The lifeblood of the U.S. industry’s trade action against Chinese extruders is the energy of its members.  That energy manifests itself as action, communication, and financial participation.  By the end of 2013 the industry had invested over $5.5 million in legal fees and other costs associated with winning, and subsequently defending this case since the process began in late 2009.  This investment has gone to winning the original petition, fighting off a major court decision referred to as GPX, dozens of scope requests and appeals, the first annual administrative review, and a substantial down payment on the second annual administrative review. As 2014 takes shape it is clear that this battle will continue to rage.  I want to lay out the costs, and present our 2014 funding strategy. For the rest of the story, click here (AEC members-only credentials required; for information on becoming an AEC member, visit www.aec.org/about/memberinfo.cfm

Jeff Henderson, AEC Director of Operations In our essentiALs January 22nd email, AEC members were updated about the recent events in the China import case. Now, I’d like to outline the key issues for 2014. There are three significant areas the industry will focus on this year. The first is administrative reviews, the second is scope requests, and the third is the continued lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. The first annual Administrative Review came to an end in late 2013, and the second review is now well underway. As you may recall, there were over 60 Chinese extruders and U.S. importers that sought separate countervailing (CVD) and anti-dumping (AD) rates from the combined People’s Republic of China (PRC)-wide entity rate of over 160 percent. The Department of Commerce (DOC) selected three companies to review as being representative for all requests. In these reviews, the respondents attempt to lower their dumping and subsidy margins by demonstrating that they are not p