Addressing Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade
The Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC) posted an update on its ongoing work on the Chinese imports case, which looks to achieve and maintain the fair trade for aluminum extruders in the U.S. The announcement looks at the first annual Administrative Review, which came to an end in late 2013, as well as what can be expected from the second review that is now underway. The second review will look at three main areas — administrative reviews, scope requests, and continued lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill.
“There are 25 scope decisions awaiting decisions. Now that the first administrative review is complete, we expect to see a series of decisions from the DOC in the coming weeks and months. The first decision of note will concern unitized curtain wall. The AEC also continues to actively examine all avenues of possible circumvention of the orders. As the AEC develops credible evidence of circumvention, it will actively and aggressively pursue all possible violators.”
Furthermore, Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade will be Addressed at AEC 2014 Annual Meeting: Robert DeFrancesco, Attorney at Law, Wiley Rein LLP, will be making a special presentation at the AEC’s 2014 Annual Meeting & Leadership Conference, March 18-20, which will be co-located with CRU’s Aluminum Trends Conference at the Biltmore Hotel located in Coral Gables, Florida. DeFrancesco’s presentation, entitled The Rise of State-Owned Entities and Their Effects on Metal Trade: A Case Study, the U.S. Countervailing Duty Case Against Aluminum Extrusions from China, will give attendees a rare inside look at trade issues confronting the metals industries.
“The aluminum extrusion case is one of the largest and most complex trade remedies cases to be litigated in recent memory. It is an ideal case study to examine the issues that confront the metals industry as it relates to trade relations and non-market and market economies alike,” said DeFrancesco. More about the presentation and the conference can be found here.
More in the News on Aluminum Extrusion Fair Trade
January 27 – “United States: A Peek Around The Curtain: A “Reverse” False Claims Act Settlement For Avoiding Customs Charges,” by by Mark L. Jensen and Ryan E. Roberts, mondaq
“On November 14, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a False Claims Act settlement with Basco Manufacturing Company, a maker of shower enclosures, for $1.1 million related to misstatements on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry forms. The alleged misstatements were intended to allow the company to avoid antidumping duties (ADD) and countervailing duties (CVD) on aluminum extrusions used in its products that were actually from China, but transshipped through Malaysia in an attempt to avoid the duties. The settlement against Basco does not resolve the entire matter, as Basco was one company of many involved in an alleged conspiracy to conceal the Chinese origin of the aluminum extrusions at issue. Aspects of the settlement highlight certain risks posed by the False Claims Act that compound general U.S. enforcement of trade laws, and a reminder that diversion for inbound products to the United States may be a significant compliance issue of which companies should be aware.”
January 28 – “Whirlpool Sues DOC Over Aluminum Extrusion Reviews,” by Alex Lawson, Law360
“Appliance maker Whirlpool Corp. slapped the U.S. Department of Commerce with a suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade on Monday, claiming the department used faulty methods and data when conducting its first review of countervailing duties levied against imports of aluminum extrusions from China.
The six-page complaint alleges that Commerce wrongly applied an “adverse facts available” methodology when calculating CVD rates of 15.97 percent in 2010 and 15.66 percent in 2011 for exporter Kromet International Inc. and Chinese producer Alnan Aluminum Co. Ltd.”
February 4 -“Court Upholds Ruling on Duties for Curtainwall,” Glass Magazine
“The ruling from the Court of International Trade, released Jan. 30, responded to a challenge from plaintiffs Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co., Yuanda USA Corp., Jangho Curtain Wall Americas Co., Overgaard Ltd.’s, and Bucher Glass Inc. The defendant-intervenors in the case, defending the initial ruling of the Department of Commerce, included Walters & Wolf, Bagatelos Architectural Glass Systems Inc., and Architectural Glass & Aluminum Co.
“The court finds that Commerce reasonably determined that curtainwall units are included in the scope of the Orders. Additionally, because that conclusion was reasonable,” according to the court ruling.”
February 10 – “Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s Republic of China: Correction of the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission, in Part, 2010/12,” Federal Register: A Daily Journal of the United States Government
February 11 – “China files anti-dumping dispute against U.S. at WTO,” by Jennifer Horvath, Braumiller Schulz LLP
“China brought its dispute to the WTO by using the mechanism of a request for consultation with the U.S. In consultation proceedings, WTO members can initiate a dialogue with each other to address disagreements on WTO matters. After the initial request for consultation was issued by China, the U.S. had thirty (30) days to enter into consultations with China to resolve the disagreement directly. If no resolution is found, China can request the WTO to establish a panel to address the issue no earlier than sixty (60) days after the request was first filed. However, in practice, parties to a dispute often allow themselves more than 60 days prior to requesting that the WTO establish a panel. The request to establish a panel raises the pressure in the dispute process, and indicates the importance of the issue to the disagreeing parties.”
February 14 – “U.S., China to Seek Rulings Challenging Antidumping, Countervailing Measures,” by Daniel Pruzin, Bloomberg BNA
“Tensions between the U.S. and China over trade remedy measures are expected to heat up at the World Trade Organization, after both countries said they would be seeking the establishment of WTO dispute panels to challenge each other’s antidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duty actions.
China will request the establishment of a WTO panel to rule on the Commerce Department’s use of the “targeted dumping” methodology, as well as the use of the controversial zeroing methodology in connection with the targeted dumping investigations.
China is also challenging Commerce’s practices related to China’s status as a non-market economy (NME), as well as the agency’s use of “adverse facts available” in its AD investigations on various Chinese imports.
The U.S. will ask for a WTO panel to rule whether China has complied with an earlier WTO ruling faulting a Chinese investigation that resulted in AD and CV duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel from the U.S.”