Skip to main content

Key Trade Issues to be Addressed Soon

 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.  Earlier this year two claims of transshipment have been filed through the new Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA).  The first was filed by Ta Chen and the second by the Aluminum Extruders Council.  Both cases are due for a decision within the next 45 to 60 days.  The evidence before the Trump Administration is strong and compelling.  As a further development in this matter, the Dominican extruder has operated this year in a way that qualifies them to be a respondent in this year’s Administrative Review.  This is an excellent development for us.  Should the Department of Commerce (DOC) deem imports from the Dominican Republic contain transshipped extrusions from China, those imports could be considered subject merchandise and our Chinese tariffs will apply.  The first step in the process is to win the EAPA cases, then successfully argue our position during the Administrative Review.  While this may not be a permanent solution to these unfair and illegal trade actions, it will have a short-term impact on their ability to gain further access into our market.

A key scope appeal was decided by the Court of International Trade in August involving Worldwide and Columbia door thresholds.  We are now working with the DOC to file the remand briefs, which are due this month.  Commerce worked hard on this case and made very strong arguments on our behalf.  This was a critical issue.  Our scope explicitly identifies door thresholds as covered merchandise.  Were we to lose this case, the fabric our orders could be ripped in way that would be very hard to repair.  Remember, when a decision by the DOC is appealed, it is the DOC and federal attorneys that will argue the case, not us.  Our role is to inspire the DOC to work hard on our behalf and provide them with any information they may need to win.  This is a case where AEC members joined our lead attorney and me in a joint Zoom meeting this summer to explain to Commerce how important this case is to our industry.

I have noticed over time that occasionally there is an appeal from an opinion several years ago that is just now making its way to the courts.  In some of those matters the importer is arguing a very narrow point that would only effect shipments for a short period of time.  A case like that is pending now.  In the 3rd Administrative Review an importer of Chinese curtain wall is making the case that certain elements of their kit should not be a part of the duty calculation.  Should they win, their ‘bill’ for those imports will be reduced.  If they lose, they must pay the current amount owed.  A decision like this has no legs beyond the immediate issue at hand.  It will not lower our current rates.  It will not make curtain wall duty free…nothing of the kind.  I am going through this because you may see a headline being passed around that says curtain wall duties have been reduced, or some other mischaracterizations.  In this insistence, the DOC will fight the appeal in court, and we will support.  Regardless of the outcome, nothing about our case will change.  What they owe the Federal Government may be adjusted, but that is all.  So, be wary of flashy headlines that suggest we have lost ground.  You all know that if we were to be confronted with a case that had that level of risk to our orders, we would be loudly communicating that to our entire membership.

As we wind down to the end of this horrible year, I want you to know how important and effective your support has been to our success this year.  I am confident that anytime I need to reach out to one of you for help, you are there.  Always.  I am hopeful we will start the New Year with a great outcome in the pending EAPA cases and finishing the year well on our way to a successful Sunset Review and another five years of protection from the aggressive tactics of the Chinese extrusion industry.  It will not happen without you, but I know you will be there.

Have a great holiday and thank you for your continued support!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Victories and Struggles: Our Mission Persists

 On December 3, 2024, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took action in issuing a forced labor finding against Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. (“Kingtom”).  This victory for U.S. extruders is a culmination of years of effort between the AEC and United Steel Workers (USW), which started with the initial Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) allegation filed in 2019.  As a result of this finding, CBP has authorized all port directors to seize imports of aluminum extrusions from Kingtom.   For almost 15 years the Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) has worked on a wide variety of trade activities.  In defending the China I case, the AEFTC has navigated the 232 Tariffs and has worked with other organizations on EAPA allegations, along with circumvention and transshipment issues.  Thank you to all who have contributed time and resources over the years!  However, there will be more work to do.  With a new administration and 2025 fast approa...

Section 232 Implications: Get the Latest

 Recently, the AEC released a detailed fact sheet outlining the implications of Section 232 tariffs on aluminum imports, available for review on our website here. This document underscores our ongoing commitment to transparency and informed decision-making within our member base. Previously, we updated the 232 Derivative Products List to include a comprehensive breakdown of HTSUS codes and product descriptions, aimed at providing clarity for our stakeholders accessible here . Additionally, The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) within the Department of Commerce established a formal process for the addition of aluminum products designated the USHTS codes. The first window for submission opened on May 1, 2025, and closed on May 15, 2025. After the posting and public comment period occurs the BIS will make a final determination within 60 days. In addition to these regulatory updates, the Trump Administratio...

The 232 Takes Center Stage

The 232 exclusion requests, objections, rebuttals and surrebuttals process continues with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC).  Since the exclusion process on aluminum extrusions restarted in June, AEC members have logged more than 500 objections and over 40 surrebuttals with the DOC.  While there have been a few very specific exclusion requests (i.e., hard alloy, seamless tube, etc.), objections have been limited to only one producing company.  As an industry, we have mounted a stellar defense with all exclusion requests receiving three or more objections from member companies.  At this point, there have yet to be any exclusion requests to make it to the final determination and we are hoping to have the first round of results to share at the Fall Management Conference .  However, if we do start to receive results before mid-September, we will make sure to communicate results as they are made available.  The number of 232 exclusion requests greatly decrea...