Skip to main content

Remember Our China Case?

By

 With all the focus in recent months on a proposed new trade case, it is easy to forget that we have a trade case against China.  So, I wanted to update you this month on the latest matters.

Perhaps the most significant ruling was in the CCM Solar Mounting case.  We’ve recently reported this as a win in the appeals court, and it is.  The update is that the petitioners attempted to appeal this decision and it was thrown out by the appellant court in very harsh terms.  I‘m excited about this ruling because the decision being appealed contained language that confirmed that sub-assemblies are not final-finished products.  This is so important due to the number of cases we lost in the past on these grounds.  After a victory like this, it opens the door for us to look at previous losses on these grounds.  If we find such a decision, we could appeal it based on the latest court ruling.  A member might say, “So what, Jeff?  I don’t extrude solar mounting shapes.”  It doesn’t matter.  It is the precedent, not the product at issue that is the real payoff.  With a decision like this, we can look for new opportunities to win back lost end uses.

We’ve had two new scope challenges since last month.  One involves mopping heads and handles, and the other is an aluminum guardrail product.  In both cases their petitions were weak and basically rejected by the Department of Commerce (DOC).  We suspect each will refile and we will engage them at that time.  

The annual Administrative Review has been initiated in our CVD and AD cases against China.  While these have become quite routine in recent years, we will apply the same strategy.  We will look for companies that we can suggest to the DOC are worthy of review.  We leave the others, which will get the very high China-wide rate.  By identifying specific companies, we have a chance to get their tariffs increased.  More to come on this as the process unfolds in the coming months.

In trade enforcement, we have two matters.  The first is really good news.  Customs has FINALLY decided on interim tariffs on Fortress Fence Posts. These tariffs will apply until the end of Customs’ full investigation.  However, in the meantime, tariffs are in place.

Secondly, we are working with the appellate courts in the Kingtom EAPA appeal to combine all those cases.  We have our briefs ready, we just want the court to combine the cases because in each of them the same arguments, facts, etc. exist.  We will learn more about this in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, we continue to work with members pursuing a new trade case to find the support needed to get the case filed.  The formation of the coalition could happen any time.  So, stay tuned!  And thank you for your continued support!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Victories and Struggles: Our Mission Persists

By
 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Section 232 Implications: Get the Latest

By
 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...
Post a Comment
Read more

The 232 Takes Center Stage

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more