Skip to main content

It’s Official – Our China Trade Orders Extended!

 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 our lawmakers and key agencies.  Several extruders joined us as we conducted over two dozen meetings during a beautiful Friday in our Nation’s capital.  Our request to have our 232 tariffs reinstated was a major theme.  Feedback from our meetings has been favorable and I have been invited to follow-up meetings at Commerce to discuss this issue.  I cannot predict success at this point, but I can confirm we are being heard.  Our efforts have yielded a bipartisan letter out of the Senate and efforts are underway for one from the House.  As this report is being published, I will have a meeting with the Director of the 232 program for aluminum extrusions.  This is a meeting I have been chasing for months.  Without our efforts in D.C., I’m not sure this would have happened.  Thank you all for your support!

We are still stinging from the inexplicable reversal from U.S. Customs regarding Kingtom.  Our appeals have been filed and we do plan to fight!  We believe we have a solid and persuasive case and look forward to our day in court.  We believe the agencies have fumbled this program and look for the courts to right the ship.  We’ve had good success in the courts on scope challenges.  I will update members once dates are set.

Speaking of courts, our appeal in the Reflections Window and Wall petition is underway.  Oral arguments were heard in September.  We look forward to the court’s ruling later this year or in early 2023.  

Much of our fall Management Conference, and a lot of the chatter amongst U.S. and Canadian extruders, was and is devoted to growing imports.  Seeing little relief from trade violators and ongoing price disadvantages from the lop-sided 232 tariff program, extruders are seeking a remedy.  I am happy to report that analysis is underway, and with your continued contribution of data, we will develop a clear strategy in the coming weeks and months to deal with this problem once and for all.  Stayed tuned for more details.

If we were reminded of anything during our conference and Hill Day, it is that we continue to face growing import pressure AND we can muster a strong voice in D.C. when we work together.  This is exactly what we must do as we go forward, because no one believes the import problem will go away on its own.  Thank you once again for your efforts and continuing 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...