Skip to main content

Transshipment and Scope Issues Dominate the Fair-Trade Agenda in Our China Case

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 tariffs between the U.S. and China as the President comes out of his Phase One agreement with China. For the List 4 Section 301 tariffs, Plaza Construction DC LLC filed an exclusion request for products that appear to be curtain walls or window walls. Given our opposition to Yuanda’s 301 exclusion request (submitted on January 18, 2020), as well as our opposition to the recent scope exclusion requests for window wall products, we will be filing an opposition to this request also.

Horizon submitted a scope ruling request on March 11, 2019 for certain ramps and ramp kits designed to assist in loading and unloading from truck beds or vehicles. The Department rejected the scope ruling request on April 25, 2019 and issued supplemental questions to Horizon. Horizon refiled scope ruling requests on October 24, 2019, this time separating out its ramp kits and “fully assembled ramps.” We filed initial comments on January 8, 2020, and the DOC issued supplemental questionnaires on January 22, 2020.

We have reached out to the Department of Commerce (DOC) to schedule a meeting regarding pending scope proceedings for certain components in solar panel mounting systems, specifically the Schletter grounding clamps proceeding and the CCM solar panel mounts proceeding. That meeting has been confirmed, and I, along with AEC members and our legal team will be visiting with the DOC to make our case.

Concerning transshipment, I can only report that there are active investigations being conducted by the government at our request. Given the sensitive nature of these allegations, we cannot, and should not, make public statements about those efforts. I can say that there are four countries under review by the AEC, Customs, or the DOC.

Remember that our lead attorney in the China case, Robert DeFrancesco, we be present during our conference in San Antonio. This will be an excellent opportunity for you let him know directly what you are seeing and ask any questions you may have.

Fair Trade matters in recent weeks have taken us well beyond the borders of China. As previously reported, the AEC continues to receive many emails and phone calls from members reporting injury
from other countries. I will deal with this issue in my pre-conference special report in this month’s AEC member newsletter, essentiALs

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...