Skip to main content

Terrific News for the AEC

This month we received two terrific decisions out of Washington D.C.  The first was the report by the Wall Street Journal that Liu Zhongtian, founder of China ZhongWang, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that he evaded nearly $2 billion in tariffs as part of a conspiracy to smuggle massive quantities of aluminum into the U.S.  The second was the final decision being made in our circumvention case against Vietnam.

First, Mr. Liu.  The AEC has been in a state of conflict with ZhongWang (ZW) since before we won our case.  ZhongWang and its affiliates were the number one exporter of aluminum extrusions into the U.S. prior to our filing.  Reports indicate that anywhere from 65-85% of all extrusions dumped into the U.S. from 2008-2010 were from ZW or its business affiliates.  Many of us will remember Peng Cheng, as one example.  Then the AEC exposed the perplexing mountain of extrusions produced in China and shipped to the Mexican desert, which led to the attempt to open a re-melt facility in Barstow, CA.  But ultimately, it was the fake pallets that caught up to Mr. Liu.  Reports flooded the market of massive amounts of fake aluminum pallets being exported to the U.S. and stored in warehouses.  At that point the AEC launched its scope clarification case against ZhongWang, which we won.  That decision declared the fake pallets to be covered by our orders and subject to duties.  Since then it has been widely reported that all U.S. assets of Mr. Liu and his family were seized, including the pallets.  And now, we have the indictment.  It’s impossible to predict if Mr. Liu will be extradited to the U.S. (probably not).  Regardless, it is a tremendous vindication for the AEC to see these indictments and know that after extensive investigation in this matter by U.S. officials the facts proved we were right all along.

Last week we received a final determination in our long-running circumvention case against Vietnam.  Consistent with its affirmative preliminary determination, Commerce continued to find that imports of aluminum extrusions exported from Vietnam that are made from aluminum previously extruded in China are circumventing the Orders. Commerce made a country-wide ruling, applying the results to all imports of merchandise subject to the inquiry from Vietnam, regardless of producer, exporter, or importer.   In addition to relying on the evidence we provided, Commerce again applied adverse inferences due to the failure to participate by Zhongwang.  Likewise, Commerce again found that additional factors, such as the pattern of trade, the affiliation between GVA and Zhongwang, and import trends, also support a finding of circumvention. Lastly, as established in the preliminary determination, to avoid paying AD/CVD cash deposits on entries of aluminum extrusions from Vietnam that were completed in Vietnam using aluminum not previously extruded in China, importers and exporters will need to complete and maintain certifications and supporting documentation that they will need to provide to CBP and/or Commerce upon request. 
Once again the AEC finds itself back in the news chasing bad actors while the global trade war heats up.  It is great to report these results to you considering the long road we’ve taken to get here. However, we must fight these issues so that others will see that the U.S. is serious about enforcing its trade orders.  And as for the AEC, these bad actors are well advised to stay away from our industry!

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...