Skip to main content

Routine Matters - But Not Ordinary

 This month, we will discuss active matters in our case and a brief look ahead. As we look forward to 2021, several pending key decisions will help define the kind of environment we are likely to face as we transition into a new administration. While some of these matters look routine, the underlying precedent in our case that they represent is anything but ordinary. 

Kingtom has been selected as the sole mandatory respondent in the 9th Administrative Review on the Anti-Dumping side. Kingtom recently changed their import status and became the importer of record in shipments into the U.S. over the summer. During this time, we have seen imports climb. The administrative review process is an excellent opportunity for us to make the case they should be subject to the Chinese duties. Meanwhile, an EAPA from Ta Chen against Kingtom is in its final stages. A decision is imminent, and should Ta Chen prevail, our case against them will be strengthened.

The Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC) recently participated in a Zoom Meeting with the Department of Commerce (DOC) this month about the door threshold appeal. In this matter, the Department of Commerce made the decision that door thresholds were covered by our orders and subject to the duties. The lower court judge disagreed with the DOC, thus setting up the appeal. Since this was the DOC’s decision, it is theirs to defend. So, the purpose of our call to them was to persuade them that this is an important matter, and we need the DOC to mount a full-throated defense of their decision. As is customary in these situations, we will be supporting the DOC in this matter to help them win. We all thought the call with the DOC went very well, and we expect them to fight this decision on our behalf.

In the CCM Solar Mount Appeal, CCM appealed the final scope ruling. We intervened on August 10, 2020. A briefing schedule has been set and is as follows: CCM’s opening brief is expected December 4, 2020, and the government’s response brief is due February 22, 2021. Our response brief as defendant-intervenor is due March 24, 2021. Commerce had issued a final scope ruling in the CCM solar mount case on May 14, 2020, finding that the solar mounts constitute subassemblies covered by the scope. We aim to participate in this case along with the DOC. This is a critical ruling for us, not only because of the volume this market represents to our industry, but because the key precedent established by declaring solar mounting systems not a final finished product will pay dividends for us in other sub-assembly cases.

Once the pandemic hit, imports began to slow - in some cases, quite dramatically. However, since markets have opened across the world over the summer, we are once again seeing an increase in imports. The AEC delayed action in this matter until we started seeing activity again and fielding reports of suspicious activity. We are monitoring this situation closely. Once we get through renewals and have a better sense of the financial resources we will have, we will be able to put our plan of attack together. If you have any questions or comments related to this, please do NOT hesitate to contact me, Jeff Henderson, directly. Thank you all for your continued support!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Victories and Struggles: Our Mission Persists

 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...

Section 232 Implications: Get the Latest

 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...

“The Only Constant in Life is Change” – Heraclitus (Greek philosopher)

 No matter what side of the Presidential election you were in favor of, we knew the Administration was going to change.  For the AEC and Government Affairs we can find opportunities in these changes and work towards advancing our position with a new Administration and Congress.  The AEC is actively monitoring any potential changes, which could affect our efforts related to the 232/301 Tariffs, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant Funding, United States Trade Representative (USTR) Global Arrangement Negotiations and other items of interest.  On October 30, the International Trade Commission (ITC) voted to rescind the tariffs on aluminum extruded products determined by the Department of Commerce (DOC).  As we all know, the tariffs imposed under the China I case have played a major role in protecting the domestic industry and the hope was for this new case to increase the protections.  Unfortunately, that was not the case.  However, as we look forw...