Skip to main content

AEC Members: The Lifeblood of Fair Trade Action

Image
By
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

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 written arguments by the November 6, 202
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 : HTS 7604210010 (Hollow profiles of aluminum
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 to seek an exclusi
Post a Comment
Read more