Some months ago, I wrote that there were several matters in our case that were under review and pending decisions. Once those decisions were made, we would then see a series of great results. Now, here they come. Having seen two such wins in the last couple of weeks I am now more certain than ever that many more are coming.
This month we heard from the Department of Commerce about the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) case filed by Ta Chen against Kingtom in the Dominican Republic. The verdict was clear and Kingtom lost. This is a significant win for us, even though we did not file it. However, we have filed our own case against Kingtom and we expect that decision on January 21, 2021. The DOC is finding that Kingtom did circumvent our trade orders by co-mingling Chinese-produced aluminum extrusions with Dominican product. These cases are kept under wraps, and we are not allowed to publicly discuss until certain thresholds in the case are met. So, as I can, and as is prudent, I will continue to update you about this matter.
The other significant win this month was a scope decision concerning fabricated extrusions in an automotive application. On January 4, 2021, Commerce issued a final scope ruling confirming that some of Unison's automotive frame crossmembers are included in the scope of the orders. Unison makes crossmembers from both 6xxx- and 7xxx-series alloy aluminum, and because 7xxx-series aluminum is not covered by the scope, the crossmembers made from 7xxx-series aluminum were found to not be covered by the scope. The 6xxx-series crossmembers were found to be subassemblies - rather than finished merchandise, as Unison had argued - because they are designed to be incorporated into Ford F-150s. Commerce also found that these crossmembers are merely fabricated extrusions and that the machining processes they undergo do not make them finished merchandise within the meaning of the scope. We are monitoring for any appeal by Unison, which would be due around February 3. We plan to get news of this to the automotive community and develop talking points for our members that serve this market, so they can better explain our trade case and the impacts on automotive suppliers’ and manufacturers’ import strategies.
It should be noted, that if we had not been successful in arguing in previous cases that sub-assemblies are NOT final finished products, this automotive part may have been excluded and I would predict many more to follow. So, this case decision not only protected our automotive business, but re-affirms the language of our scope that sub-assemblies do NOT meet the threshold of a final finished product.
Lastly, you may have read about the rollout of the new Aluminum Import Monitoring System. This program, adapted from a current program in place for the steel industry, will give us the type of information we need concerning imports from Mexico. The Aluminum Association did a good job in getting this across the finish line. As it is just now starting, we cannot expect to see the first series of data for another 60 to 90 days. It is our hope that once it is up and running, the lag between shipments and the timing of the report will shrink dramatically.
Thank you all for your support and dedication to this case. This month it demonstrated itself to be as indispensable to the industry as the AEC has been to protecting key markets and addressing circumvention schemes. If you liked this month’s report, I have a feeling you are going to really like next month’s!
Comments
Post a Comment