Skip to main content

Key Trade Issues to be Addressed Soon

 Those of you that follow our case closely know that much of our effort in recent years has focused on scope issues and trade enforcement.  For quite some time we have enjoyed a fair-trade relationship with China. By this I mean the Federal Government of the United States has established anti-dumping and countervailing duties that total approximately 100%.  Since the implementation of these orders, traditional imports of aluminum extrusions from China have held at less than 1% of our market.  Contrast this with the high level of activity we have seen in our case centering on which extrusions should be excluded from the duties and defending our borders against circumvention and transshipment.

One disturbing new development we had to confront is the introduction of a Chinese owned and operated facility in the Dominican Republic.  Since its opening, members across the southeast United States have seen this operation make many attempts to penetrate our market.  Earlier this year two claims of transshipment have been filed through the new Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA).  The first was filed by Ta Chen and the second by the Aluminum Extruders Council.  Both cases are due for a decision within the next 45 to 60 days.  The evidence before the Trump Administration is strong and compelling.  As a further development in this matter, the Dominican extruder has operated this year in a way that qualifies them to be a respondent in this year’s Administrative Review.  This is an excellent development for us.  Should the Department of Commerce (DOC) deem imports from the Dominican Republic contain transshipped extrusions from China, those imports could be considered subject merchandise and our Chinese tariffs will apply.  The first step in the process is to win the EAPA cases, then successfully argue our position during the Administrative Review.  While this may not be a permanent solution to these unfair and illegal trade actions, it will have a short-term impact on their ability to gain further access into our market.

A key scope appeal was decided by the Court of International Trade in August involving Worldwide and Columbia door thresholds.  We are now working with the DOC to file the remand briefs, which are due this month.  Commerce worked hard on this case and made very strong arguments on our behalf.  This was a critical issue.  Our scope explicitly identifies door thresholds as covered merchandise.  Were we to lose this case, the fabric our orders could be ripped in way that would be very hard to repair.  Remember, when a decision by the DOC is appealed, it is the DOC and federal attorneys that will argue the case, not us.  Our role is to inspire the DOC to work hard on our behalf and provide them with any information they may need to win.  This is a case where AEC members joined our lead attorney and me in a joint Zoom meeting this summer to explain to Commerce how important this case is to our industry.

I have noticed over time that occasionally there is an appeal from an opinion several years ago that is just now making its way to the courts.  In some of those matters the importer is arguing a very narrow point that would only effect shipments for a short period of time.  A case like that is pending now.  In the 3rd Administrative Review an importer of Chinese curtain wall is making the case that certain elements of their kit should not be a part of the duty calculation.  Should they win, their ‘bill’ for those imports will be reduced.  If they lose, they must pay the current amount owed.  A decision like this has no legs beyond the immediate issue at hand.  It will not lower our current rates.  It will not make curtain wall duty free…nothing of the kind.  I am going through this because you may see a headline being passed around that says curtain wall duties have been reduced, or some other mischaracterizations.  In this insistence, the DOC will fight the appeal in court, and we will support.  Regardless of the outcome, nothing about our case will change.  What they owe the Federal Government may be adjusted, but that is all.  So, be wary of flashy headlines that suggest we have lost ground.  You all know that if we were to be confronted with a case that had that level of risk to our orders, we would be loudly communicating that to our entire membership.

As we wind down to the end of this horrible year, I want you to know how important and effective your support has been to our success this year.  I am confident that anytime I need to reach out to one of you for help, you are there.  Always.  I am hopeful we will start the New Year with a great outcome in the pending EAPA cases and finishing the year well on our way to a successful Sunset Review and another five years of protection from the aggressive tactics of the Chinese extrusion industry.  It will not happen without you, but I know you will be there.

Have a great holiday and thank you for your continued support!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Aluminum Extruders Coalition Files Historic Case; Customs Says “Yes”

Well, in case you missed it, a group of Aluminum Extruders Council members filed a historic AD/CVD case against 15 countries.  All 15 countries will be sued for dumping (AD), and four will be sued for subsidies (CVD).  In a press release issued earlier this week, which you can read here , the countries were identified as well as the projected duties the coalition seeks.  Anyone within the four walls of the Aluminum Extruders Council knew this was coming.  It has been discussed for four years.  To address rising imports, we battled in the enforcement arena, we went hard after products under assault in scope challenges and worked hard on the 232.  After exhausting every available option, and never seeing a dent in the import stats, we were faced with this hard decision.  That is where we are today.  The Hearing will be held later this month, and decisions will start to be rendered in the weeks that follow.  Communications about the details of this case will be handled by the Coalition,

A Nice Win to Start the Year!

 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

USITC Issues 332 to Assess Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Where Sustainability Meets Trade Policy

  The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) is undertaking a new factfinding investigation that will assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of steel and aluminum produced in the United States.  As part of its investigation, the Commission will conduct a survey by issuing questionnaires to firms with facilities producing steel and aluminum in the United States, whether U.S. or foreign owned, to collect data on their production of these goods and associated GHG emissions. This survey will be mailed to all extruders in the United States.  The announcement made by the ITC on July 6, 2023, can be accessed here.  As requested, the USITC, an independent, nonpartisan federal agency, will prepare a public report.  The report will provide, to the extent practicable: GHG emissions intensity estimates of steel and aluminum produced in the United States by product category and production stage in 2022, with data on Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions defined as: Scope 1: Direct emissions