Skip to main content

Trade Enforcement Efforts Are Paying Off

I am happy to report that things are going well for us in our ongoing trade case against Chinese extruders.  The Seventh Administrative Review has commenced, scope issues and  results are falling our way, and we continue to make progress in our trade enforcement efforts. 

Mandatory respondents are being confirmed for the Seventh Administrative Review.  We have asked the Department of Commerce to select at least one curtain wall and one door threshold exporter.  This helps us in the review and in the scope challenges involving both of those end uses.  Furthermore, we plan to maintain our position that the other elements that make up a curtain wall unit or door threshold, which are subsidized like the extrusions, be subject to the review.  Winning this argument keeps the rates high.  As a reminder, the current countervailing duty is 20% and the anti-dumping rate is 86% for a total duty of 106%.  This grueling process will go on for a few months with the final results due December of 2019.

We have three key scope issues in focus.  We continue to await a date for the latest appeal in the curtain wall case.  Having won (again) the last round, some of those petitioners decided to appeal (again).  More to come about this issue once we hear from the courts.  We have asked the courts to reconsider its position in its appliance handle ruling.  We await their reply.  While we do not want to lose this business to the Chinese, it is important to know that the precedent behind the decision is very important.  We didn’t get what we wanted in the courts decision on this case.  So, we are asking them to reconsider.   More to come on this, as well.  Finally, the door threshold case continues to move forward.  There are three importers that have wreaked havoc in this area, and all three of them are now included in this case.  Confidence is very high we will win, since door thresholds are expressly mentioned as subject merchandise in our original orders.  That can’t be changed, so there is no way for them to win – in my opinion.  I expect fireworks around this issue once the decision comes.

Trade enforcement efforts have paid off.  We now have three "transshippers", which we have reported to Customs.  Also, Customs has asked the AEC to hold another seminar with key port employees from around the country.  We did this last year, and it was a huge success.  The more we invest in the education of port officers, the more violations they will catch. 

I am also very pleased to announce that Carrie Owens, the head of the Enforce and Protect Act at Customs, will be presenting at the AEC fall Management Conference, September 11-13 in Chicago (open to members only).  You will NOT want to miss this and the chance to meet Carrie.  We will also have a breakout session focusing on trade enforcement.  If you suspect someone is evading orders or want to hear more details about AEC’s efforts and results in this area, be sure to attend this session.

In closing, I am happy to communicate that all is well on the trade front.  We are focusing our efforts in the tasks at hand.  We are fully engaged in the trade enforcement aspect of defending our orders by using the old adage, “The best defense is a good offense!”  Thank you for your continued support!  Have a great summer!

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...