Skip to main content

Aluminum in the Spotlight

On April 26, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) initiated an investigation to determine the effects of aluminum imports on national security under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (“Section 232”).  On April 27, President Trump signed a memorandum directing Secretary Ross to proceed expeditiously in conducting this investigation.  The President further directed that if the Secretary finds that aluminum is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances to threaten U.S. national security, he must recommend actions and steps to “adjust” aluminum imports accordingly.  This has become the central point of discussion throughout the industry.  You can read more about it in my comments on the 232 Investigation this month in the June issue AEC's member newsletter essentiALs (you will need to log in as a member to view it). For now, let’s discuss our case and its latest developments.

With the Sunset Review clearly in our rear-view mirror, we turn our attention to three main issues that are still unresolved.  First, we await word from the Department of Commerce (DOC) concerning our circumvention case against Zhongwang and other exporters of these so-called 5050 alloy aluminum extrusions.  Earlier this year, in its preliminary ruling, the DOC ruled that 5050 extrusions were covered by our orders and declared the import of such products a circumvention scheme.  Since that ruling was announced, more importer/exporters of these extrusions have come forward to rebut the DOC’s decision.  We believe we have successfully addressed those issues and expect the DOC to stand by their preliminary decision.  However, as an industry we should brace ourselves for an appeal, which is likely to come.

Next, the pallet case is nearing its final decision date.  We expect that decision later this month.  Around the first of the year, the DOC decided the pallets in question that are made of 1000-series alloyed extrusions are subject to duties.  In that decision, the DOC opened the door for another submission if other alloys are being used.  We did learn that pallets are also made from 6000-series alloyed aluminum extrusions.  So, we re-filed the case.  There has been some rebuttal to our petition, but again, we believe we have successfully dealt with those arguments.  Furthermore, keep in mind that Customs seized a reported $25 million worth of these pallets as they await the DOC’s decision.

Finally, the 5th Administrative Review is at its mid-point in the process.  So, the DOC announced its preliminary decision for AD and CVD rates.  The new AD rates are proposed to 86% and the new CVD rates are 16%.  The new combined total of 102% is a big improvement from the 40-45% range we have seen in recent years.

As you can see, our base case is poised to close a few open issues and we are in a position to deal with trade enforcement issues.  We may have a shot with the 232 Investigation to get there sooner. Regardless, it is certainly the next big thing to tackle.

In summary, things are going well for us and our case.  The duties appear to be on the increase, we’ve won the preliminary decisions on our key challenges, and we won our Sunset Review.  With your continued support, we can keep the momentum!

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...