Skip to main content

AEC Sharpens Fair Trade Focus after Win in Sunset Review

 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 two EAPA claims.  In all three matters Customs agreed that the evidence proved Kingtom had to be comingling extrusions with Chinese production in order to run the shapes and have the capacity to ship the volumes they were exporting to the U.S.  Unfortunately, Customs has reversed its findings in the Ta Chen case and will be looking closely at ours.  This is critical as we were also successful in persuading Commerce to extend our Chinese tariffs to Kingtom because of the comingling charge.  This could be a matter of when the first domino falls then they all fall.  Of course, we will not sit by and let this happen.

All this Kingtom legal maneuvering comes while Kingtom has been shut down by the Dominican government for labor abuses.  As AEC members know, Customs uncovered worker abuses during their onsite inspection of Kingtom during our third EAPA claim.  That information was communicated by Customs to the Dominican government who has responded by shutting them down.  Even so, we are not satisfied with this and will continue to pursue our Withhold Release Order (WRO) against Kingtom asking the U.S. government to forbid U.S. imports from Kingtom.  Both the EAPA appeals and the WRO are fluid issues and a huge focus for us this summer.

Next month, the Biden Administration will hold public hearings on the Section 232.  We have petitioned Commerce seeking reinstatement of the aluminum 232 tariffs on extrusions.  Since Commerce unilaterally dropped those tariffs, imports into the U.S. have surged.  From Mexico to Vietnam, imports now sit at 25% market share.  This is the highest level of import penetration since we filed our trade case against China.  Recently, we have been working with certain legislators to gain their support in carrying our message to Commerce.  I also met with officials from Commerce and Customs last week to discuss the Kingtom and 232 issues.  They are putting me in touch with the person in charge of the extrusion portion of the 232 program.  I am hopeful I can be persuasive about our position.  We not only need the tariffs put back in place, but we need an exclusion process that recognizes that dies may have to be built to make an objection to an exclusion request, and we need the AEC to be able to object on behalf of the industry.

These are critical issues for our industry at a time when our trade case is busier than ever.  Now that the Sunset Review is behind us, we can bear down on these two remaining hot topics.  As always, I will keep you posted.  Thank you 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...