Those of you that follow our case closely know that much of our effort in recent years has focused on scope issues and trade enforcement.  For quite some time we have enjoyed a fair-trade relationship with China. By this I mean the Federal Government of the United States has established anti-dumping and countervailing duties that total approximately 100%.  Since the implementation of these orders, traditional imports of aluminum extrusions from China have held at less than 1% of our market.  Contrast this with the high level of activity we have seen in our case centering on which extrusions should be excluded from the duties and defending our borders against circumvention and transshipment. One disturbing new development we had to confront is the introduction of a Chinese owned and operated facility in the Dominican Republic.  Since its opening, members across the southeast United States have seen this operation make many attempts to penetrate our market. ...

 This month, we will discuss active matters in our case and a brief look ahead. As we look forward to 2021, several pending key decisions will help define the kind of environment we are likely to face as we transition into a new administration. While some of these matters look routine, the underlying precedent in our case that they represent is anything but ordinary.  Kingtom has been selected as the sole mandatory respondent in the 9th Administrative Review on the Anti-Dumping side. Kingtom recently changed their import status and became the importer of record in shipments into the U.S. over the summer. During this time, we have seen imports climb. The administrative review process is an excellent opportunity for us to make the case they should be subject to the Chinese duties. Meanwhile, an EAPA from Ta Chen against Kingtom is in its final stages. A decision is imminent, and should Ta Chen prevail, our case against them will be strengthened. The Aluminum Extruders Council (A...

First of all I want to thank everyone that attended the Fair Trade sessions during our Virtual Fall Management Conference.  It was good to have that chance to discuss the range of issues we face as we look to close out 2020.  One thing is certain; if we stick together we will get through this and continue our winning ways in the defense of our trade orders. I’ll start with the 9th Administrative Review.  We are fully engaged in the process at this point.  Our attorneys and the Fair Trade Committee have worked together to develop a strategy we believe will keep the current duties in place.  With the combined rate at approximately 106%, we have an excellent deterrent.    Furthermore, we hope to prosecute our position in a financially beneficial way, thus providing us with funding to go after other scope or circumvention issues.  A preliminary decision on both cases could come as early December 2020. Our scope challenges continue to work their way th...

 Last month we reported that we found ourselves in-between announcements from the Administration about a number of issues.  This month we have our answers, whether we like them or not!  Over the last few days the AEC has issued a number of Trade Alerts about the President’s decision to re-impose the aluminum 232 tariffs on Canada. Those new orders will only cover unalloyed, unwrought aluminum.  No downstream products were included in this decision.  Shortly thereafter, Canada retaliated by imposing a 10% tariff on several aluminum related products from the United States, including aluminum extrusions.  Since then, Canadian manufacturers, much like those in the U.S. did, voiced their opposition to Prime Minister Trudeau’s decision.  So, there we have it. After the dust settles, U.S. extruders expected Trump’s reinstatement of the 232 tariffs might bring about raw material price parity with Canada.  Whether that plays out or not is left to be seen....

This month we find ourselves in a waiting game.  We are awaiting word on the proposal to re-impose 232 aluminum duties on imports from Canada, and possibly Mexico.  We are waiting on word about a key scope challenge concerning a curtain wall product.  We are waiting to see which Chinese extruders the Department of Commerce (DOC) selects for this year’s Administrative Review.  As we have seen in the past, there often comes a time when all the pinwheels are turning that we have to wait and see how it plays out. Now, as you know, we haven’t been sitting back over the last few weeks, or even months.  Instead, we joined voices to re-state our case that the 232 aluminum tariffs should be removed and our industry allowed to purchase metal at the global price.  We’ve worked hard in our filings to the DOC about key scope challenges like the curtain wall case and more recently, solar mounting systems.  Furthermore, we are leaning on the DOC to persuade them to...

There are a number of issues we will cover in this month’s report.   Our 9 th Administrative Review is getting ready to begin.   New and old scope challenges are in the queue.   Other matters in the trade arena have emerged from monitoring systems to the 232. We have requested administrative reviews in the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CVD) cases on 95 producers and exporters of extrusions from China, largely based on the Port Import/Export Reporting Service-PIERS data. We requested a review on the company we believe to be Kingtom’s Chinese parent, Fujian Minfa Aluminum, as well as Kingtom itself. Kingtom also requested a review of both orders, as did one of the importers subject to the Kingtom Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) allegation, Global Aluminum Distributor. Kingtom and Global Aluminum Distributor requested that the review be postponed by a year and consolidated with the next review cycle. This delay would give the company time to cook their ...

The news of our win in the CCM solar mount case was well earned, indeed.   Having lost a solar mount case a few years ago, our ability to prevail this time was enabled by our victory in court in a matter involving kitchen appliance handles.   We worked to get that win in the Meridian/appliance handle case because of the precedent it would set.   That precedent speaks to the core of our scope: fabricated aluminum extrusions that are kitted are subject merchandise, as long as that kit is NOT a final and finished product once assembled.   The last administration took the opinion that subassemblies should be considered a final completed product.   As a result, we lost four key decisions, one of which was solar mounting systems.   The Fair Trade Committee decided that, should we win the Meridian case on the grounds we sought, then we should re-fight these applications as they become available for us to do so.   That is what we did here, and we won! ...

I have worked on the Fair Trade case against China for over six years.   This is the first report I’ve written during a time in which trade was NOT the most significant issue we face as an industry.   Without question, the COVID-19 crisis has taken center stage and appears to remain our nation’s key focus for quite some time.   Supply chain disruptions in the U.S. and across the globe have impacted trade in a way that has rallied some manufacturers to re-shore their supply.   Unfortunately, with business activity at near record lows, we simply are not realizing the benefit of that shift…yet.   Once we come out on the other side of this crisis will we see our customers return to their foreign suppliers, or will they decide the risks inherent in global trade are no longer worth the financial benefit?   We shall see. In the meantime, we do have updates, and good news, related to our case.   As you may recall, in the Meridian appliance handle remand pr...

With the renewal of our trade orders against China a year away, our recent focus in the China case has been on pending scope exclusion requests and reports of transshipment activity. I will briefly discuss those items with you this month. Reflection Window resubmitted its initial scope request on January 9, 2020, in response to the DOC’s supplemental questionnaire of September 23, 2019. Its original request fell under the “finished goods kits” exclusion, and it has resubmitted under that exclusion but indicated that it also intends to submit an exclusion request under the finished merchandise exclusion. We have submitted an extension request for the final determination (currently scheduled for February 24, 2020). This is critical case for our industry. Having won decisively in the curtain wall cases in recent years, now the Chinese are attempting to imitate curtain wall with this hybrid product. We will be watching this case carefully. The AEC is also watching the changes in tariff...