“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986
US CHINA TRADE WAR DECEMBER 19, 2016
This newsletter contains several articles about trade and Trump after his victory on November 8th. As mentioned in my last blog post, the Trump victory will have a significant impact on trade policy. The TPP is dead.
But the next question is how will Trump help revive manufacturing in the United States and help the Rust Belt states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which put him in the White House?
Will there be a trade war with China and other countries? Trump’s tough talk on the One China policy indicates a trade war, but his appointments to the US Ambassador to China and to the Commerce Department Secretary indicate the contrary. Trump, however, may be trying to use uncertainty to create leverage and a deal with the Chinese government on trade and other issues.
Will Trump use taxes to give US manufacturing an advantage at the detriment of imports?
Trump will try and do everything possible to increase jobs in the United States. Hopefully, that will mean more support to Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, which is the only effective US trade remedy that saves companies and the jobs that go with them without damaging US downstream production.
In addition, this blog post describes the recent WTO complaint China filed against the United States and the EC for failing to give it market economy status under the US and EC antidumping and countervailing duty laws. The newsletter also gives the upcoming deadlines under the Solar Cells and Hardwood Plywood cases against China.
Under the Universal Trade War theme, under China is an article on ways in which the Chinese government can retaliate against US companies in the trade war and newsletters from a Chinese law firm. In addition, under Canada attached is an article from Dan Kiselbach, a Canadian trade lawyer, about whether the Trump Administration can truly get out of NAFTA and also information about the recent Softwood Lumber Case against Canada. Finally, from Mexico there is information about a recent Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube case filed against imports from Korea, India, Spain and Ukraine, along with a brief description of Mexican antidumping law.
Finally, there is an announcement from the Justice Department about the accomplishments in the recent US/China meetings on Computer Hacking and also recent 337 intellectual property cases against China.
If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address email@example.com.
TRADE AND TRADE POLICY
TRUMP AND TRADE – A BULL IN A CHINA SHOP OR A SAVVY NEGOTIGATOR?
On December 2, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump took a phone call from President Ing Wen Tsai of Taiwan. Trump’s decision to take the phone call from the Taiwan President created a fire storm as commentators questioned whether the United States would stick to the “one China” policy that implies that Taiwan is a part of China and that the long term relationship between China and the US would change.
In response, many commentators wrote articles suggesting that Trump was a “Bull in a China shop”, a clumsy inexperienced person taking actions without thinking about consequences. Chinese media called Trump “an ignorant child.”
It has since come out that the specific phone call with President Tsai had been discussed for several months and set up by former Republican Congressional leader Bob Dole. In fact, in addition to taking the call from President Tsai, President-elect, Trump met with Henry Kissinger, who is serving as a liaison for the Chinese government.
Instead of a Bull in China Shop, what President-Elect Donald Trump may have been trying to do with China is create a perception of strength and set up a sense of uncertainty. What is Trump going to do?
President Ronald Reagan was a master at playing a similar game. Projecting strength and also a feeling of uncertainty. What is Reagan going to do? Reagan’s projection of strength and uncertainty created agreements with Russia that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
A projection of strength and a sense of uncertainty gives Trump something Reagan had—leverage, which makes it easier to negotiate better deals.
On December 11. 2016, Trump stated on Fox News:
“I fully understand the ‘one China’ policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”
Companies and countries should not make the mistake that many in the mainstream US media have made. Do not underestimate Donald Trump. He is not an ignorant child and many of his advisors are very knowledgeable about China. Trump wants a deal with China and he will not give something for nothing.
TRUMP’S APPOINTMENTS DO NOT INDICATE A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA
BRANSTAD TO BE AMBASSADOR TO CHINA
Through his appointments, Trump is indicating that he realizes how important the relationship is with China and he intends to appoint experts that understand China. On December 7th at a “Thank You” rally in Iowa, President-elect Trump announced that six term Iowa Governor Terry Branstad will be his pick for Ambassador to China. Governor Branstad has personally known Chinese President Xi Jinping since 1985 when Branstad was governor of Iowa and Xi was an agricultural official in northern China. For two weeks, Xi stayed with a family in the town of Muscatine, Iowa, an experience he likes to recall when visiting the State. Subsequently he met with Gov. Branstad in 2012 as vice chairman of the Chinese government.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang welcomed Branstad as an “old friend of the Chinese people” playing “a bigger role in China–U.S. relations”.
Branstad is also a friend of Trump, working actively on Trump’s campaign. During the general election, his son, Eric Branstad, managed Trump’s campaign in the state. Trump then won in Iowa, 51% of the vote to 42% for Clinton.
This appointment may be a signal that President-elect Trump does not want a trade war with China because Iowa has $2.3 billion in exports to China mostly agricultural exports, including corn and soybeans. Trump’s selection of Branstad for the most important diplomatic position to China suggests that the president-elect wants to keep negotiating channels open with Beijing, rather than adopt a knee jerk confrontational attitude
On December 8, 2016, at a speech in Iowa, which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rPh9YG3AmY, Trump stated:
“One of the most important relationships we must improve and we have to improve is our relationship with China. The nation of China is responsible for almost of half of America’s trade deficit.
China is not a market economy they got a lot of help and that is why we designate them as being them as a nonmarket economy. Big thing.”
Trump went on to state, that the Chinese government has not “played by the rules, and they know it’s time that they’re going to start.” Trump went on to cite that China was responsible for “massive theft of intellectual property,” “putting unfair taxes on our companies,” “massive devaluation of their currency” and “product dumping”.
Trump further stated that the Ambassador he was going to appoint to China has “lots of friends there”. According to Trump, Branstad requested that Trump not speak ill of China because in Iowa “we do well with China”.
Trump also stated that he is looking to work on the relationship between China and the US and that Governor Branstad “knows China and likes China” and “knows how to deliver results.” Trump went on to state that Governor Branstad is highly respected by Chinese officials and a great friend of mine.
Donald Trump finished by stating “We’re going to have mutual respect, and China is going to benefit and we’re going to benefit. And Terry is going to lead the way.”
As the phone call with President Tsai of Taiwan indicates and his statement to Fox News, Trump is no push over. There is a new strong President in town so do not try and bully him. This President has options.
On the other hand, during the Primary and even after the election, well-respected conservative newspapers and commentators have stated that President Trump has to be careful not to create a trade war, especially with China. As recently as November 30, 2016, in Investors Business Daily, the one newspaper that projected a Trump victory prior to the election, two commentators, Congressman David Mcintosh and Scott Linicome in an article entitled “Trump Should Tread Softly On His New Trade Agenda” stated:
“exploiting ambiguities in the current web of U.S. trade laws to enact the President’s trade priorities by executive fiat could engender opposition from Congress, the U.S. business community and U.S. trading partners, thus leading to court challenges similar to those fled by the Republican Congress against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
The crucial difference, however, is that the months of uncertainty surrounding the trade challenges would imperil trillions of dollars’ worth of goods and services, especially if the courts refused to enjoin the executive branch from acting while any such litigation is pending.”
WILBUR ROSS—NEXT COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARY
In addition, as explained in more detail below, Trump has decided to appoint billionaire private equity investor Wilbur Ross, a Warren Buffet type, to be the next Commerce Department Secretary. Trump’s decision to appoint Ross, a brilliant investor, industry expert and deal maker, indicates a decision to put trade/business professionals at the highest level in his Administration, who are very experienced with regard to business, international competition and China.
Ross was one of the important creators of Trump’s economic plan, which the campaign claimed will increase federal revenues by $1.7 trillion. With regards to Tariffs, Ross has specifically stated:
“Tariffs will be used not as an end game but rather as a negotiating tool to encourage our trading partners to cease cheating. If, however, the cheating does not stop, Trump will impose appropriate defensive tariffs to level the playing field.”
In this video interview with the Epoch Times, Wilbur Ross himself shows a great knowledge of the US relationship with China, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1751796-billionaire-investor-wilbur-ross-china-still-lags-us-in-innovation/. In the video, Ross acknowledges that although China has made progress, the US is the most innovative country in the World. Ross also states that in 2003 when he spoke out against China he was acquiring the majority interest in Bethlehem Steel and he was against Chinese companies’ product dumping:
“namely selling products for less in a foreign market than their true price in your domestic market.
That’s the kind of activity that we think should be protected against. We are generally free market people but what was happening back in the early 2000s with steel and what is starting to happen again, is that product was actually being sold in this country for less than the total cost of manufacturing it.
That’s not legitimate competition. If someone can make things more inexpensively in their country and sell it here that’s fine with me. But it shouldn’t be that they have one price in their country and a lower price outside.”
In the video Ross further states that the reason China was dumping is:
“they had a period of overcapacity and because China is so much about jobs as opposed to profits, it was very important for the government to maintain jobs. So to maintain jobs they had to maintain production, even though there was not enough demand for it. The way they tried to solve the problem was by dumping it outside.”
Ross is correct that with its large overcapacity, most Chinese steel companies were dumping and probably at very high rates. But as indicated below, since the Commerce Department continues to treat China as a nonmarket economy and refuses to look at actual costs and prices in China, no one knows for certain which Chinese companies are truly dumping and what the real dumping rate of the Chinese companies is.
With regard to Chinese innovation, Ross indicates that he is very knowledgeable about China stating:
“China is coming along in terms of innovation. They now have the world’s biggest and fastest computer. That would have been unimaginable a decade ago. They’ve launched spaceships into outer space. They have not yet gotten to be as innovative as the United States is, nobody has been as innovative. Year after year the United States gets more patents than any other country by a wide margin. Interestingly, it’s Japan that comes in second.”
As to why China lags the US in innovation, Ross states:
“The United States is basically a free market economy and their entrepreneurship has been highly prized here for centuries and centuries so there’s a real tradition of risk-taking. Innovation involves a lot of risk-taking.
A state-owned enterprise is much less likely to be a big risk-taker then private capital. Since China had been so dominated by the state-owned enterprises it’s hard in a big bureaucratic system to be innovative. Look at the U.S. government itself, what interesting innovations have they come up with?”
Being a Warren Buffet type and very involved in the US Stock market, Wilbur Ross also has very educated views about the problems with the China Stock Market:
We think that China has two separate problems right now. One is the market itself, the equity market, and that got completely out of control. . . .
I think what then happened, the government seemed to have panicked and made lots and lots of very panicky moves. They first raised the margin requirement then they lowered it. They threw hundreds of billions of dollars into the market. Now they’re prosecuting people who spread negative stories about the market.
I think the difficulty with all that is, when a government shows signs of panic, particularly a government that historically has been able to control what happens pretty well, when that government shows panic it makes people more frightened, not less frightened.
Like many China experts, Ross believes that China’s growth numbers are not accurate:
The Chinese economy clearly is not growing at anything like 7 percent. We have felt for a couple of years that those figures were very, very generous. If you look at physical indicators—electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, oil consumption, cement consumption, steel consumption, telecom consumption, retails sales—if you look at all those indicators, none of them were growing at a rate that was equal to 7 percent and neither were the exports.
With regard to economic reform in China, Ross states:
I think what they’re trying to do is several things all at once and that makes it very challenging.
They’re trying to become more of a consumer-driven economy, but the reality is that their largest driver is capital investment. It’s hard to make that transition because capital investment is still about 44 percent of the economy.
They’re trying to make the transition, but meanwhile they’re doing the very- much-needed anti-corruption drive and that in a strange way has hurt consumer spending. . . .
I think they’ll get there, just that the transition is a hard one. Meanwhile there is super-imposed upon it, the economic issues in the rest of the world. Combined with China’s rising labor costs and the very strong currency, make it very difficult to be an exporter.
These responses along with the video indicate that Ross is not a knee-jerk protectionist and has a deep knowledge of China, which does not indicate a trade war any time soon.
COULD TAXES BE THE WAY TRUMP MAKES US INDUSTRY GREAT AGAIN
On the other hand, Trump and Republicans in Congress may be creating an alternative to tariffs to spur US manufacturing and that is taxes. In the Congress, one proposal in the House Republicans’ tax-reform plan is to give American-made products a big tax advantage over their foreign competitors. Although some commentators have pointed to a potential trade war, Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady stated, “We are now in the process of designing all aspects of our ‘Build for Growth’ tax plan to withstand any WTO challenge. We’re confident we can win any case.”
The key issue is a plan to fundamentally remake the tax system by taxing US companies based on where they sell their goods, not where the business happens to be located. As part of that, Republican tax legislators want to include what experts call “border adjustments” — new taxes on imports as well as tax rebates on exports. This plan would replace the current corporate tax code with something known among experts as a “border-adjustable, destination-based” tax system. Under their proposal, imports would be charged the same 20 percent tax that domestic companies would face. Exports would be excused from taxes. It would amount to a fundamental change, with the government taxing companies based on where they sell their wares, rather than where the business is located.
According to tax experts, this new tax plan would offset inversions and other types of international tax avoidance because companies would have less incentive to go to other countries looking for tax savings. The proposal would also finance a huge chunk of the Republicans’ overall tax plan — the Tax Policy Center estimates border adjustments would raise $1.2 trillion, making it the third-largest pay-for in the plan.
The proposal is already controversial because it threatens big tax increases to many large retailers, such as Walmart and Home Depot and other companies, which heavily rely on imports.
But critics say it would also violate free-trade agreements by favoring American-made goods over imports. That’s because, while they would all be subject to the same 20 percent tax, U.S. companies would be able to deduct the cost of workers’ pay when calculating their tax bills. Imports would not be given the same treatment and the difference could be dramatic.
If a U.S. company sold a product for $100 and it spent $70 on its workers’ pay, under the Republican plan the remaining $30 would be subject to the 20% tax. That would produce a $6 tax bill. An imported version of the same product would be forced to pay the 20% tax on the entire $100 sale, producing a $20 tax bill.
On December 7, 2016, Koch Industries came out against the Border Adjustment provision of the new tax overhaul with Philip Ellender, the head of government affairs at Koch Companies Public Sector LLC, stating that the so-called border adjustment proposal currently being considered by Republican lawmakers:
“would adversely impact American consumers by forcing them to pay higher prices on products produced in and goods imported to the U.S. that they use every single day. While companies like Koch who manufacture and produce many products domestically would greatly benefit in the short-term, the long term consequences to the economy and the American consumer could be devastating.”
Another problem is the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) allows border adjustments for so-called indirect taxes on transactions, such as value-added taxes, but not on direct taxes, such as income taxes. The Republican plan is a hybrid, raising questions about how the WTO would categorize it.
Any change in US tax treatment could be challenged by other countries in the WTO as a violation of the WTO Agreement of most favored nation, which requires imports to be treated the same as domestically produced products. If a WTO tribunal were to rule against the United States, the prevailing countries could be allowed to retaliate against US exports to account for the injury to their exports, which could be as high at $1.2 trillion.
But any challenge in the WTO will take years to litigate. A good example of this is the Byrd Amendment. The Byrd Amendment allowed US petitioner companies to get the dumping and countervailing duties collected by Customs. The Byrd Amendment passed in 2000 and after WTO litigation resulting in possible retaliation by other countries against the United States, the Congress repealed the Byrd Amendment in December 2005 on 51 to 50 vote in the Senate with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie. But for five years US petitioners collected the duties.
So instead of a direct protectionism using tariffs, any protectionism may be indirect, but it will have the same effect. Give US companies a major incentive to produce their products in the US, rather than rely on imports.
But the real problem with the tax plan is international trade/globalization victimhood which will lead the companies not to make the changes they need to make to be competitive. Just like the steel industry, US companies would continue to hunker down behind protectionist walls and never modernize their production to meet competition. That is the problem. As President Reagan himself observed, protectionism makes companies weaker not stronger and in the end does not save the companies and industries that are being protected.
On December 13th in a letter to Congress more than 50 retail and manufacturing associations urged Congress to abandon border tax adjustments saying the proposal to increase taxes on all imports could hurt domestic industry. Although the retail groups argue that border tax adjustments could raise consumer prices, as the letter states the real problem is the impact of higher raw material costs on downstream US production:
“Companies that rely on global supply chains would face huge business challenges caused by increased taxes and increased cost of goods, which would in turn likely result in reductions in employment, reduced capital investments and higher prices for consumers.”
Congress does not care if prices for consumer products go up a few dollars at Walmart, but what happens when US downstream producers in Congressional districts are forced to close down because of higher raw material costs. As one friend, who represented a major steel producer for years, told me, the total employment in the entire Steel industry is less than one high tech company and yet we want to protect the Steel industry at the expense of downstream high value added US production?
TRUMP APPOINTS WILBUR ROSS A PRAGMATIST TO BE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARY
As indicated above, President Elect Donald Trump has announced that he will appoint billionaire investor Wilbur Ross as the next Secretary of Commerce. Ross is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, who understands and values the problems of the working class more than other capitalists. As Ross states in the following video http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1750905-billionaire-investor-wilbur-ross-on-the-people-factor-in-investing/:
“That man who has stood behind a machine for 15 or 20 years, he knows better than the people who built it, how to get more productivity out of it. So you need to create an environment where he feels someone will pay attention if he makes a suggestion, and if it turns out to be a good suggestion, that he’ll be rewarded for it.”
Ross, worth $2.9 billion according to Forbes, has made his name in distressed assets investments and rose to fame turning around Bethlehem Steel for a short time as well as Burlington Industries. Ross also worked closely with labor unions, stating:
“There’s a big misconception in management–labor relations throughout the industrial world; too often management and labor view each other as adversaries. We truly view labor as our partner because they only have one company they’re working with and we only have one group of workers.
So we think it’s very important that we have a good, functional relationship. We don’t negotiate with unions having a big battalion of lawyers and accountants and human relations people. We tend to negotiate mano-a-mano with the union leadership. Once we’ve worked out the essence of the deal, we then turn it over.”
Ross probably knows the Rust Belt better than any politician, one of the reasons why President-elect Trump picked him. In the early 2000s he combined Acme Steel, LTV Steel, and Bethlehem Steel saving all of them from bankruptcy for a short period of time and returning the employees to the job but under new work rules and with 401(k)s instead of pensions.
Meanwhile, in early 2000, China suddenly had an insatiable demand for steel, combined with the U.S. automakers’ zero-percent financing push. American steel was suddenly red hot. The price per ton of rolled steel soared and Ross took the new entity, ISG, public in December 2003. Ross then sold ISG combined entity to Indian steel giant Mittal in 2005 for $4.5 billion. As Ross stated:
“It’s nice being the chairman of a huge company in a vital industry. But it’s nicer to make fourteen times your initial investment in just two years.”
Eventually, however, Bethlehem Steel fell into bankruptcy.
OPEN LETTER TO NEW COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARY WILBUR ROSS— ONLY TRADE REMEDY PROGRAMS THAT SAVE US COMPANIES—TAA FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES AND MEP
The Honorable Wilbur Ross
New Commerce Department Secretary Trump Administration
Re: Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies and MEP– Only Trade Remedy Programs That Save US Companies
Dear Secretary Ross,
The Press reports that President-elect Donald Trump has nominated you to be the next Commerce Department secretary. Your expertise in working with bankrupt US companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, gives the United States a unique chance to make its industry great again.
In the 1980s during the Reagan Administration, I worked at the Commerce Department and before that at the US International Trade Commission. Since the 1980s, I have represented many US importers/foreign producers in international trade cases, including metal, chemical and steel products, and am now on the Board of Directors of the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center in Seattle, Washington, which provides assistance to US companies injured by imports.
In my experience, ultimately these unfair trade cases do not work. Although they provide a breathing space, they do not save the companies and the jobs that go with them. Importers simply switch to a new country. Both of us have experience with Bethlehem Steel, which had 40 years of trade protection from steel imports through various antidumping and other trade orders. Where is Bethlehem Steel today? Green fields.
But trade cases also create enormous collateral damage in downstream industries that need competitive raw material inputs. Many US companies may use the cases to hide behind protectionist walls. The “hunker down” mindset is not in America’s DNA. Instead, this nation’s manufacturing businesses need to regain the competitive dynamism they once possessed. We need a new aggressive US manufacturing policy unleashing American global competitiveness to make companies strong enough to not only survive, but thrive in the US market.
A starting point would be for the Commerce Department to build upon two existing programs that have proven track records of success in this area that can be quickly ramped up and can have an immediate and tangible impact on the 250,000 small and medium manufacturing companies which serve as the bases of our supply chain: EDA’s Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms /Companies (“TAAF”) and NIST’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (“MEP”) (inexplicably, these programs have been marginalized by the Obama Administration). TAAF has 11 regional (multi-state) TAAF Centers but the program has been cut to only $12.5 million annually. The system has the band-width to increase to a run rate of $50 million. Projecting a four-year ramp up of $90 million (FY18-FY21), the TAA program could serve an additional 2,150 companies.
No federal funds go to any companies in the program. In fact, companies are required to pay into the program by matching any federal monies on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This sharing of costs between Uncle Sam and the companies creates a pool of seed dollars subsequently used to hire outside professionals. These professionals create a series of knowledge-based projects aimed at permanently upgrading key business processes over the span of several years. Here’s the kicker – the program does not block imports in any way.
Does it work? Yes it does. In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, uses a video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, to show in detail how the program resulted in significant turnarounds for four companies. The reason the TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan to make them competitive once again in the US market as it exists today. For a sample recovery plan, see http://mataac.org/documents/2014/06/sample-adjustment-plan.pdf, which has been developed specific to the strengths, weaknesses and threats each company faces.
NIST’s MEP program provides high quality management and technical assistance to the nation’s small manufacturers through independent Centers in every State and Puerto Rico, staffed by non-federal advanced manufacturing experts and is one of the remedies suggested by TAAF. MEP reaches nearly 30,000 firms each year, and works intensively (think “McKinsey for manufacturers”) with nearly 10,000 of them. As a consequence of a just completed nation-wide reinvention and reform of the program, MEP is positioned to assist even more companies. Currently funded at $130 million, a commitment of $100 million over four years would serve an additional 8400 firms. These funds could be targeted to those small and medium enterprises that are the base of our domestic supply chain, critical to your overall reshoring agenda. Like the TAAF program, no MEP funds go directly to the companies, which instead are required to cost share the cost of expert consultants. They have “skin in the game”.
Increasing funding will allow the TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP programs to expand their bandwidth and provide relief to larger enterprises, including possibly even steel producers. If companies that use steel can be saved, why can’t those who produce it?
Attached is a longer proposal on how to expand TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP Program to make US companies more competitive again.
I wish you great success in your new appointment. It gives me a level of confidence for the future of America’s manufacturing base that hasn’t been felt for quite some time.
I hope that the above has been of some interest. I would consider it an honor to expand on it in person if you think it appropriate.
Very truly yours,
CHINA SUES US AND EC IN WTO FOR FAILURE TO GIVE CHINA MARKET ECONOMY STATUS IN AD AND CVD CASES ON DECEMBER 11, 2016
As indicated in past blog posts, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, from the Chinese point of view December 11, 2016 is the date when countries can no longer treat China as a nonmarket economy country under their antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) law. Neither the United States nor the EC declared China a market economy country on December 11th so predictably China has filed a WTO complaint against the US and EC over their price comparison methodologies used in their AD and CVD laws.
On December 12, 2016, in the attached notice, wto-2016-news-items-china-files-wto-complaint-against-us-eu-over-price-comp, the WTO announced:
“China notified the WTO Secretariat that it had requested dispute consultations with the United States and the European Union regarding special calculation methodologies used by the US and EU in anti-dumping proceedings.”
Pursuant to US antidumping law, since China is a nonmarket economy country, Commerce refuses to use actual prices and costs in China to determine whether a Chinese company is dumping. Instead Commerce constructs a cost for the Chinese company using consumption factor information from China and “surrogate” values from import statistics in 5 to 10 different surrogate countries. In its proceedings, the Commerce Department can choose value data from different countries between a preliminary and final determination and between initial investigation to review investigation. Because of the numerous surrogate values from many different surrogate countries, it is impossible for the Chinese company, never mind the US importer, to know whether the Chinese company is dumping.
As former USTR General Counsel Warren Maruyama recently stated:
“The nonmarket economy methodology tends to generate extremely high margins and a lot of Chinese companies have basically concluded that it’s futile to defend NME cases, so this is a dispute with extremely high stakes for both sides.”
The controversy surrounds Section 15 of the China WTO Accession Agreement, which originated from the US China WTO Accession Agreement, which provides:
Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping . . .
(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: . . .
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. . . .
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member’s national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.
In other words, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, Commerce’s right to us a nonmarket economy methodology in Article 15 (a)(ii) “shall expire 15 years after the date of accession”. China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 so Section 15(d) should have taken effect on December 11, 2016, but did not.
But where did the 15 years come from? It came from a demand by the United States in the 2000 US China WTO negotiations and the resulting US-China WTO Accession Agreement. In fact, several years ago, former USTR Charlene Barshefsky, who negotiated the US China WTO Agreement, was asked at a conference in Beijing where the 15 years came from. Her response was that she knew what she needed to get from the Chinese government to get the Agreement through Congress. A USTR negotiator once told me that, in fact, this was “nonnegotiable demand” from the US government. So you would think that the US government would follow the Agreement it negotiated with China and the demand that it made of the Chinese government. Not so fast.
The United States’ apparent position is that although the 15 years was demanded by the US, since the 15 years is in not in a Treaty approved by Congress, the US does not have to follow the provision because it is not in the US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty law.
Iran has market economy status and has always been considered a market economy country. Although once classified as nonmarket economy countries, Russia and Ukraine have market economy status under the US antidumping law. Why and how did they become market economy countries?
For Russia, it was 911. As a result, of the 911 attack the US government wanted Russian bases to attack Afghanistan. President Putin told the United States Government make Russia a market economy country under the US antidumping law. Secretary Evans of Commerce flew into Russia and said looks like a market economy to me. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2032498.stm; http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/washington-mulls-status-of-russias-economy/247431.html; http://www.russialist.org/archives/5545-4.php.
As CBS news stated about the announcement:
The Russian leader has aggressively pursued closer ties with the West since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and many analysts had predicted the United States would grant Russia market economy status and help in its WTO bid in exchange for Putin’s strong support for the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan.
Sources in China reported that when he learned about the decision then Premier Zhu Rongyi in China was extremely angry, stating how could Russia get market economy before China? The answer—politics and the Chinese know it.
What about Ukraine? How did it get market economy? Orange Revolution. On February 17, 2006, Commerce determined that Ukraine is a market economy country. See http://www.trade.gov/press/press_releases/2006/ukraine_021706.asp; 71 Fed. Reg. 9520 (February 24, 2006).
Regarding China’s challenged in the WTO, Nicholas R. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, recently stated:
“I think this is potentially far more significant than most trade disputes … because the Chinese believe, with some justification, that they were promised something both verbally and in writing back at the time when they were negotiating their accession and now both Europe and the United States are walking away from it.”
SOLAR CELLS FROM CHINA PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION
On December 19, 2016, the Commerce Department issued the attached preliminary determination, 2014-2015-solar-cells-from-china-preliminary-determination, in the 2014-2015 antidumping revivew investigation on Solar Cells from China. Trina received an antidumping rate of 7.72%, Canadian Solar 30.42% and separate rate companies received a rate of 13.97%, the weighted average of Trina and Canadian Solar’s dumping rates. These are just preliminary rates and those rates can change in six months in a preliminary determination.
SOLAR CELLS FROM CHINA REVIEW INVESTIGATION STARTS THIS MONTH
As indicated in the attached Commerce Department review notice, december-2016-commerce-opportunity-to-request-reviews, this is the month to request review investigations in the Solar Cells ( formal name “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells”) from China case. Requests for review investigation must be filed at the Commerce Department by December 31st.
There has been much confusion about the difference between the Solar Cells case and the Solar Products (formal name “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products”) case.
The Solar Cells from China case covers exports and imports of Chinese Solar Panels with Chinese produced solar cells in them. The anniversary month is December to request a review investigation and the review period will cover imports and sales of Solar Cells to the United States during the period December 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016.
The Solar Products from China case covers exports and imports of Chinese Solar Panels with foreign produced solar cells in them. The anniversary month is February to request a review investigation and the review period will cover imports and sales of Solar Products to the United States during the period February 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017.
NEW HARDWOOD PLYWOOD AD AND CVD CASE AGAINST CHINA
On November 18th, the Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood and its individual members: Columbia Forest Products (Greensboro, NC), Commonwealth Plywood Inc. (Whitehall, NY), Murphy Plywood (Eugene, OR), Roseburg Forest Products Co. (Roseburg, OR), States Industries, Inc. (Eugene, OR), and Timber Products Company (Springfield, OR) filed an AD and CVD case against imports of hardwood plywood from China.
On December 9, 2016, in the attached factsheet, factsheet-prc-hardwood-plywood-products-ad-cvd-initiation-120916, the Commerce Department initiated the AD and CVD cases. To get a separate antidumping rate in the AD case, Chinese companies must submit a quantity and value questionnaire by December 22, 2016 and a separate rates application by January 13, 2017.
If anyone has any questions about this process, please feel free to contact me.
STEEL TRADE CASES
On November 30, 2016, in the attached factsheet, factsheet-multiple-clt-plate-ad-final-113016, Commerce announced its affirmative final determinations in the AD investigations of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey. The Brazil AD rate is 74.52%. The South African rate ranges from 87.72% to 94.14%. The Turkey rate ranges from 42.02% to 50%.
FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES
UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES
With the election of Donald Trump, as stated in my last newsletter, the Universal Trade War will continue. In addition to the US bringing AD and CVD cases, countries around the World, such as EC, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Thailand, South Africa, and Vietnam, all are filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases against each other and the United States. These countries have adopted the US law which finds dumping in 90% of the cases. The US and the EC have created a Frankenstein in the antidumping law and the whole World has adopted it.
Compromise is the best way to settle trade disputes, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle US antidumping and other trade cases. What is “fair” trade for the United States is “fair” trade for every other country. Many countries want to make their industries Great again.
Because of this situation, this part of the newsletter will concentrate on trade cases in other countries and how other countries see the trade problem with the United States.
HOW THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT CAN RETALIATE
What Happens When Trump Starts a Trade War with China
By Adams Lee, Partner, Harris Bricken
During the campaign, Donald Trump said “we can’t continue to allow China to rape our country” and vowed to aggressively fight back against China’s unfair trade practices. Trump promised his trade agenda would:
(1) declare China to be a currency manipulator,
(2) impose a 45 percent tariff on all Chinese imports into the U.S.,
(3) abandon/ renegotiate “bad” trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and
4) use the full arsenal of US trade laws against Chinese unfair trade practices.
President-elect Trump’s trade actions likely will raise many legal and policy questions. Can he really do that? Should he do that? Will those actions achieve anything? Pundits, academics, lawyers, and ultimately U.S. judges will weigh in on these questions, but it is fair to assume China will not wait for the resolution of these questions. Instead China likely will retaliate with its own actions. This post looks at three possible ways China could respond to any attempts under the Trump administration to get tough against China.
- China’s AD/ CVD Actions
Unbeknownst to many, China has initiated many of its own antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) actions against the United States and other countries. Having been on the receiving end of the most number of AD/CVD actions worldwide, China has incorporated into its own AD/CVD procedures some of the most effective techniques and practices from the AD/CVD investigations conducted by the U.S., EU, and other jurisdictions. For example, China’s AD questionnaires have burdensome and comprehensive sales and cost data requests, similar to, and even exceeding US practice. China’s AD/CVD margin calculation methodologies are as non-transparent as the EU’s margin calculations. China has even copied many of the annoying administrative practices of the US and EU such as giving only limited extensions, disregarding national holidays, or insisting on burdensome filing requirements (e.g., all documents of all filings must be fully translated into Chinese).
To date, China’s AD/CVD actions have largely been symbolic and timed to be initiated after specific U.S. actions against China. Although many of China’s AD/CVD cases have involved well-known companies (e.g., Corning, Dupont, Tyson Foods, Cadillac), most of these cases have had only limited economic impact. For example, in 2010, China imposed AD/CVD duties against U.S. chicken broiler products after the U.S. imposed special safeguard duties against Chinese tires in 2009. Most of the U.S. exports to China were of chicken feet, which had limited demand in the U.S., other than as a byproduct to make animal feed.
More recent China AD/CVD actions, however, have had greater strategic economic impact. After the US and EU filed AD/CVD actions against Chinese solar cells and modules in 2011, China retaliated by initiating its own AD/CVD actions against solar-grade polysilicon from the United States, EU and Korea. China’s AD/CVD action effectively closed off the largest export market for US polysilicon producers, and was a significant contributing factor to REC Silicon’s decision to shutter its polysilicon production operations in Washington and Montana.
Even more recently, China in late September announced preliminary AD duties of 33.8% and CVD duties of up to 10.7% against imports of U.S. distillers dried grains (DDGS), an ethanol by-product used as animal feed. The U.S exported $1.6 billion of DDGS to China in 2015.
China apparently already has an AD/CVD action prepared against U.S. soybeans exports to China and is just waiting for the right time to initiate the action. The U.S. is the largest producer and exporter of soybeans and exported over $10 billion of soybeans to China in 2015. If Trump wants to get tough against China, US soybean producers may well become collateral damage in the latest round of the escalating US-China trade war.
- China’s Antitrust Enforcement
Another option for China to respond against any anti-China trade actions from the U.S. would be through the enforcement of its antitrust laws. Although China implemented its anti-monopoly law only in 2008, China has become increasingly active in reviewing mergers and investigating abuse of market dominance. In February 2015, Qualcomm paid $975 million fine to settle Chinese antitrust investigations into its alleged abuse of market dominant position. In 2016, China’s antitrust authorities have targeted pharmaceuticals, medical devices, vehicle manufacturing, ocean shipping, and smart manufacturing as industries of particular concern. U.S. companies operating in these industries should be aware of possible dawn raids of its corporate offices in China and other enforcement action by Chinese antitrust authorities. Because these industries are already prioritized for extra scrutiny, China could ramp up its antitrust enforcement actions as an indirect way to retaliate quickly against Trump’s actions against China.
- China’s Criminal Enforcement
China could also retaliate by simply enforcing its own criminal laws against foreign (i.e., U.S.) company officials while in China. Earlier this month, China detained at least three employees of Crown Resorts, Ltd, an Australian gambling company, and will be pursuing criminal charges because under Chinese law casinos are not allowed to promote gambling in China or organize groups to go to casinos overseas. No one knows where and when the next China anti-corruption effort will occur, but foreign companies doing business in China in important or politically sensitive industries need to be extra cautious. Company officials need to know which way the wind is blowing in China, particularly when Trump’s enflamed trade rhetoric may trigger Chinese backlash.
So far, although Trump has talked a lot about China, China has taken the high road noting that U.S.-China trade relations are “too big to fail”. China appears to be waiting to see if Trump’s actions will in fact harm China. For example, Trump’s decision to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership actually opens the door for China to step in and fill the TPP void by promoting its own regional trade agreement (RCEP – Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership). If, however, Trump does do anything that China considers excessive, it would be naïve to think China will do nothing. Unlike the U.S.-Japan trade wars from the 1980s, China has a home market that is often the biggest export market for US producers. China has many options under its own laws to directly or indirectly retaliate against U.S. interests. Anyone wishing to do business in China or with China should consider these risks that they could be targeted for symbolic retaliation in a spiraling US-China trade war.
CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS
Attached are newsletters teams-newsletter-en-vol-2016-44, teams-newsletter-en-vol-2016-45 teams-newsletter-en-vol-2016-46, from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office.
LUMBER FROM CANADA CASE COMES BACK
On November 25, 2016, the Committee Overseeing Action for Lumber International Trade or Negotiations, the domestic lumber companies, filed an antidumping and countervailing petition against softwood lumber products from China. In the attached notice, factsheet-canada-softwood-lumber-productsad-cvd-initiation-121616, on December 16, 2016, the Commerce Department initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty case on solftwood lumber products from Canada.
THE CANADIAN VIEW
In attached footnoted article, trumpnaftafinal, Dan Kiselbach, a well-known Canadian Trade and Customs lawyer, at Deloitte Tax Law in Vancouver, Canada discusses whether and how Trump can cancel NAFTA.
MEXICAN ANTIDUMPING CASE—CARBON STEEL TUBE FROM KOREA, SPAIN AND UKRAINE.
On December 15, 2016, in the attached notice in Spanish, dof-15-dic-16-resolucion-inicio-investig-antidumping-import-tuberia-de-a, the Mexican Government started up its own antidumping investigation against imports of carbon steel tube from Korea, India, Spain and Ukraine. A large number of US companies have been named as respondent exporters. All the exporters are named in pages 7 to 11 of the notice.
In the attached memorandum, carbon-steel-pipe-and-tube-mexicowhich will be attached in full on my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, David Hurtado Badiola, a well known Mexican Trade and Customs lawyer, at Jauregui y Del Valle, S.C. in Mexico states:
Antidumping investigation on seamless carbon steel pipes, originating in Korea, Spain, India and Ukraine.
Below is a summary of the Initial Antidumping Resolution on seamless carbon steel pipes, produced in Korea, Spain, India and Ukraine, published today on the Federal Official Gazette.
The investigation is initiated today for importations of steel pipes described below, carried out at alleged dumping prices.
The products included in the investigation are seamless carbon steel pipes, with different diameters and thicknesses, classified under the following tariffs are:
|Chapter 73||ARTICLES OF IRON OR STEEL|
Tubes, pipes and hollow profiles, seamless, of iron (other than cast iron) or Steel.
Line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines
|Hot-rolled tubes, uncoated or other surface-worked work, including Hot-drawn or lacquered: of an external diameter not exceeding o equal to 114.3 mm and a wall thickness equal to or exceeding 4 mm without exceeding 19.5 mm|
Hot-rolled tubes, uncoated or other surface-worked work, including Hot-drawn or lacquered: of an external diameter
exceeding 114.3 mm but not exceeding 406.4 mm and having a wall thickness of 6,35 mm or more but not exceeding 38.1 mm .
|Subheading 7304.39||Others, of circular cross-section, of iron or non-alloy steel:
|Tubes known as “thermal” or “conducting” tubes, uncoated or surface-worked, including pipes called thermal or conducting, lacquered or varnished: of an external diameter not exceeding or equal to 114.3 mm and having a wall thickness equal to or greater than 4 mm, not to exceeding 19.5 mm.|
|Tubes known as “thermal” or “conducting” tubes, uncoated or surface-worked, including pipes called thermal or conducting, lacquered or varnished: of an external diameter greater than 114.3 mm not exceeding 406.4 mm and having a wall thickness equal to or greater than 6.35 mm, not to exceeding 38.1 mm.|
There are two different periods covered in an antidumping investigation: (i) the investigated period and (ii) the analyzed period.
The investigated period covers importations from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016.
The analyzed period is a longer period that covers importations from April 1, 2013 to March 31 2016. This period is used to analyze injury caused by imports at dumping prices.
Every exporter that appears and files the information required is entitled to have its own dumping margin calculated.
Those exporters that do not appear or did not export in the investigated period shall be subject to the “all others rate”, equivalent to the highest duty imposed to the exporters of their country.
The term to file information in the official questionnaire and defense arguments expires on February 9, 2017.
If anyone is interested in participating in the case, please let me know and I will put them in touch with Mexican trade counsel.
US AND CHINA MEETING
On December 8, 2016, the Justice Department issued a notice, on the recent high level Joint Dialogue between the United States and China on Cybercrime and Related Issues, which states:
Joint Summary of Outcomes
Yesterday, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, together with Chinese State Councilor and Minister of the Ministry of Public Security Guo Shengkun, co-chaired the third U.S.-China High-Level Joint Dialogue on Cybercrime and Related Issues. The dialogue aims to review the timeliness and quality of responses to requests for information and assistance with respect to cybercrime or other malicious cyber activities and to enhance pragmatic bilateral cooperation with regard to cybercrime, network protection and other related issues.
Both sides endorse the establishment of the dialogue mechanism as beneficial to bilateral communication and enhanced cooperation, and believe that further solidifying, developing and maintaining the dialogue mechanism and continuing to strengthen bilateral cooperation in cybersecurity is beneficial to mutual interests.
The outcomes of the third dialogue are listed as below:
- Combatting Cybercrime and Cyber-Enabled Crime. Both sides re-commit to cooperate on the investigation of cyber crimes and malicious cyber activities emanating from China or the United States and to refrain from cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial To that end, both sides:
- Plan to continue the mechanism of the “Status Report on S./China Cybercrime Cases” to evaluate the effectiveness of case cooperation.
- Affirm that both sides intend to focus cooperation on hacking and cyber-enabled fraud cases, share cybercrime-related leads and information with each other in a timely manner, and determine priority cases for continued law enforcement cooperation. Both sides intend to continue cooperation on cases involving online distribution of child Both sides seek to expand cyber-enabled crime cooperation to counter Darkweb marketplaces’ illicit sale of synthetic drugs and firearms.
- Seek to provide concrete and timely updates on cases brought within the ambit of the
- Exchanged views on existing channels of multilateral cooperation, and intend to continue exchanges regarding this
- Network Both sides acknowledged the network protection seminar held in August 2016 in China, and believe that enhancing network protection is beneficial to both sides. Both sides suggest holding regular network protection working-level meetings, either remotely or in-person, the next of which should be planned for 2017. Both sides seek to promote the protection of our respective networks through multiple methods. To that end, both sides:
- Plan to enhance network hygiene by promoting the cleaning and patching of malware infections in our respective networks and promoting best network protection
- Propose to engage in regular reciprocal sharing of malicious IP addresses, malware samples, analytic products, and other network protection information, and to develop standard operating procedures to guide network protection
- Seek to assess the effectiveness of information shared and provide substantive feedback to each side regarding the utility of that
- Plan to provide Principals with regular summaries of network protection
- Intend to continue discussion on future cooperation concerning cybersecurity of critical infrastructure, and to provide timely assistance on cybersecurity incidents impacting critical
- Intend to hold, as early as possible in 2017, a S.-China government and technology company roundtable to discuss cybersecurity issues of mutual concern.
- Misuse of Technology and Communications to Facilitate Violent Terrorist Activities. Both sides acknowledged the seminar on misuse of technology and communications to facilitate violent acts of terrorism held in November 2016 in China, and decided to continue cooperation on information sharing in countering the use of the Internet for terrorist and other criminal Both sides will consider holding a second seminar in 2017.
- Hotline Both sides welcomed the launch of the U.S.-China Cybercrime and Related Issues Hotline Mechanism, and decided to continue to use the hotline in accordance with the Work Plan. Both sides will conduct routine review of the use of the hotline.
- Dialogue Both sides recommend that the dialogue continue to be held each year, and that the fourth dialogue occur in 2017.
SECTION 337 AND IP CASES
NEW 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA
ARROWHEADS WITH ARCUATE BLADES
On December 2, 2016, in the attached ITC notice, arcuate-arrowheads, Flying Arrow Archery, LLC filed a section 337 patent case against Alice, China; Dongguan hong Song hardware alma iao, China; Huntingsky, China; liu, China; Jianfeng Mao, China; In-Sail Sandum Precision Industry (China) Co., Ltd., China; Arthur Sifuentes, Spring, Texas; Taotao (IT60), China; Wanyuxue, China; Wei Ran, China; YanDong, China; and Zhou Yang, China.
LIQUID CRYSTAL eWRITERS AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
On December 8, 2016, in the attached ITC notice, liquid-crystal, Kent Displays, Inc. filed a section 337 patent case against Shenzhen Howshow Technology Co., Ltd., (d/b/a Shenzhen Howshare Technology co., Ltd., d/b/a Howshare), China; and Shenzhen SUNstone Technology Co., Ltd., (d/b/a iQbe, China).
If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, international taxes, US trade policy, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.