As you know, the success of the AEC’s trade orders against the Chinese aluminum extrusion industry has been built on the scope of our orders. The AEC orders cover aluminum extrusions including fabricated, finished, and even kitted products as long as the merchandise in question does not make a final complete product. This scope has enabled us to protect end uses such as curtain wall, door thresholds, window and door kits, and a whole range of products extruders routinely produce. However, in 2016 the Department of Commerce decided in the side mount valve case that ‘final and finished’ must include sub-assemblies. This decision caused a shift in the DOC’s views about which products would be covered by our orders. Consequently, we saw solar mounting systems, as well as several tube, pipe, and pole products be excluded from our case. This also breathed life into more scope challenges as importers saw a chance to get their sub-assemblies excluded as well. One such product that fell into this category was appliance handles.
Appliance handles were deemed covered by the orders originally, but manufacturers appealed that decision claiming that because the handles contained end caps they must be considered a final and finished product. Like in other cases, we won this case in the courts. However, what made this decision even more important than others was the basis of the judge’s decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that an extruded product cannot be excluded simply because the kit in which it is sold contains other parts. The court ordered the DOC to go back and clarify ‘Final and Finished’ product with the court decision in mind. The AEC sent a team to meet with Commerce to discuss the courts order and explained how we had seen our very purposeful scope be watered down in the last administration. We were told that the DOC was already reviewing how it was interpreting scopes, in our case and others, and the orders from the judge gave them a chance to codify those changes.
Well, the DOC released its language on this matter and it is very favorable to us. Therefore, we have a real opportunity to re-visit earlier decisions to see if we can challenge earlier rulings. This is a big deal for us. Time and again I hear from extruders that see business returning after these types of decisions (I’ve seen it the other way, too!). So, as we look at earlier losses we will analyze the reason we lost and see if the new language from this court decision and Commerce’s recent comments apply. We will also need to determine if the market opportunity for industry is worth the expense to fight the past decisions. I am sure there will be many we will want to fight. This is the big development for us in the last month.
Elsewhere, we just received the preliminary results for the 7th Administrative Review and, as expected, our current duty rates will remain unchanged. Commerce is scheduled to issue the final results of the 7th Administrative Review on August 16. 2019. Trade enforcement efforts continue, especially in the curtain wall space. However, there is nothing I can publicly report this month.
So, in summary, the case continues to go well for us, and it seems clear we actually made up for a little lost ground in light of the scope decisions we’ve won. Thank you for your continued support!
Appliance handles were deemed covered by the orders originally, but manufacturers appealed that decision claiming that because the handles contained end caps they must be considered a final and finished product. Like in other cases, we won this case in the courts. However, what made this decision even more important than others was the basis of the judge’s decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that an extruded product cannot be excluded simply because the kit in which it is sold contains other parts. The court ordered the DOC to go back and clarify ‘Final and Finished’ product with the court decision in mind. The AEC sent a team to meet with Commerce to discuss the courts order and explained how we had seen our very purposeful scope be watered down in the last administration. We were told that the DOC was already reviewing how it was interpreting scopes, in our case and others, and the orders from the judge gave them a chance to codify those changes.
Well, the DOC released its language on this matter and it is very favorable to us. Therefore, we have a real opportunity to re-visit earlier decisions to see if we can challenge earlier rulings. This is a big deal for us. Time and again I hear from extruders that see business returning after these types of decisions (I’ve seen it the other way, too!). So, as we look at earlier losses we will analyze the reason we lost and see if the new language from this court decision and Commerce’s recent comments apply. We will also need to determine if the market opportunity for industry is worth the expense to fight the past decisions. I am sure there will be many we will want to fight. This is the big development for us in the last month.
Elsewhere, we just received the preliminary results for the 7th Administrative Review and, as expected, our current duty rates will remain unchanged. Commerce is scheduled to issue the final results of the 7th Administrative Review on August 16. 2019. Trade enforcement efforts continue, especially in the curtain wall space. However, there is nothing I can publicly report this month.
So, in summary, the case continues to go well for us, and it seems clear we actually made up for a little lost ground in light of the scope decisions we’ve won. Thank you for your continued support!
Comments
Post a Comment