  We stand ready to help those investigators as they may request.

So, what will this year bring? It’s hard to be certain.  Clearly we hope to see a successful Sunset Review, and conclusion to these open trade enforcement issues.  At that point we stand ready to take on the next challenge.  Surely by now, those that think they can injure our industry with these schemes have come to learn that the AEC will NOT stand idle.  Instead, we are ready to defend our industry to the end.

Extruder Survey: Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Petition

This month I come to you with a special request. The International Trade Analysts at the U.S. International Trade Commission that are assigned to the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Petition (MTBP) process are identifying domestic producers of the following aluminum products, or products that are like or directly competitive with those listed below. Legislation is pending to lower or eliminate tariffs on these items:

  • MTBP 2219: Machined cast aluminum loupe mountings with polytetrafluoroethylene coating (used in lights for dental exams and procedures)
  • MTBP 2746: Aluminum roof brace fittings for sheds
  • MTBP 3100: Aluminum extension poles; aluminum roller frames; aluminum adjustable frames designed for holding paint rollers of different sizes

We have created a survey asking our members if they ‘do’ or ‘can’ make extrusions for these applications (not necessarily ‘will’). If the answer is yes, we will put them on the list of domestic producers that can make these items.

TAKE THE SURVEY HERE

Our attorneys will take that list and file our response. Responses are due by January 31, 2017. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and participation!

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...