Skip to main content

AEC Duties Unchanged; “Trumponomics” Impacts Extruders

Our 6th Annual Administrative Review results have been announced.  As previously reported, the Department of Commerce (DOC) maintained extrusion tariffs at 86.01% for our subsidy, or countervailing duty (CVD), case and 20% for our anti-dumping (AD) case.  The combined duty of 106% has been stable since 2016.  This is a good number for the industry, which continues to contain Chinese aluminum extrusion at less than 1% market share. Furthermore, the DOC also assigned the Adverse Facts Available (AFA) rate of 198.61% to the two mandatory respondents, Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd. and Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd., which has been the AFA rate since the 5th review.  The 7th Annual Administrative Review has begun with the selection of mandatory respondents. 

Elsewhere in our case, there is nothing new to report on the scope issues we are battling.  We continue to wait for court dates or decisions depending on the matter.  Our trade enforcement actions and results have made their way into Customs’ pipeline.  It appears we may have caught another importer in violation of the orders, which will be the fourth this year. 

Related to enforcement issues, I am excited that at this year’s fall Management Conference we will have Carrie Owens, Director of Enforcement Operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Trade Remedy Law Enforcement Directorate speaking to us about the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) program we have used for these cases.  Furthermore, Ms. Owens’ colleague, Marisa Hill, Supervisory International Trade Analyst for CPB will be presenting in one of our breakout workshops.  She will teach us how to file an e-allegation.  If you suspect trade violations, then you MUST attend this session!

Extruders and suppliers continue to adapt to the new rules initiated by the Trump administration.  For the 232, exclusion requests continue to be presented to the administration.  You can find a list of exclusion decisions here.  At this stage of this emerging trade war, there is no indication that the administration is willing, or even considering, reversing the 232 orders.  Instead, the focus has shifted to Trump’s 301 Trade Orders aimed at China.  At this time, the President is considering a 25% tariff, which he raised from 10%, on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports.  There is also a proposal for a tariff on $500 billion worth of Chinese imports.  It is not clear yet if that proposal will be at 10% or 25%.  Regardless, the point of the measure is clear.  Trump is hitting China hard in an effort to force the Chinese to be fair trading partners.  However, it is not clear exactly where and in which industries he seeks their reform.  The AEC has been engaged on this issue and will continue to track its ebb and flow.  The AEC has reviewed the list of imported products being suggested by the administration.  We have made requests to have specific downstream items added to the list.  Lastly, the industry awaits the administration’s decision on how it will handle RUSAL when it makes its determination on the Russian Sanctions.  Most industry experts I talked with believe RUSAL will be excluded and allowed to re-enter the U.S. market.  For some extruders this will be much-needed good news.

Fair Trade and the Trump agenda will be key issues for discussion during the Management Conference, scheduled for September 11-13 in Chicago.  We will be covering all the bases from the General Sessions to the Breakout Sessions.  I very much encourage AEC members to attend!  See you there!

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...