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

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