CBP Announces EAPA Investigation on Aluminum Extrusions From China, Imposes Interim Measures

CBP announced that it is conducting an Enforce and Protect Act investigation on whether Fortress Iron (doing business as Fortress Fence Products and Fortess Building Products) evaded antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from China. According to the Jan. 24 notice, CBP found reasonable suspicion of evasion by Fortress and has imposed interim measures.

The investigation followed a Sept. 26, 2022, allegation by the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (AEFTC), which said that Fortress had entered Chinese-origin aluminum extrusions into the U.S. that were subject to the AD/CVD orders without declaring those entries as subject to those orders or paying the required cash deposits.

AEFTC submitted evidence that Fortress' offers to downstream customers were at prices "too low to reflect the substantial AD/CVD duties" applicable to covered merchandise. AEFTC provided evidence that Lowes offered aluminum fence products sourced from Fortress at prices significantly below those of aluminum fence products sourced from domestic suppliers, despite the AD/CVD duties. Many items labeled as aluminum fence products are within the scope of the orders and Fortress had received numerous shipments of aluminum "fence," "railing," "railing panel," and "post" shipments from Chinese suppliers. CBP confirmed that, during the period of investigation, Fortress imported extruded aluminum fence components under tariff schedule subheadings covered by the AD/CVD orders.

After reviewing evidence in the allegation, CBP initiated the investigation on Oct. 18. In responding to questions from CBP about two entries containing merchandise with a tariff classification number that includes aluminum extrusion fence components, Fortress used descriptions of the production process, which CBP found to describe aluminum fence components made with extrusion processes, despite Fortress' argument that they were finished “fence systems.” Further, CBP noted that the product descriptions did not state that the grade of the aluminum used would exclude the merchandise from the orders.

Fortress' response also included a purchase order for products purchased from a Chinese supplier that contained the model numbers off Lowes' website for individual fence components. CBP concluded that Lowes appeared to be “selling Fortress aluminum fence component parts, and those parts are [redacted merchandise detail] that Fortress had ordered from a Chinese supplier. This supports the conclusion that aluminum fence components obtained by Fortress from China were not being imported as 'finished goods kits' as described by the scope.”

Prior to the allegation, a CBP Center of Excellence and Expertise examined Fortress entry documents that listed China as the country of origin. Fortress later claimed that the items were “finished good kits” specifically excluded from the orders. However, CBP noted that Commerce had previously found similar items to be "fasteners" that were not excluded from the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions. CBP conducted conducted a cargo inspection of a Fortress shipment to Mobile, also prior to the allegation. Based on the inspection and associated documentation, CBP found that the items were not finished kits.

CBP concluded that reasonable suspicion exists that Fortress imported aluminum extrusions from China and should have declared the merchandise as covered by the AD/CVD orders and paid the required cash deposits, but failed to do so. Therefore, CBP ordered interim measures that suspend the liquidation of each unliquidated entry that entered on or after the initiation of the investigations (i.e., Oct. 18, 2022), extend the period for liquidating each unliquidated entry that entered before Oct. 18. Additionally, CBP will require live entry and reject any entry summaries that do not comply with live entry and require refiling of entries. CBP said that it will continue to evaluate Fortress’ continuous bonds to determine their sufficiency and may pursue additional enforcement actions.

Neither Fortress nor the AEFTC immediately responded to requests for comment.