Skip to main content

Custom’s EAPA Reversal Jeopardizes EAPA Program/Aluminum 232 Update

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 reversal of its decisions in all three EAPA filings against Kingtom indicate that the program may have slid back into the traditional E-Allegation program used by Customs for years.  That program has been dubbed the “Black Box”.  Once you file your claim, you never hear a word.  Years ago in Puerto Rico, transhippers were allowed to continue activities despite several complaints by the AEC of illegal trade activities.  Ultimately, Customs did bust the illegal activity but not until the ravages of that activity took its toll and forced the extruder in Puerto Rico to close operations.  We simply cannot compete against cheaters when our own government reacts so slowly to clear and enforce obvious trade violations.

I want to thank AEC members that reached out to their elected officials and helped rally our cry.  While unsuccessful, we have been able to carry the message that the EAPA program is in jeopardy, and we will need to understand the new rules before we expend valuable resources to file a new claim.

This doesn’t mean our fight with Kingtom is over.  Kingtom has been found guilty of worker abuse, and we have filed a Withhold Release Order with Customs demanding that they apply U.S. law and forbid Kingtom from selling their merchandise in the U.S.  We are hoping Customs sees that as a new and legitimate path to addressing the illegal activities of this Chinese plant born out of China’s Belt and Road program.

Elsewhere, we are preparing for this summer’s 232 Hearing addressing tariffs.  We will be speaking at the hearing and requesting that the 232 program reinstate our extrusion tariffs, make changes to the exclusion process that make us eligible to object to exclusion requests, and allow the AEC to speak on behalf of the industry and empowered to file objections itself.  If Commerce will allow our requests, all aluminum extrusion shipments will once again be subject to the 10% tariff on the total value of the imported extrusions.  Unfortunately, the duty would not extend to countries that have been given a permanent exclusion, such as Mexico.  However, it will address several other countries whose imports continue to grow.

Lastly, in case you missed it, our trade orders against China have been extended for another five years.  Technically, we have one more filing to make, but there is no drama involved.  The International Trade Commission is running behind and asked for our filing later this summer, due to their backlog of work.  This is great news for us and the industry.  It shows that our good work can be preserved with a lot of hard work, dedication, and persistence.  We aim to take that same attitude with the setbacks we’ve seen in the Kingtom matter.


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...