Over the last month, the Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC) has been collecting trade data and making an all-out push at the Department of Commerce (DOC) to have our Aluminum 232 aluminum extrusion tariffs reinstated.  We are working as fast as we can to find a path to relief while facing the twin threat of a slowing economy and rising imports.   AEC U.S. extrusion members have dutifully submitted data to our trade attorneys so they can aggregate the information and confirm the injury many of us are feeling.  Currently, we are wrapping up the Q3 data set, and after the first of the year, we will ask for Q4 results.  Our attorneys will continue to aggregate the results to determine two things: confirmation of injury, and the duties we would expect to win, should we prevail. Having already reviewed the data from our Sunset Review earlier this year, we know at this point that we do have a case.  However, the second piece of the puzzle is even more important, which is, what would the tariffs

 Last month I held an emergency webinar to discuss breakthroughs in our 232 aluminum tariff discussions with the Department of Commerce (DOC).  Efforts to get our message to the DOC seem to be paying off–for now.  The DOC has asked our U.S. extrusion industry to make the case to have our 232 aluminum extrusion tariffs put back in place.  In my webinar, I walked through the data they want us to provide.  Many of you have done so, and I thank you!  However, others haven’t yet done so.  We need you – all of you – to help in this effort.  We may not get another shot at this.  So, let’s get it done. The hope is that reinstatement of the 232 aluminum extrusion tariffs will dull the growing imports we are seeing.  I don’t think it will solve all our problems, but it may take some of the noise out of the system so we can see which countries are truly strategic threats.  I think we all agree that we should not initiate a trade case unless we know what impacts the 232 tariffs could have on the s

 Earlier this month the Department of Commerce made it official and renewed our anti-dumping/countervailing duties (AD/CVD) orders against China for another five years.  There was little drama in the announcement as we were aware as early as April that the orders were to be extended.  However, it took several months for the process to grind its way to a conclusion.  And frankly, given the reversals we’ve seen from D.C. this year, we could never be too sure!  However, it is good to have that behind us.  I want to thank everyone who contributed data this time.  We had a great turnout and that went a long way to securing the win.  Since the Sunset Review was essentially concluded earlier this year, it freed up our Fair-Trade budget to continue our work in other areas.  So, this summer we’ve been focusing on the 232, the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) petitions, and growing imports.  Our excellent Hill Day in Washington, DC, allowed us a chance to take our messages in these hot topics to o

 The summer of 2022 has been a disappointment to our Fair Trade efforts.  We continue to see our share of the domestic market shrink as foreign competitors enjoy a discount to U.S. aluminum prices, courtesy of the U.S. Aluminum 232.  The lack of minimum aluminum content requirements in the USMCA is creating a new threat south of our border.   China’s Belt and Road strategy has established a growing extrusion operation in the Dominican Republic with rumors of more facilities to come in Latin America.  Our trade case continues to battle key scope issues with an administration that seems to have a deaf ear to our position.  Trade enforcement wins have turned to defeats without so much as an explanation.  This horrible combination of self-defeating U.S. policy and an administration in place that has been the softest defender of U.S. industry since Obama that left us in a position that requires us to make some very difficult decisions. The aftermath of Customs’ inexplicable reversal in all

With the news that U.S. Customs did, in fact, reverse itself in the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) petitions filed against Kingtom, it seems as though the EAPA program is in jeopardy .  When the EAPA program was initiated, the Federal Government intended to blend the best aspects of the Department of Commerce and U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s fight against illegal trade.  Suspected circumvention/transshipment activity would be handled in a transparent way with critical deadlines to ensure the investigation stayed on course.  Furthermore, the evidence required needed to meet a “preponderance of the evidence” standard versus “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.  Because of these changes, the AEC and many other U.S. industries in trade disputes, embraced the EAPA program and has filed more than 10 EAPA claims since its inception.  Our success rate has been very high, and we believe it did affect trade activity and benefitted the domestic industry. However, Customs recent voluntary

 I am delighted to report that the Department of Commerce has renewed our trade orders for another five years.  This time, the Sunset Review was a rout.  With no opposition to our filing, Commerce decided to expedite its decision, thus freeing us from a long and expensive full hearing this fall.  There was very little doubt our orders would be renewed, but we did not know how long it would take or how much it would cost.  Now we know.   This summer we will be building on the momentum of our Sunset Review victory by focusing on two issues still unresolved: the Kingtom case, and the Aluminum 232 extrusion tariffs.  Both issues will take all of our focus.   The Kingtom case took an unexpected turn a few weeks ago during the appeal of the first Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) case against them filed by Ta Chen.  Initially, Customs sided with Ta Chen and found that Kingtom was comingling Chinese-produced extrusions with Dominican extrusions for export to the U.S.  Following that, we filed tw

Events are unfolding rapidly in the Dominican Republic.  During our Annual Meeting last March, we discussed the Work Release Order (WRO) we filed based on the explosive report from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from their onsite inspection at the Kingtom facility in the Dominican Republic last fall.  In that report, Customs officials claim they received about 50 notes and texts from Dominican workers at the plant about worker abuse.  Just as we were prepared to kick off a massive public relations campaign to inform D.C. about our WRO, news surfaced that the Dominican government has closed Kingtom due to worker abuse.   Wow!  This unexpected development has helped us achieve our objective of stopping illegal and unfair trade activities from Kingtom.  Even so, we are following this closely on the ground and will still demand our government address our WRO and find in our favor.  We do not want to be dependent upon the Dominican government in this matter, but given their aggressive

 The Aluminum Extruders Council has filed its formal petition to the International Trade Commission (ITC) seeking a five-year extension for our trade orders against China.  Thank you to all that contributed data for this effort!  We did really well!  We can boast that 85% of all U.S. extrusion volumes are represented in our filing.  This is a very strong number.  Moreover, the data indicates increasing distress upon our industry from imports.  With the combination of a strong showing by industry and clear evidence of injury from ongoing imports, our confidence is high.  So, why are we holding our breath?  Because we are hoping the ITC will grant us an expedited decision and renew our orders this spring.  That will save all of the headaches and expense of going through a full sunset review process.  In fact, this could save the AEC as much as $400,000.  It is a big deal.  Since no one else has filed in opposition to our petition, we are more than hopeful we will get the quick decision w

 In one of the biggest decisions in Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC) history, the U.S. Commerce Department reached its final determination in the 9th Annual Administrative Review on Aluminum Extrusion imports from China.  In that decision, Commerce will apply China duties on all imports from Kingtom Aluminio SRL.  This decision is in step with their preliminary decision last summer.  The Kingtom imports will be faced with an 86.01% Anti-Dumping (AD) duty, and a Countervailing Duty (CVD) rate of 242.56% for a combined tariff of 328.57%!  As I write this report, we are still awaiting the public version of this decision.  Once we receive that and have more details, we will conduct a podcast with Wiley Law to discuss what comes next.   Kingtom has clearly injured our market since it became active.  So, seeing this result is good.  However, what is better is the precedent we are setting.  It is clear that China intends to build more facilities like Kingtom in other developing nations as a

 I have been working on the Fair Trade case either as a staffer or volunteer since late 2009, and I have never seen it be more active and explosive than it is today.  Our areas of focus continue to be our annual administrative review, scope challenges, trade enforcement, the 232, and now, our Sunset Review.  Let’s get to it.  Read this month’s Blog post to learn what’s in store in 2022.   We are awaiting the final decision from the Department of Commerce (DOC) in our Ninth Administrative Review.  Meanwhile, the Tenth Administrative Review has begun.  We expect to hear a final decision on the 9th Administrative Review on February 2, 2022.  In this action we have made the claim that since Kingtom is a Chinese owned and operated company and has been caught transshipping Chinese extrusions into the U.S., they should be subject to the duties in our case.  In the preliminary decision, the DOC agreed with us.  We are confident this ruling will stand.  This is a huge development for us should