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