Skip to main content

AEC Applies More Pressure on Kingtom; Setback in Reflections Scope Decision

 While the Aluminum Extruders Council continues its legal battle with Kingtom through the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) process, the Department of Commerce (DOC) delivered a disappointing decision in the Reflections scope case.  We will discuss both decisions in this month’s article.  Additionally, imports continue to rebound after a drop during the more intense days of the global pandemic.

On May 3, 2021, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) imposed interim measures in our EAPA case against Kingtom.  The interim measures now require “China” duties to be put in place.  The final determination deadline is November 29, 2021.  We will have an opportunity to submit written arguments and rebuttal written arguments in advance of that deadline.  This is a significant win in our mission to stop illegal and unfair trade activities by the Chinese.  It also puts other Chinese-owned operations operating in third countries on notice that the AEC will take all necessary steps to stop any illegal actions.

In the other EAPA case filed by Ta Chen a month earlier than ours, the importers in that case have filed an appeal in the decision.  One of the complaints noted that CBP’s administrative review determination found that the commingling of Chinese-origin and Dominican-origin extrusions was supported by substantial record evidence and constitutes more than a “mere scintilla” of evidence to support a finding of evasion.  We think this is a good sign for the ongoing Administrative Review of these matters.  To learn more about the EAPA process, listen to my podcast interview with our lead attorney, Robert DeFrancesco here

Meanwhile, a hard-fought scope challenge finally came to a decision.  Unfortunately, the decision did not go our way.  Commerce found that Reflection Window + Wall’s window wall products qualify for the “finished goods kit” exclusion and are outside the scope of the Orders.  Many resources, including a strong effort from several AEC members, were used to move this in our direction.  We are convinced that this decision was lost due to the change in the administration.  This matter was believed to be decided last fall, and we clearly had the momentum.  However, after the election and political seats at the DOC were vacated, the decision was primarily made by career staffers who decided to go back to the way these matters were handled before the Trump administration.  Sadly, even as I write this piece, appointments for these critical political posts at the Department of Commerce are still vacant.  As they are filled, we will work hard to educate them about our case and how important these types of decisions are to our industry.  Let there be no doubt about it, we will appeal this decision!  Once in the courts, there is ample precedent set for finished vs. unfinished product that we believe will reverse this decision.  Once reversed, the DOC will be tasked with re-writing their original decision and including this product in the scope of our orders.  By then, we will have had a chance to meet with the DOC and let them know how important these products and the integrity of the scope of orders are to the success of our industry.  

In the first three months of 2021, imports are at their highest level ever.  With a strong economy driving demand for aluminum extrusions, now is the time foreign suppliers will attempt to establish a foothold into our market.  Some of these imports may only be relief valves for hungry consumers, while others may be more lasting.  What we need to know is whether some of these shipments are a result of Chinese transshipment.  Furthermore, to the extent China is directly taking or competing for domestic orders, we need to know that as well for our upcoming sunset review.  So, if your commercial people are reporting they lost orders to imports, please drill down, and learn as much as you can about why it happened.  Is it 232 related?  Was the order lost to a country that is on our bad actors list?  Do you suspect illegal activity?  We need to understand as much as we can from the field as we prepare for a deeper investigation.  So, let me know all you can in this regard.

I hope you have enjoyed the podcasts we have produced this year about our case and its various elements.  If you have not checked it out, click here to see what is available.  Your feedback is welcome.  So, let us know how we can do a better job!  Thank you all for your continued support!


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...