Skip to main content

It’s Been a Busy Summer

It has certainly been an interesting summer for our trade orders.  We have had several very favorable decisions in our case.  In fact, one might say we ‘ran the table’.  Here is a summary of those decisions.

At the end of June, the Department of Commerce (DOC) issued its preliminary decision in their Fifth Administrative Review of the duties being applied in our case.  In that decision the DOC established a new tariff level of 86% on the antidumping (AD) side, and 20% in the countervailing duty (CVD) case for a combined tariff of 106%.  This is nearly double what was calculated last year.  This is especially impactful in circumstances where kits are being imported.  Because the extrusions are the only item taxed in a kit, or say, a curtain wall unit, the other elements of the kit may be subsidized by the Chinese enough to offset the extrusion tariff on the extrusions.  We have every confidence that the DOC will stick with these numbers when they announce their final determination later this year.

The DOC made a decision in the fake pallet case, and the 5050 alloy circumvention scheme.  Both were in our favor.  Having seized a reported $25 million worth of fake pallets, the scope ruling that they are covered by our orders opens the door for Customs and the DOC to decide how duties will be applied to those items.  Given the extent of this scheme, penalties could be staggering.  In the 5050 case the DOC held to their preliminary decision that 5050 alloyed extrusions will be covered by our orders.  We have been receiving reports from across the country that orders have already been coming back to domestic extruders.

With all of this momentum at our backs, it is has been quite difficult to get our heads around the magnitude of the threat to our industry being posed by the Trump Administration’s 232 investigation. As previously written, there are petitioners in this matter that are asking that tariffs be placed on all imported primary aluminum.  We have heard suggested tariff rates from 2% - 30%.  As an industry, we simply cannot afford to pass through a duty to our customers that ultimately compete in a global economy.  Imagine how difficult it will be for your customers to win business against foreign OEMs that don’t have that tariff embedded in their costs.  This is an issue we will be discussing in Denver at the Aluminum Anodizing & Extrusion Summit next month.

On the other hand, the 232 also presents a real opportunity for us to persuade the Administration that the real enemy is China and that any remedy should be focused on them.  Additionally, we need to make the case that any country that allows China to use them as a third party to circumvent our orders should also have duties placed on their exports to the U.S.  We are working with other groups now to form a consensus around this issue.  This too will be addressed in Denver.

In total, it’s been a great summer for our trade case.  So, when we meet next month at our Management Conference we will certainly want to lift a glass in celebration for what we’ve accomplished, then roll up our sleeves and get to work on the 232.

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...