Skip to main content

Still Awaiting 232 News; China Scope Issues Settling

By

Currently, the trade agenda has largely been pursued by the Aluminum Extruders Coalition.  As they do the work and pay the bills to take this new case to its final hearing later this year, the AEC is still working on legacy matters with the original China case.  Additionally, we continue to work with Commerce to get the Generally Approved Exclusions (GAEs) removed from the Aluminum Extrusion 232.  

Unfortunately, we haven’t heard any word from D.C. on the 232, but I am led to believe a decision is imminent.  We continue to show evidence of aluminum extruders exporting from countries not a part of the coalition’s case as proof that the 232 still has a place in protecting our industry.  If you see a news item about a new extrusion operation in another country aimed at our market, please send it to me.  It should be noted that the Dominican Republic part of the Coalition’s case did not survive the preliminary round.  So, this is a clear example of how we need whatever protection we can get from the 232.  When news breaks on this issue, we will send an alert.

The existing China case still has a place in our trade defense.  The China1 case, as we call it, covers a number of end uses, but not all.  So, we will use the China1 case as the first test against a scope challenge, and if it’s not covered there, it will be covered in the new (China2) case.  So, keep that in mind as I report recent scope decisions.

This is good to know when we see the final decisions in the door threshold case, which has been a matter for several years.  You may recall that Endura appealed Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) final determination in the EAPA proceeding concerning Columbia’s door thresholds to the Court of International Trade (“CIT”), and that Columbia also appealed the determination on other grounds.  In February 2023, Endura withdrew from the appeal.  The Department of Justice continued fighting against Columbia’s appeal.

Last month, the CIT remanded CBP’s final affirmative determination of evasion.  The court found, among other things, that the record does not support CBP’s finding that Columbia transshipped door thresholds from China through Vietnam and that “{a} Chinese-origin extruded aluminum component, if present within an assembled door threshold produced in Vietnam and imported into the United States by Columbia, would not convert such a good to “covered merchandise.”  The CIT ordered Customs to submit a remand redetermination by February 15, 2024, after which both Columbia and the DOJ will have an opportunity to comment.

This case illustrates how a tighter scope is important.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on this case, and it dies in the courts.  Not only that, but it also makes us vulnerable to other companies with products that may come forward and say, “hey, if you’ve let them in, what about us?”.  The China1 case took us as far as we could go.  The new case will fill the gaps.  In the coming months there will be less news about China1 and more about how the industry is getting behind the trade case.

The new case has already started to fill order books, and many extruders have told me they plan to expand.  The question I will have for the AEC next month at the 75th Annual Meeting & Leadership Conference is, How Much Do You Want to Grow?  It appears to be a question only you can answer!

See you all soon and thank you for your continued trust and support in the AEC.

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