Skip to main content

All Eyes on Imports

By

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 be if we won?  As data shows more injury, the calculations will show a higher tariff to be won.  When the injury is at a point we can no longer bear, and the duties we could win would deliver a fair and balanced playing field, we will have a decision to make.

Knowing this may take several months to process, we have the time to push the DOC to reinstate our 232 aluminum tariffs.  Many of you contributed information to me that I was able to convert into a letter sent to the Secretary of Commerce.  We are working with the Secretary’s key policy maker and providing them whatever support they need to make this happen for us.  I am hearing that progress is being made.  However, we must keep up the pressure.  Ideally, we would have the tariffs reinstated early next year, so we can see the impact it has on the import totals.  Hopefully, it will cull some of these importers out of the mix and reveal to us who the true long-term strategic threats are to our industry.  Then we can launch a trade case we know addresses the injury we are suffering. I will keep you updated on these activities via Trade Alerts and webinars as events unfold.

Meanwhile, our Administrative Review is winding down and we predict no changes in duties for this year and next.  China rarely participates in these reviews, so the results have become fairly predictable.  In scope challenges, we received a new challenge about a heat sink application.  We will oppose this request.  The Reflections Window case is expected to ramp up again in Q1 2023.  And, finally, we are preparing for our Kingtom EAPA appeal.  Even though the government representatives changed their minds, we still have an affirmative ruling from them.  We plan to go to court with it and let the judge force Customs to abide by their original assessments.

Thank you all for your continued support.  I believe 2023 is going to be a very interesting year.  If we stick together, we can prevail.  So, let’s plan on doing that!  Happy Holidays!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Nice Win to Start the Year!

By
 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Keep That Ram Moving Forward

By
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 : ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Aluminum 232 Exclusion/Objection Process in Full Swing

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more