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

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