Skip to main content

Big Win for AEC’s China Trade Case

For all the recent focus U.S. extruders have had on a new trade case, we need to remember we still have an active trade case against China.  In that case, the AEC won a big victory at the Federal Circuit court last month in our solar mounting case.

The Federal Circuit upheld the Department of Commerce’s (DOC’s) scope ruling finding that CCM’s solar panel mounts are covered by the scope of the orders and cannot be excluded as “finished merchandise.”  As you may recall, we actively opposed CCM’s scope exclusion request at Commerce and filed substantive briefs throughout this appeal to assist the Government in defending the agency’s decision.  The Federal Circuit agreed that the solar panel mounts are parts or subassemblies for a downstream product – the solar panel mounting system – and thus are not a finished product that qualifies for exclusion.  The Federal Circuit’s opinion makes clear that parts or subassemblies cannot qualify for the “finished merchandise” exclusion and that subassemblies may be excluded from the scope only if they are imported as part of a “finished goods kit.”  It has been a long and winding road, but this opinion finally solidifies Commerce’s revised approach to subassemblies confirming that subassemblies are, in fact, subject to the scope of the orders.  This will be an important precedent moving forward and is a very positive sign in our recent appeal of the door threshold scope decision.  

For years we have been back and forth with the DOC about which products are considered ‘final, finished’, or subassemblies, etc.  Depending on the nature of the Administration in power at the time, we have found a wide variance from Commerce officials.  However, in the courts, the definition of ‘final, finished’ and its relationship to ‘subassemblies’ has become clearer.  As a result, Commerce must now abide by the court’s interpretation and adjust other rulings accordingly. 

Our trade orders have become legendary at the DOC.  Never has there been a trade case that has ever come close to the number of scope challenges we have faced since filing our China orders in 2010.  The courts have acted over time as the final interpreter of our orders and are very close to making a determination in a given scope challenge very easy for Commerce.  This is very important to us on two levels.

The first is in the China case itself.  We needed this win.  Nothing has protected our industry more than the scope of our orders.  Capturing downstream operations in the scope protects our presses, paint lines, anodizing tanks, and fabrication departments.  We all know that the price discrepancies between the U.S. and China grow as the value-add increases.  So, protecting our scope is huge.

Secondly, this is significant if we choose to launch a new trade case.  Having ‘trained’ the U.S. government about ‘final, finished’ and subassemblies, it should be much easier in a new case to settle these types of conflicts.  In a new case, I expect scope challenges from all the end-use categories we received from the Chinese industry.  The expectation is that all this work in the China case will translate to the new case and save us from scores of challenges with only ‘so-so’ chances of winning.

It's important for us to understand how our work in the China case effectively sets up for wins in a new case after it’s filed and won.  Defending orders is every bit as difficult, or even harder, as winning it.  This work we are doing in our China orders will pay dividends should we move forward.

Thank you for your support!  If you have questions about this matter, or trade in general, please contact me at jhenderson@tso.net.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Victories and Struggles: Our Mission Persists

 On December 3, 2024, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took action in issuing a forced labor finding against Kingtom Aluminio S.R.L. (“Kingtom”).  This victory for U.S. extruders is a culmination of years of effort between the AEC and United Steel Workers (USW), which started with the initial Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) allegation filed in 2019.  As a result of this finding, CBP has authorized all port directors to seize imports of aluminum extrusions from Kingtom.   For almost 15 years the Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC) has worked on a wide variety of trade activities.  In defending the China I case, the AEFTC has navigated the 232 Tariffs and has worked with other organizations on EAPA allegations, along with circumvention and transshipment issues.  Thank you to all who have contributed time and resources over the years!  However, there will be more work to do.  With a new administration and 2025 fast approa...

Section 232 Implications: Get the Latest

 Recently, the AEC released a detailed fact sheet outlining the implications of Section 232 tariffs on aluminum imports, available for review on our website here. This document underscores our ongoing commitment to transparency and informed decision-making within our member base. Previously, we updated the 232 Derivative Products List to include a comprehensive breakdown of HTSUS codes and product descriptions, aimed at providing clarity for our stakeholders accessible here . Additionally, The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) within the Department of Commerce established a formal process for the addition of aluminum products designated the USHTS codes. The first window for submission opened on May 1, 2025, and closed on May 15, 2025. After the posting and public comment period occurs the BIS will make a final determination within 60 days. In addition to these regulatory updates, the Trump Administratio...

The 232 Takes Center Stage

The 232 exclusion requests, objections, rebuttals and surrebuttals process continues with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC).  Since the exclusion process on aluminum extrusions restarted in June, AEC members have logged more than 500 objections and over 40 surrebuttals with the DOC.  While there have been a few very specific exclusion requests (i.e., hard alloy, seamless tube, etc.), objections have been limited to only one producing company.  As an industry, we have mounted a stellar defense with all exclusion requests receiving three or more objections from member companies.  At this point, there have yet to be any exclusion requests to make it to the final determination and we are hoping to have the first round of results to share at the Fall Management Conference .  However, if we do start to receive results before mid-September, we will make sure to communicate results as they are made available.  The number of 232 exclusion requests greatly decrea...