Skip to main content

ITC Sunset Hearing, Like Product Challenges, Century’s WTO Case and More

Last month the Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC) testified before the International Trade Commission (ITC) in its request to have our trade orders against the Chinese aluminum extrusion industry renewed for another five years.  Those that testified included Brook Hamilton, Bonnell Aluminum Extrusion Company, Sue Johnson, Futura Industries, Jason Weber, Sapa Extrusions, Rick Merluzzi, Metal Exchange/Pennex, Bennett McEvoy, Western Extrusions, Jeff Henderson, AEC, and Alan Price and Robert DeFrancesco from Wiley Rein.  We expect to hear the ITC’s decision next month.

The hearing went very well.  We remain confident that the ITC will renew our orders.  However, there were ‘like product’ challenges to our case that required defense.  Like product challenges are similar to scope requests.  In essence the argument is whether a certain product, or family of products, should be excluded from the orders because they are so different from aluminum extrusions.  Three products were challenged: heat exchanges, mechanical fittings, and appliance handles.  We will have to wait to see how the ITC deals with these cases.  Their decision will be a part of the overall decision to either continue or discontinue our orders.

The other big news in our industry was the announcement by the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) office to take Century Aluminum’s case against China’s overproduction of aluminum to the World Trade Organization (WTO).  The AEC had lent its support of this case since last summer.  Our membership expressed deep concern about the prospect of China overtaking the world production of aluminum and what that would mean to our future.  We have rallied behind this effort as the clearest path available to address this growing concern.

Last month I briefly wrote about the increasing reports of cheap Vietnamese extrusions.  You may have read that Australian extruders recently filed a trade protection case with their government against Vietnam and Malaysia.  It is clear that this is a mounting threat, and one we intend to get in front of as quickly as possible.  Many believe these extrusions are simply transshipments from China.  While the jury is still out on that, it is clear that billions of pounds of extrusions are being shipped from Mexico, the U.S., and even Malaysia to a growing stockpile in Vietnam.  The estimated volumes suggest the inventory of extruded aluminum in Vietnam from these shipments is more than four billion pounds.  Obviously, these shipments are not heading to Vietnam due to an unprecedented growth in the demand of extrusions in Vietnam.  Please contact me with any information you may have regarding Vietnamese exports to the U.S.

The curtain wall coalition received some good news last month when the Department of Commerce, once again, issued a decision that stated unequivocally that curtain wall extrusions and unitized curtain wall are clearly in the scope of the orders.  This latest decision will put pressure on the Chinese to either appeal this (again), or walk away.  Should they appeal, we are confident that they will lose in court for the fourth time.  For more information regarding the curtain wall case visit their site: curtainwallcoalition.org.

In summary, it appears we have excellent momentum with our case going into 2017.  However, we remain vigilant on the growing threat from Vietnam.  So, I invite AEC members to join us next month at our Annual Meeting & Leadership Conference.  It will be an excellent opportunity for us to gather and discuss these issues.

Comments

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…

WOW! Did he say ‘Billion’?

The biggest news to hit the trade case came last month.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against Perfectus seeking $1.5 Billion in unpaid duties for the fake pallets exported to the United States.  The DOJ didn’t pull any punches in their submission.  From the complaint, the DOJ stated, “Zhongtian Liu, a Chinese national, is the founder and chairman of China Zhongwang, one of the world’s largest industrial aluminum extrusion companies. Zhongtian Liu controls and is effectively the owner of Perfectus Aluminum, Inc. (“Perfectus”).  Between 2011 and at least 2014, Zhongtian Liu used Perfectus to illegally import more than 2.1 million aluminum “pallets” from China into the United States, as described in detail below.2 The “pallets” were manufactured by China Zhongwang and/or its affiliates and “sold” to Perfectus by several intermediary entities, including Dalian Liwang Trade Co., Ltd., Zhongwang Investment Group, and Yingkou Quianxiang Trading. Many of these intermediar…

Heating Up & Settling Down: The Dichotomy of our Trade Case

The agenda for our trade case continues to be driven by transshipment/circumvention issues and the 232 Investigation.  Meanwhile, our ‘base case’ is so quiet that we’ve been able to free up budget dollars from the Administrative Review to finance our circumvention case against Vietnam.

The Administrative Review is now complete.  The final rates determined by the Department of Commerce are 86% for countervailing duty (CVD) and 16% for anti-dumping duty (AD).  The total of 102% is our highest rate since we first filed the case.

Scope issues have calmed down a lot.  In fact, only the curtain wall case, the appliance handles case, and door threshold cases are on the front burner.  Reports from the hearing for the curtain wall case were very positive.  The attorney leading that effort, David Spooner, is quite confident we will win this round.  Of course, we fully expect another appeal from the Chinese.  We are awaiting the decision from the judge in the appliance handle cases and believe w…