Skip to main content

Government Outreach is Paying Dividends for AEC Members

As we work on a new trade case, government affairs issues have taken center stage in recent weeks. AEC members have been working with their local elected officials and their staff over the last few weeks. In this effort we have applied pressure on these lawmakers to help us find resolutions in the Aluminum 232 General Approved Exclusions (GAEs), the surge in imports from Mexico (USMCA and 232), and the overall state of our industry as a result of these failed government policies.


Since that time, Bonnell Aluminum hosted a visit to their Utah plant for Senator Mitt Romney. Western Extrusions has leaned on their representative to set up a meeting with key officials this month in Washington, D.C. to discuss our trade concerns with House Ways and Means committee staff. Taber Extrusions has initiated a Senate letter by their Arkansas Senator, Tom Cotton. Working with members, our lobbyists are circulating the letter for bipartisan support to ‘close the deal' on the Commerce Department's commitment to us to remove those GAEs.

As we've pursued these discussions, we are learning more about the Inflation Reduction Act and how it will be administered. A new tax credit is available for new investments that meet certain criteria. We will be hosting a webinar very soon to tell you how you may be able to take advantage of this program.

All this activity shows us the power of our voice. Only three members working on these issues have found their way into the type of conversations we need to have. What would happen if 10 members joined the effort? What if we all did? Think about it. We don't represent a huge industry. However, we are in over 30 states. This gives us a chance to say what we can't do with size, we make up for in volume!! (Doesn't that sound familiar?)

Changing gears, there have been some updates to our case against China. In a strange development, Sinobec has launched a scope challenge against a Vietnamese supplier of extruded solar panels. They claim the extrusions are made in China and are not substantially changed enough in Vietnam to avoid tariffs. We will follow this one with popcorn.

Commerce rejected Kaivac's scope request to not pay tariffs on imported mop handle products. Their filing was weak and, thus, rejected.

The Fortress Fence Post Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) filing is underway and being investigated. More to come on this one in late summer.

Customs also announced an EAPA investigation against Minth auto parts. Unfortunately, interim duties were not applied. We are engaged in this matter and will report on its progress accordingly.

The door threshold case is in the appeals courts. We asked the court to combine all these cases to expedite the process. The court agreed. Opening briefs are due later this month.

In our Administrative Reviews, Commerce issued final results in the countervailing duties (CVD) review covering the 2021 period of review and assigned a rate of 293.85% based on the application of adverse facts available, as expected. We withdrew completely from the antidumping (AD) review covering the prior period of review.

Look for announcements this month of webinars about tax credit opportunities within the Inflation Reduction Act and updates on our new trade case. Once the coalition is finalized, we are going to have A LOT to talk about! Have a safe and enjoyable start to your summer. Thank you for your continued 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...