US CHINA TRADE WAR — SECTION 301 NEGOTIATIONS, NOT JUST TRUMP, ASIA SOCIETY REPORT, HUAWEI INDICTMENTS, HONG KONG EXTRADITION, CHINA’S LONG TERM ECONOMIC PROBLEMS, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, QUARTZ SURFACE PRODUCTS

TRADE IS A TWO-WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 20, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR UPDATE – FEBRUARY 21, 2019

Dear Friends,

At the outset of this newsletter, I want to address one complaint.  Some have criticized my blog for being too tough on China.  The objective of this blog post is not to be tough on China, but to describe the actual US China trade relations as it is.  Sounding happy about the US China trade relationship will not solve the problems between the US and China in the trade area.

In reality, the US and China are going through a very tough situation right now with 10 to 25% tariffs on $250 billion in imports from China. The trade problem has risen to a crisis situation.  President Xi in his recent letter to President Trump at the end of January emphasized the importance of this specific time in US China relations.  President Xi is correct.  This is a critical time for US China trade relations but as explained below, it is not just President Donald Trump.  Both the US and China need to settle this trade dispute.

More importantly, to illustrate the actual situation, I quote from actual government documents and news reports, which are attached to this blog. I want readers to understand the actual trade situation between the US and China not because I Bill Perry am describing it that way, but because the US government or credible news reports are describing the actual situation that way.

US China trade problems can only be solved if both the US and Chinese government understand the actual issues.  My job as a US lawyer is to predict the future and warn my clients and the readers of this blog post both in the United States and China about upcoming problems so the problems can be dealt with and hopefully settled.  Like a navigator on a boat my job is to spot the rocks and hazards before the boat hits an unexpected rock and sinks.

With regards to this specific blog post, I wanted to write it after the couple of rounds of talks in Washington DC to give my take on the situation.  From the White House Statement and even the Chinese statement from Xinhua, it is very clear that the key issues discussed in the trade talks are: Forced Technology Transfer, IP Theft and Enforcement of any trade agreement.  Trump and USTR Robert Lighthizer are not going to settle for an agreement with broad meaningless promises from the Chinese government, which are not kept.  The US wants tangible results and promises that can be enforced.

In the February 5th State of the Union speech, one of the few times President Trump received bipartisan applause from both the Republican and Democratic Congressmen and Senators was when he mentioned that he was negotiating a tough trade deal with China.

The most important point to understand is that US China Trade problem is not just Donald Trump.  As stated before, Trump may be the spark, but its China’s changing economic and political policies that are the gunpowder.  This is clearly illustrated by the recent Asia Society Task Force report “Course Correction: Toward An Effective and Sustainable China Policy” by very famous China hands and career diplomats that US China relationship has reached an inflexion/turning point and has to change.

As described more below, the Asia Society report is echoed by a report from John Garnaut of Australia, who says that President Xi Jinping and his clique have decided to move China back to the time of Mao and Stalin.

Another key point is the December 1st arrest of Huawei CEO, Ms. Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of the Huawei founder, in Vancouver, Canada based on an extradition warrant from the United States for bank fraud.  The key point is that the arrest of the Huawei CFO was not a topic of conversation during the first rounds of negotiations.  In the Fourth Round of negotiations in Beijing, the Chinese government suggested a separate round of negotiations solely on the Huawei issue but so far the US has not accepted the offer. I suspect that Trump will be reluctant to intervene.

The ZTE situation was very different from the current Huawei situation.  ZTE was still at the administrative level before the Commerce Department.  In contrast, criminal indictments have been issued in two different Federal Courts, one in Seattle with regards to the T-Mobile theft of intellectual property and the second indictment in the Eastern New York for bank fraud against Ms. Meng.

Criminal indictments against Huawei have raised these issues up to a much higher rule of law issue.  That makes it more difficult for President Trump to intervene.  As President, Trump controls the Executive Branch of the US Government, including the Commerce Department, but President Trump does not directly control the Courts, which is the Judicial Branch of the US Government.

One key point of the Huawei situation is the idea in China that they can apply the Chinese “way” to doing business internationally.  The numerous indictments against Chinese companies and the enforcement of extradition requests, not only in Canada, but also in Hong Kong, indicate that the Chinese way is not going to work internationally.  If Chinese executives can be arrested in Hong Kong, that clearly illustrates the real vulnerability of Chinese corporate officials, who do not follow international rules, especially if the Chinese company is a multinational, such as Huawei.

It is also very clear that China’s economy is still hurting.  Even if China is able to get a trade deal with US, that will not stop the dramatic economic fall in the Chinese economy.  The Chinese government has decided to attack private industry and return to Statism.  That policy is hurting China very badly.

Another issue complicating the negotiations is the recent Government shut down, which has caused the deadlines in all ongoing trade cases to be pushed up 40 days at Commerce and 35 days at the ITC.

My firm is also representing a number of US importers and fabricators in the Quartz Surface Products Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case.  As part of that effort, we are trying to persuade US fabricating companies and importers to fill out the questionnaires from the US International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) so that their voices will be heard.  Have uploaded blank copies of those questionnaires to this blog below.

One big issue in the Quartz decision is the Commerce Department’s critical circumstances determination, which has caused Customs to reach back and try to get cash deposits of millions of dollars in imports prior to the Preliminary Determination.  Such a Customs action could well drive 100s if not 1,000s of US importers when the ITC in all probability will reach a negative critical circumstances determination as it does in close to 90% of the cases. This action raises the question whether the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty laws are truly just remedial statutes.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

  1. If anyone wants to unsubscribe to the newsletter, please let me know and I will remove them from the list.

CORE ISSUE OF THE 301 CASE AGAINST CHINA IS IP THEFT, FORCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, AND ENFORCEMENT

The section 301 case started in the spring of 2018.  The core of the complaint is China’s aggressive campaign to steal intellectual property (“IP”)  from US and other foreign companies.  See attached Full Section 301 Report USTR FULL 301 REPORT CHINA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and Interim Report USTR FULLL 301 Report Update.  See more details below.

In the summer of 2018, the US first imposed 25% tariffs on $15 billion in imports from China.  China retaliated against US exports of agricultural and other products, including Soybeans

The US then in September imposed 25% tariffs on second $35 billion in imports from China in response to China retaliation.  China retaliated again.

US then imposed 10% tariffs on $200 billion in imports from China with a trigger of January 1, 2019 for tariffs to go to 25%.   See the Federal Register notices on my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, for more details.

It should be noted that the tariffs on the first $50 billion in imports is to offset the harm caused to the United States and US companies because of the IP Theft and Forced Technology Transfer.  The tariffs on the $200 billion are in direct response to the Chinese government’s decision to retaliate against the US tariffs.

President Trump’s and USTR Lighthizer’s firm belief is that because of a US trade deficit and a Chinese trade surplus of $350 billion and total Chinese exports of $500 billion plus, the US could weather a trade war much better than China.

China’s response to the Section 301 case was “deny, deny, deny” and that the US was simply trying to contain China.  The Chinese Government’s decision to retaliate and refuse to deal with the US trade complaints led to the US escalation of the trade war to cover $250 billion in imports from China.

The full 301 report started and makes it clear that two key issues are IP Theft and Forced Technology transfer.  The attached 301 Federal Register notice starting the Section 301 case, FED REG PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION 301 CHINA, states:

First, the Chinese government reportedly uses a variety of tools, including opaque and discretionary administrative approval processes, joint venture requirements, foreign equity limitations, procurements, and other mechanisms to regulate or intervene in U.S. companies’ operations in China in order to require or pressure the transfer of technologies and intellectual property to Chinese companies. . . .

Fourth, the investigation will consider whether the Chinese government is conducting or supporting unauthorized intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks or cyber- enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, and whether this conduct harms U.S. companies or provides competitive advantages to Chinese companies or commercial sectors.

Enforcement of any agreement with China is also a big issue. At the beginning of the Section 301 Report, USTR FULL 301 REPORT CHINA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, it lists ten IP Agreements the Chinese government signed with the United States from 2010 to 2016, which the Chinese government has ignored.  The last two agreement are the recent 2016 agreements between President Xi and President Obama to not require the transfer of technology as a precondition of doing business in China and to stop cyberhacking for commercial gain.  According to the USTR, the Chinese government ignored both Agreements.  See page 8 of the USTR 301 report.  All those agreements between the US and China were breached.

See statement by former USTR Charlene Barshefsky below that the Chinese government’s failure to follow the WTO agreements signed in the early 2,000s means that China should actual follow the Agreements or leave the WTO.  The Chinese government has run out of time.

SECTION 301 PROCEDURES

As to the procedures in the Section 301 case, please see my October 1, 2018 blog post for a detailed explanation of the 301 case, three outstanding lists and the issue of product exclusion requests.  The three lists of tariffs cover $250 billion in imports from China.

The deadlines to file an exclusion request for the first $50 billion have past.  Moreover, USTR Lighthizer has stated that there will no exclusion requests for the $200 billion until there is an outcome of the negotiations with the Chinese government.  If the negotiations go well, all or some of the 301 tariffs could be lifted so there will be no need for exclusion requests.  If the duties remain in place, then the USTR will have an exclusion process.

NEGOTIATIONS START AND THE FOURTH ROUND IS PRESENTLY ONGOING IN WASHINGTON DC

Because of the enormous pressure on the Chinese economy, as described more below, in November the Chinese government pushed for a meeting between President Xi and President Trump.  On December 1st, at a meeting in Buenos Aries at G-20, President Xi made a long presentation leading President Trump and USTR Lighthizer to believe that a structural deal could be struck with China regarding IP theft and forced technology transfer.  That discussion resulted in the US postponing the increase in the 10% tariffs on $200 billion until March 1st.

See the attached United States Trade Representative notice setting a hard date of March 2nd for US China Trade Deal, MARCH 2 USTR NOTICE PUBLISHED.  If there is no deal by March 1st, the tariffs on $200 billion in imports automatically could go from 10% to 25%.

But there are conflicting views as to whether the follow up negotiations in four rounds, first with Deputy USTR Jeffry Gerrish in Beijing and then in Washington DC with USTR Lighthizer, followed by additional negotiations in Beijing and the fourth round now in Washington DC indicated a Chinese government’s willingness to actually deal with IP Theft and Forced Technology Transfer issues and make any “structural” agreement truly enforceable.

A real question is what is meant by the word “structural”?  Again, the core issues in the Section 301 deal are IP Theft, Forced Technology Transfer and cyber hacking.  If the US and Chinese governments consider IP Theft and Forced Technology Transfer to be “structural’ issues, it appears that there is no deal yet in these areas.

There are reports in the Press that trying to persuade the Chinese government to compromise on the structural issues has been like “pulling teeth”.  But if the Chinese government were not willing to compromise on IP Theft and Forced Technology Transfer, in all probability the negotiations would have already ended.

On January 31, 2019, however, after the second round of negotiations in Washington DC, The White House issued the attached statement, WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, as follows:

“The talks covered a wide range of issues, including: (1) the ways in which United States companies are pressured to transfer technology to Chinese companies; (2) the need for stronger protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China; (3) the numerous tariff and non-tariff barriers faced by United States companies in China; (4) the harm resulting from China’s cyber-theft of United States commercial property; (5) how market-distorting forces, including subsidies and state-owned enterprises, can lead to excess capacity; (6) the need to remove market barriers and tariffs that limit United States sales of manufactured goods, services, and agriculture to China; and (7) the role of currencies in the United States–China trading relationship. The two sides also discussed the need to reduce the enormous and growing trade deficit that the United States has with China. The purchase of United States products by China from our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and businesses is a critical part of the negotiations.

The two sides showed a helpful willingness to engage on all major issues, and the negotiating sessions featured productive and technical discussions on how to resolve our differences. The United States is particularly focused on reaching meaningful commitments on structural issues and deficit reduction. Both parties have agreed that any resolution will be fully enforceable.”

This White House Statement indicates that the structural issues of IP Theft, Forced Technology Transfer and enforcement were indeed the subject of the first two negotiation rounds.

At the same time in late January, the Chinese Government’s mouthpiece, Xinhua, stated in the attached article, XINHUA STATEMENT TRADE TALKS, as follows regarding the Washington DC negotiations:

“Liu, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chief of the Chinese side of the China-U.S. comprehensive economic dialogue, led the Chinese delegation for the two-day trade talks that concluded on Thursday in Washington.

Liu delivered a message from Chinese President Xi Jinping to Trump, in which Xi pointed out that China-U.S. relations are at a critical stage.

Xi said when he and Trump met in Argentina last December, the two heads of state agreed to jointly advance the China-U.S. relationship featuring coordination, cooperation and stability.

“According to the consensus we have reached, economic teams from both sides have since conducted intensive negotiations and achieved positive progress,” said Xi. . . .

On the China-U.S. trade talks, the Chinese vice premier said that teams from both sides have spared no time in implementing the important consensus between the two heads of state.

He noted that during the latest round of talks, the two sides held candid, specific and constructive discussions about issues of common concern, which included trade balance, technology transfer, protection of intellectual property rights and a two-way enforcement mechanism, as well as other issues of concern to the Chinese side.”

Note that the Chinese side has acknowledged the importance of the IP theft, Forced Technology Transfer and enforcement issues.  Note also that at the meeting in the Second Round between Trump and Liu He at the White House at the end of January, USTR Lighthizer stated that the name of the game is “enforcement, enforcement, enforcement”, which would counter the original Chinese Government strategy of “deny, deny, deny”.

After the third round of negotiations in Beijing, there were newspaper accounts that it was like “pulling teeth” to get the Chinese government to give in on structural issues, including Forced Technology Transfer.  But there was also an agreement that any deal would come forth in a Memorandum of Understanding and that there would be a framework agreement between China and the US.  The big stumbling block seems to be Forced Technology Transfer.

Most experts, including Senator Rob Portman, expect there to be an interim agreement of Understanding by March 1st, which would allow Trump to state that the duties at least will not be raised to 25% as a more comprehensive agreement is further negotiated.

Trump has stated several times that the March 1st deadline could slide depending upon the negotiations and that a face to face, Trump/Xi meeting could happen soon.  In talking to many trade experts, the universal belief is that the US government will punt.  Have a short Memorandum of Understanding as the negotiations continue.

Some Chinese and other commentators believe that Trump will back down in the Xi and Trump meeting.  I do not think so.  Trump cannot back down on the IP issues, which are the core of the 301 case.

OTHER COUNTRIES AGREE WITH TRUMP ON US CHINA TRADE DISPUTE

Although the Chinese government and observers may think that the trade war is only coming from Trump and the United States, many other countries have jumped on US band wagon with regards to IP Theft and Forced Technology Transfer by China.  The countries include EC, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and many other countries, because China has stolen their IP too.

Through its Made in China Program the Chinese government has focused on acquiring foreign technology/intellectual property by any means necessary from many different countries, not just the United States.

.        The technology for high speed trains was stolen from Germany and Japan.

.        Semiconductor technology was stolen from Australia and the US.

In fact, the systematic attacks on their IP have caused many companies to look at moving production out of China to other countries.

As described below, there have been aggressive attacks on US and foreign intellectual property by such companies as Huawei, which has bonus programs for employees to encourage theft of IP

In the United States, these aggressive attacks on IP have led to a new China initiative at the Justice Department and criminal prosecutions of Chinese companies and Chinese nationals for the theft of intellectual property.  These Justice Department criminal cases have led to the extradition of various Chinese nationals to face prison time in the United States.

Some commentators have suggested that the US dropped the ball by not going the WTO Route.  The USTR issued the attached report in February 2019, USTR REPORT WTO CHINA, stating, in effect, that using the WTO to deal with China has not worked.

Moreover, there were never multilateral negotiations with China, i.e. China at a one table with a number of different countries.  In fact, we are seeing a similar process to the WTO Agreement with China, which started first with the bilateral negotiations and the US China WTO Agreement.  That US WTO Agreement was followed up with agreements between China and many other countries.  In other words, any US China 301 Agreement will probably be a blueprint for future bilateral negotiations and result in similar bilateral agreements negotiated between China and other countries to stop international IP theft and forced technology transfer.

BEING TOUGH ON CHINA IS A BIPARTISAN REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT ISSUE

Contrary to many commentators in China and elsewhere, the tough position against China in these trade negotiations is not just President Donald Trump.  The Chinese government should not expect a change in the tough US position on China trade policy if there is a change in US government. US China Trade Policy is not just a Republican issue.  It is bipartisan issue.  Traditionally, the Democratic party is much more protectionist than the Republican party, because the Democratic party is supported by the labor unions.

In the 2019 State of Union, President Trump spoke of a need for a strong US trade response against China and a strong structural trade agreement with China because of decades of IP theft.  This point provoked a bipartisan standing ovation from Republicans and Democrats.  Democrats hate Trump, but they agree completely on a tough response to China.  See the following video of the State of the Union at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSy9NcPRSGs.

Cyber hacking is another example where the Chinese government made an agreement with the United States and President Obama and then proceeded to ignore it, break the agreement and continue aggressive cyber hacking to steal US IP.  In fact, many trade experts believe that the Chinese government believed that President Obama could be played.

Based on quotes from numerous sources, the Chinese government has succeeded in uniting both ends of the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans, against China.  This trade situation is not going to change any time soon no matter what party is in power.

THE ASIA SOCIETY REPORT ON CHINA SUPPORTS THE BIPARTISAN TOUGH US TRADE POLICY AGAINST CHINA

Many Chinese and US commentators may believe that the trade fight with China is just Trump.  That simply is not true.

In February 2019, the Asia Society published the attached report entitled “Course Correction: Toward An Effective and Sustainable China Policy”, ASIA SOCIETY REPORT COURSE CORRECTION. The authors of the report are some of the most famous “China” hands in the United States, including Orville Schell, who has written dozens of books on China, former USTR Charlene Barshefsky, who negotiated the US China WTO Agreement, and Winston Lord, the Ambassador to China under Ronald Reagan and later the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia under President Bill Clinton.  These are “old friends” of China.

Many of the members of the Task Force writing the Report speak fluent Chinese and have held very high positions in the US government dealing with China in Democratic and Republican Administrations.  These experts believe that the United States and China are at a true “inflexion”/turning point.  When “old China friends” are stating that the Chinese government needs to beware, it should be careful of the situation.

The report is very, very tough against China stating in part:

“The United States and China are on a collision course. The foundations of goodwill that took decades to build are rapidly breaking down. Many American opinion makers are starting to see China as a rising power seeking to unfairly undercut America’s economic prosperity, threaten its security, and challenge its values, while their Chinese counterparts are starting to see the United States as a declining power seeking to prolong its dominance by unfairly containing China’s rise. Beijing’s recent policies under Xi Jinping’s leadership are primarily driving this negative dynamic, so the Trump administration is right to counter those Chinese actions that defy norms  of fair economic competition, abrogate international law, and violate fundamental principles of reciprocity. The Trump administration is justified in pushing back harder against China’s actions, but pushback alone isn’t a strategy. It must be accompanied by the articulation of specific goals and how they can be achieved. . . .

The Report goes on to criticize the Trump policy of using tariffs to get China’s attention, but then says:

As the Trump administration stands up to China, it must also clearly express a willingness to pursue negotiated solutions by spelling out specific steps that could restore equity and stability to the relationship. Otherwise, the United States risks an irreparable, and possibly avoidable, rupture in this crucially important bilateral relationship. To avoid such a breakdown, the United States and China should seek negotiated solutions to priority issues whenever possible and erect prudent guardrails—including the appointment of specially designated officials—to keep the relationship from running further off the tracks. An adversarial United States-China relationship is in no one’s interest. More responsible statecraft is required both to protect American interests and to increase the chances of avoiding that no-win outcome.

At the same time, China’s increasingly unfair business practices have generated growing international criticism, especially from the very businesspeople who have traditionally been most enthusiastic in their support   of engagement with China. One of their most serious concerns is the way Beijing has ramped up its massive state drive to dominate the technologies of the future, both at home and abroad. This has included not just legitimate forms of Chinese innovation and investment, but also the acquisition of foreign technology through illegitimate means such as cyber theft, intellectual property violation, and forced technology transfer. As market reforms stalled or were reversed and the Chinese state’s role in the economy has grown, it has become increasingly clear that China is no longer converging with global norms of fair market competition but is in fact steadily diverging from them.

Xi Jinping’s revival of personalistic autocratic rule, including the scrapping of presidential term limits and his refusal to adhere to precedent for the peaceful turnover of political power for top leadership positions, makes China a less predictable and trustworthy partner and accentuates the political and values system gap that makes finding common ground more difficult. The Chinese Communist Party has tightened its control over information and society. It enforces ideological orthodoxy, demands political loyalty, and screens out foreign ideas, particularly in education and the media. Moreover, by arresting rights lawyers, incarcerating and indoctrinating Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region, and repressing independent Christian congregations throughout the country, the regime has attracted increased international opprobrium as a human rights violator and set itself more explicitly in opposition to liberal values. . . .

This new dynamic that emanates from Beijing has precipitated a deep questioning—even among those of us who have spent our professional careers seeking productive and stable U.S.-China ties—about the long-term prospects of the bilateral relationship. We view this current period as unprecedented in the past forty years of U.S.-China relations. In the past, good sense usually prevailed and American and Chinese policymakers and scholars always managed to overcome severe bilateral strains triggered by specific incidents. We saw such a recovery even after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, as well as after the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait crisis, the 1999 accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and the 2001 collision between a U.S. surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter jet. By contrast, the current downturn in relations is deeper and more systemic in scope. What is more, it is occurring at a time when the U.S. and China’s economic and military capabilities have become more evenly matched, making the dangers of overt conflict far greater. . . .

Unfortunately, by the midpoint of the Trump administration’s first term, the negative trends in Chinese behavior that were highlighted in our earlier report have only grown more pronounced and worrisome. If the three most harmful trends identified below are now to be effectively addressed, a more robust and proactive U.S. policy toward China is required.

(1)           China’s pursuit of a mercantilist high-tech import-substitution industrial policy

 The Chinese state ramped up its clearly scripted and lavishly funded strategy to dominate the technologies of the future, not just through its own innovation but also by acquiring foreign technology by inappropriate means. This is not a standard industrial policy in which the government merely enables or channels spontaneous market activity. Instead, the policy aims to help Chinese firms control targeted sectors of technology markets both at home and abroad, dominate a wide range of cutting-edge industries deemed “strategic,” and put systemic limits on the operation of foreign competitors in its own domestic markets. As a result of this strategy, many foreign firms are pressured to transfer technology in order to conduct business in China, while others become victims of cyber theft by Chinese state actors. Despite decades of reform, discriminatory treatment of foreign firms is still deeply embedded in the Chinese system of bureaucratic protectionism.

As a result of intensified state control, the Chinese economy is diverging from global market norms. While rhetorically China’s leaders espouse an open global economic order, domestically the party-state is now dominating the economy more than it has at any time since the Mao era. Market reforms and the opening of the country to imports and inbound investment have stalled. At the same time, China’s government funds outbound investments by private as well as state firms to bring home technology and know-how in areas like robotics, chip fabrication, artificial intelligence, aerospace, ocean engineering, advanced railway equipment, new energy vehicles, power equipment, agricultural machinery, new materials, and biomedicine and medical devices. The goals of China’s industrial policy as expressed in the government’s major plans, such as “Made in China 2025” and “Civil-Military Integration,” are not just to help China achieve high-tech import substitution and dominate global markets in tech sectors, but also to enhance the country’s military power.

Beijing’s approach is forcing the United States and other advanced industrial countries to reassess their open and market-based commercial relationships with China in order to discipline mercantilist and zero-sum Chinese practices, preserve their own economic competitiveness, and protect their defense industrial bases. . . .

3.     China’s hardening authoritarianism

Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China has been reversing what had been a slow and sometimes halting process of social and political liberalization by turning back toward more authoritarian forms of political control. For three decades after Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, China’s party-state gradually lessened its ideological controls on social and economic life. This progress created domestic support in both countries for U.S.-China cooperation. By making a U-turn back to personalistic dictatorship, Leninist party rule, and enforced ideological conformity, Xi has created new obstacles to engagement with the United States and other liberal democracies around the world, while also erecting barriers to Chinese interactions with foreign civil society institutions such as universities, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). . . .

More specifically, with regards to trade, as former USTR Charlene Barshefsky states in the following presentations on the Report, if China will not follow the WTO Trade rules, it should leave the WTO.  See https://asiasociety.org/video/chinas-decisive-turn-toward-statism and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT01OGl7uG0.

HUAWEI IN A WORLD OF HURT FACING TWO MAJOR CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS IN TWO FEDERAL COURTS, WHICH COULD GROW TO THREE

As stated above, Huawei was not the topic of the January negotiations in Washington DC.  In the most recent negotiations in Beijing, the Chinese government proposed a separate negotiations track on Huawei, but to date the US government has not accepted

In fact, on January 28, 2019, the day before the negotiations began in Washington DC, the Justice Department issued two attached indictments against Huawei.  The first attached bank fraud indictment, ACTUAL HUAWEI IRAN INDICTMENT, was filed in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of New York and is entitled United States of America Vs Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Skycom Tech Co., Ltd., Wanzhou Meng, also known as Cathy Meng and Sabrina Meng and a number of unknown defendants.

The indictment was filed in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of New York and provides detailed allegations against Huawei, Huawei USA,  Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei CFO and daughter of the owner, and several unnamed co-defendants alleging evasion of Iran sanctions, bank fraud, and  obstruction of justice.

One commentator in Hong Kong stated in an article, that ultimately this first indictment means that Huawei will pay a fine.  No, that is not the point.  Ms. Meng faces years in prison—real jail time.

The second attached indictment, DOJ TRADE SECRETS INDICTMENT HUAWEI, against Huawei took place here in Seattle when Huawei stole key robot technology from T-Mobile.  One of the most important parts of the T-Mobile indictment, which will have a direct impact on the US China 301 negotiations, is that Huawei has in place a bonus program to reward employees who steal foreign intellectual property.

The indictment states:

  1. On July 10, 2013, at the same time that HUAWEI CHINA and HUAWEI USA were falsely claiming that the conduct of A.X. and F.W. was “isolated,” constituted a “moment of indiscretion,” and was contrary to Huawei’ s corporate polices, HUAWEI CHINA launched a formal policy instituting a bonus program to reward employees who stole confidential information from competitors. Under the policy, HUAWEI CHINA established a formal schedule for rewarding employees for stealing information from competitors based upon the confidential value of the information obtained. Employees were directed to post confidential information obtained from other companies on an internal Huawei website, or, in the case of especially sensitive information, to send an encrypted email to a special email mailbox. A “competition management group” was tasked with reviewing the submissions and awarding monthly bonuses to the employees who provided the most valuable stolen information. Biannual awards also were made available to the top three regions that provided the most valuable information. The policy emphasized that no employees would be punished for taking actions in accordance with the policy.
  2. The launch of this HUAWEI CHINA bonus program policy created a problem for HUAWEI USA because it was in the midst of trying to convince T-Mobile that the conduct in the laboratory was the product of rogue employees who acted on their own and contrary to Huawei’s policies. As a result, on July 12, 2013, the HUAWEI USA Executive Director of Human Resources sent an email to all HUAWEI USA employees addressing the bonus program. The email described the bonus program as: “[I]ndicat[ing] that you are being encouraged and could possibly earn a monetary award for collecting confidential information regarding our competitors and sending it back to [HUAWEI CHINA].” The email went on to say: “[H]ere in the U.S.A. we do not condone nor engage in such activities and such a behavior is expressly prohibited by [HUAWEI USA’s] company policies.” The email did not state that the bonus program had been suspended by HUAWEI CHINA. Rather, the email emphasized that “in some foreign countries and regions such a directive and award program may be normal and within the usual course of business in that region.”

The indictments against Huawei are extremely serious, and I would be very surprised if Trump would agree to introduce Huawei into the trade negotiations.

Ms. Meng finds herself—immersed in a criminal action exposing her to 30 years in prison for bank fraud.  Although Ms. Meng received bail and is staying at her Vancouver house, she is due back in Canadian Court in February.  And there is probably a good chance that Ms. Meng will be extradited to the United States, where she will face even tougher problems.

There is also a potential third indictment against Huawei for theft of a US intellectual property for diamond glass used for mobile screens.  Huawei apparently stole the technology, and now the FBI is investigating the situation.  See attached article from Bloomberg entitled “Huawei Sting Offers Rare Glimpse of the U.S. Targeting a Chinese Giant”, HUAWEI GOES AFTER MORE TECHNOLOGY

THE PROBLEM WITH THE CHINESE WAY AND EXTRADITION REQUESTS ARE ENFORCEABLE IN HONG KONG

As stated in the past blog post, the Chinese government’s decision not to have any agreement with the United States or other countries with regards to the enforcement of judgments or extradition warrants also gives Chinese individuals a false sense of security.  Many Chinese individuals feel they are immune to laws in other countries and can break them with impunity and they can apply the “Chinese way” of playing games in international and commercial transactions in many countries.

Chinese companies, however, are now international operations.  As soon as the Chinese individual takes a step out of China, however, he or she can be arrested.  You can run, but eventually you cannot hide from US and other foreign extradition warrants and judgments.

The attached January 14th article in the South China Morning Post entitled “A Chinese math prodigy turned hedge fund coder and the stolen strategies that cost him his freedom”, ARREST CHINESE NATIONAL IN HONG KONG, described a Chinese graduate from Hubei , who stole” intellectual property from a UK company.  The article described the situation where a Chinese national in Hong Kong had fled the United Kingdom (“UK”) after stealing intellectual property from a UK company.  The Chinese individual was arrested in Hong Kong on a UK extradition warrant.  If a Chinese national can be arrested in Hong Kong on an extradition warrant from the UK, can US criminal extradition warrants be enforced in Hong Kong?

LONG TERM PROBLEMS AND IMPACT ON CHINESE ECONOMY

On January 31, 2019, during the US China negotiations, Premier Liu delivered a letter from Chinese President Xi Jinping to President Trump, in which Xi pointed out that China-U.S. relations are at a critical stage.  This is absolutely true.  This is a crucial point in history not only for relations between the US and the rest of the Western/Democratic countries but for China itself because it is facing a steep economic decline. 

As a result of the US Trade War and more importantly the Chinese government’s decision to strongly favor state run companies and aggressively attack the Chinese private industry, there is a real decline in the Chinese economy.  Major Chinese economists in and out of China are predicting a potential recession in China in the next year.

See below statements from Nicholas Lardy and Professor Xiang Songzuo. If the subsequent statement by John Garnaut’s on Xi’s ideology being similar to Stalin is correct, however, these changing economic and political policies will not end any time soon.

There has been enormous changes in the political and economic thinking in China in the last two to three years.  The first historical political and economic change in China began with the end of the Cultural Revolution, the Death of Mao Tse Tung and the rise of Deng Xiaoping.  Deng Xiaoping believed in term limits, decentralization of economic power and the move to a market economy.  This was a major change in the economic and political philosophy in China.

One of Deng’s most famous says is it does not matter whether the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice.  As indicated below, however, that is not the philosophy of President Xi Jinping.

The perception of the United States and many countries was that China was moving to a more open Democratic society with a strong market economy and that reform would press forward.  This transition would take substantial time, but China was moving in the right direction.

With the decision of Xi Jinping to become leader for life in China, like Mao Tse Tung, however, the situation in China has changed dramatically and the perception of China by the United States and many other countries has changed.

Recently, within the last two years, the Chinese government has started an attack on private industry in China.  State-owned companies can get loans and many advantages and have become more powerful in China.  In bad economic times, such as the present, private companies cannot get the loans to stay alive.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government has cracked down on private industry making it more difficult to operate in China in the form of substantial regulatory and tax pressure on private industry.  Private companies face very high taxes, which on entrepreneurs are as high as 60%.

The real threat to President Xi’s economic decision, however, is that 80% of employment in China is in the private industry, which has been the engine of most of the change.

Chinese experts in and out of China have warned the Chinese government that the Chinese economy is in a very perilous situation.  See statements of Nicholas Lardy and Professor Xiong in Beijing below.

The three pillars that have held the Chinese economy up in the past are gone—exports (China the factory of the World), infrastructure and real estate spending (debt is enormous).

The only one left is increased consumption by Chinese consumers.  But that is not appearing.  Too many average Chinese are feeling future bad economic times.  In bad economic times, the average Chinese does not spend.  He or she saves.

NICHOLAS LARDY — US EXPERT ON THE CHINESE ECONOMY

In January 2019, Nicholas Lardy, a US expert, who has been studying the Chinese economy for decades, through the Paulson Institute, published a new book entitled “The State Strikes Back The End of Economic Reform in China”.  Some of the important quotes from that book are as follows:

“Since 2012, however, this picture of private, market-driven growth has given way to a resurgence of the role of the state in resource allocation and a shrinking role for the market and private firms. Increasingly ambitious state industrial policies carried out by bureaucrats and party officials have been directing investment decisions, most notably in the program proclaimed by President Xi Jinping known as “Made in China 2025.”  . . .

“This book mobilizes a wealth of data to evaluate this resurgence in the role of the state, applying an analysis of China’s medium-term growth potential and the implications of this growth for the global economy. Its core conclusion is that absent significant further economic reform returning China to a path of allowing market forces to allocate resources, China’s growth is likely to slow, casting a shadow over its future prospects. Of major importance for the rest of the world newly dependent on China’s economic ups and downs, the goal of reducing financial risks, which have accumulated in the years since the global financial crisis”. . . .

The fundamental obstacle to implementing far-reaching economic reforms in China is the top leadership’s view that, while state-owned firms may be a drag on China’s economic growth, they are essential to maintaining the position and control of the Chinese Communist Party and achieving the party’s strategic objectives (Economy 2018, 15–16). These strategic objectives are outlined in the Made in China 2025 program and other industrial policies and include achieving domestic dominance and global leadership in a range of advanced technologies. Other strategic objectives are international, notably the Belt and Road Initiative, where state-owned construction companies such as the China State Construction Engineering Corporation Limited are major contractors for building roads, rail lines, power plants, ports, and other infrastructure in countries participating in the initiative.”

State Strikes Back at pp 46, 47, 49 and 507-508 (2019).

XIANG SONGZUO-CHINESE EXPERT ON THE CHINESE ECONOMY

As mentioned in a previous newsletter, on December 21, 2018 the Epoch Times in an article entitled “China May Be Experiencing Negative GDP Growth” reported on a December 2018 speech by Xiang Songzuo, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for International Monetary Research at China’s Renmin University, who reportedly has stated that the Chinese stock market is looking like the US stock market in 1929 just before the Great Depression.  The article goes on to state:

Xiang challenged the figure given by the National Bureau of Statistics, which claims that China’s rate of GDP growth is at 6.5 percent. According to some researches, Xiang said, the real growth rate could be just 1.67 percent, while more dismal estimates say that China’s economy is actually shrinking.

In his speech, Xiang said that the Chinese regime leadership had made major miscalculations, especially in terms of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) stance in the Sino-U.S. trade war. He criticized propaganda slogans aired by Party- controlled mass media, such as “The Americans are lifting rocks only to have them smash on their own feet,” “China’s victory is assured,” or “China will stand and fight” as being overly confident and ignorant of the real difficulty that the country faces.

Beyond the CCP’s stubborn attitude towards U.S. demands, a second cause for the recent downturn in the Chinese economy was the severe hit to private enterprises this year, Xiang said. Private investment and investments into private enterprises have slowed sharply, severely impacting confidence among entrepreneurs.

Various official statements implying the eventual elimination of private business and property have reduced private sector confidence. This includes the idea, put forward by some Party-backed scholars, that the market economy has already fulfilled its role and should retreat in favor of planned, worker-owned economics.

Xiang said: “This kind of high-profile study of Marx and high-profile study of the Communist Manifesto, what was that line in the Communist Manifesto? The elimination of private ownership—what kind of signal do you think this sends to entrepreneurs?” . . ..

Xiang said that a huge challenge for China is the Sino-U.S. trade war. He believes that it is no longer a trade war, but a serious conflict between the Chinese and American systems of values. The China-U.S. relationship is at a crossroads, he said, and so far there has been no solution found to resolve their differences. . . .

The core challenge facing private enterprises is not financing difficulty, though there are problems in this area, Xiang said. The fundamental problem is fear of unstable government policy.

“The leaders in the State Council said it clearly in the meeting of the Standing Committee: in China, the government is what can be least trusted. Therefore, in order to solve the debt problem, first, the debts that the government owes businesses need to be resolved, followed by the problem of state-owned enterprises owing private enterprises, and then that of large private enterprises owing smaller ones,” he said.

Mr. Xiang’s speech dovetails with what I have heard from friends who recently returned from China.  Their friends in China have told them that management in China companies has been telling its workers to be prepared to “chi ku” eat bitter, for the next ten years because of the poor economy and save their money.  Saving money in China does not result in increased consumption.

AUSTRALIAN EXPERT, JOHN GARNAUT, THE MAJOR PROBLEM IS THAT XI FOLLOWS STALIN AND MAO IDEOLOGY AND THAT WILL IMPACT THE LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHINA AND THE US AND OTHER WESTERN/DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES FOR YEARS TO COME

On January 17th, Bill Bishop, a China expert in the US, under the brand Sinocism, released a long speech by John Garnaut, one of the top journalists covering China before joining the Australian Government.  The blog post, Engineers of the Soul: Ideology in Xi Jinping’s China is long.  But if the analysis is correct, it illustrates in detail why over many years so long as Xi and others like him with this ideology are in power, the US, Australia, EC and the Western and other Democratic countries will oppose China.  The article below is extensive, but it is very enlightening.  See the entire article by clicking on the link above.  This is the political reason for the Western/Democratic problems with China now:

“Regular Sinocism readers are no doubt familiar with John Garnaut, one of the top journalists covering China before he joined the Australian government, first as a speech writer for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then as a China policy advisor. John led the Australian government’s analysis of and response to PRC/CCP interference and influence efforts in the country, and his work has since had significant influence in other Western capitals.

John is now out of government and has allowed me to share with you a speech he gave at an internal Australian government seminar in August 2017. . . .

I knew John a little in Beijing and besides having tremendous respect for his work, and especially his access to Princelings at a level I am not sure any other foreign correspondent has ever had, I always found him to be a reasoned and thoughtful chronicler of the PRC.

Some now say he has become a China hawk, but I see it as more the evolution of a sophisticated China watcher who believes in seeking truth from facts, no matter how difficult it may be to accept the reality of the direction Xi and the CCP appear to be taking China. This is a trajectory I have found myself on, along with many of the most experienced foreign China watchers I know.

I wish I could say I find John’s arguments unconvincing, but in fact they only seem more accurate now, over a year after the 19th Party Congress, than they did when he gave this talk in 2017.

On to John’s thought-provoking talk:

Asian Strategic and Economic Seminar Series

Engineers of the Soul: what Australia needs to know about ideology in Xi Jinping’s China

As some of you know I’ve just spent the past eight months as a model public servant on my very best behavior: biding time, concealing opinions and strictly respecting the bureaucratic order.

Now I get to go unplugged.  . . .

But in the meantime I’m here as someone who was born into the economics tribe and has been forced to gradually concede ground to the security camp. This retreat has taken place over the course of a decade, one story at a time, as I’ve had to accept that economic openness does not inevitably lead to political openness. Not when you have a political regime that is both capable and committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen.

Politics isn’t everything but there’s no country on earth where it is more omnipresent, with the exception of North Korea. And there is no political system that is as tightly bound to ideology.

In the work I was doing upstairs in this building I went out of my way to remove ideology from my analysis of how China is impacting on Australia and our region. It was simply too alien and too difficult to digest. In order to make sense to time-poor leaders it was easier to “normalise” events, actions and concepts by framing them in more familiar terms.

This approach of “normalising” China also served to sidestep painful normative debates about what China is, where it is going and what it wants. It was a way of avoiding a food fight about who is pro-or-anti China. Taking the “Communist Party” out of “China” was a way of de-activating the autoimmune response that can otherwise kill productive conversation.

This pragmatism has worked pretty well. We’ve taken the China conversation to a new level of sophistication over the past year or so.

But by stripping out ideology we are giving up on building a framework which has explanatory and predictive value.

At some point, given the reach that China has into Australia, we will have to make a serious attempt to read the ideological road map that frames the language, perceptions and decisions of Chinese leaders. If we are ever going to map the Communist Party genome then we need to read the ideological DNA.

So today I’m stepping into the food fight.

I want to make these broad points about the historical foundations of CCP ideology, beyond the fact that it is important: 

  1. Communism did not enjoy an immaculate conception in China. Rather, it was grafted onto an existing ideological system – the classical Chinese dynastic system.
  2. China had an unusual veneration for the written wordand acceptance of its didactic value.
  3. Marxism-Leninism was interpreted to Mao and his fellow revolutionaries by a crucial intermediary: Joseph Stalin.
  4. Communism – as interpreted by Lenin, Stalin and Mao – is a total ideology. At the risk of being politically insensitive, it is totalitarian.
  5. Xi Jinpinghas reinvigorated ideology to an extent we have not seen since the Cultural Revolution.  . . .

 A Dynastic Cosmology

It was clear from my work as a journalist and writer in New China – to use the party speak – that the formal ideology of communism coexists with an unofficial ideology of old China. The Founding Fathers of the PRC came to power on a promise to repudiate and destroy everything about the dark imperial past, but they never really changed the mental wallpaper.  . . .

So this is my first observation about ideology – ideology in the broadest sense, as a coherent system of ideas and ideals: the founding families of the PRC are steeped in the Dynastic System.

Admittedly, communism and feudal imperialism are uneasy bedfellows. But they are not irreconcilable. The formula for dynastic communism was perfected by Chen Yun: their children had to inherit power not because of privilege but because they could be counted upon to be loyal to the revolutionary cause. Or, as he put it: “at least our children will not dig up our graves”.

Xi Jinping has exercised an unwritten aristocratic claim to power which derives from his father’s proximity to the founder of the Red Dynasty: Chairman Mao. He is the compromise representative of all the great founding families. This is the starting point for understanding the worldview of Xi Jinping and his Princeling cohort.

In the view of China’s princelings – or “Revolutionary Successors”, as they prefer to be known – China is still trapped in the cycle which had created and destroyed every dynasty that had gone before. In this tradition, when you lose political power you don’t just lost your job (while keeping your super) as you might in our rather gentrified arrangement. You lose your wealth, you lose your freedom, you probably lose your life and possibly your entire extended family. You are literally erased from history. Winners take all and losers lose everything.

With these stakes, the English idiom “life-and-death-struggle” is far too passive. In the Chinese formulation it is “You-Die, I-Live”. I must kill preemptively in order to live. Xi and his comrades in the red dynasty believe they will go the same way as the Manchus and the Mings the moment they forget.

China’s veneration of the written word

A second point, related to the first, is that China has an extraordinary veneration of the written word. Stories, histories and teachers have great moral authority.  . . . What is more certain is that China was particularly receptive to Soviet ideology because Chinese intellectuals found meaning in Russian literature and texts earlier and more readily than they did with other Western sources. “Russian literature was our guide (daoshi) and friend,” said Lu Xun.

In classical Chinese statecraft there are two tools for gaining and maintaining control over “the mountains and the rivers”: The first is wu (weapons, violence – 武) and the second is wen (language, culture – 文).

Chinese leaders have always believed that power derives from controlling both the physical battlefield and the cultural domain. You can’t sustain physical power without discursive power. Wu and wen go hand-in-hand.

The key to understanding the allure of the Soviet Commintern in Shanghai and Guangzhou in the 1920s is that their (admittedly brilliant) agents told a compelling story. They came with money, guns and organizational technology but their greatest selling point was a narrative which promised a linear escape from the dynastic cycle. . . .

Mao’s discursive advantage was Marxist-Leninist ideology. Language was not just a tool of moral judgment. It was an instrument for shaping acceptable behavior and a weapon for distinguishing enemies and friends. This is the subtext of Mao’s most famous poem, Snow. Communist ideology enabled him to “weaponise” culture in a way his imperial predecessors had never managed.

And it’s important to remember who was the leader of the Communist world during the entire quarter of a century in which Mao rose to absolute power.

The “Great Genius” Comrade Stalin. 

Mao knew Marxist Leninist dogma was absolutely crucial to his enterprise but he personally lacked the patience to wade through it. He found a shortcut to ideological proficiency with Joseph Stalin’s Short Course on the History of the Bolsheviks, published at the end of Stalin’s Great Terror, in 1938.  According to Li Rui, when interviewed by historian Li Huayu, Mao thought he’d found an “encyclopaedia of Marxism” and “acted as if he’d discovered a treasure”.

At the time of Stalin’s death, in March 1953, The Short Course on the History of the Bolsheviks had become the third-most printed book in human history. After Stalin’s death – when Stalin was eulogised as “the Great Genius” on the front page of the People’s Daily – the Chinese printers redoubled their efforts. It became the closest thing in China to a religious text.

The Short Course is hard reading but it offers us the same shortcut to understanding Communist ideology as it did for Mao.

Stalin’s problem was different to Lenin’s. Lenin had to win a revolution but Stalin had to sustain it. . . .

Stalin’s Short Course is a manual for perpetual struggle against a roll call of imagined dastardly enemies who are collaborating with imagined Western agents to restore bourgeois capitalism and liberalism. It is written as a chronicle of victories by Lenin and then Stalin’s “correct line” over an endless succession of ideological villains. It is perhaps instructive that many of the most “vile” internal enemies were said to have cloaked their subversive intentions in the guise of “reform”. . . .

The most original insight in Stalin’s Short Course on the History of the Bolsheviks is that the path to socialist utopia will always be obstructed by enemies who want to restore bourgeois capitalism from inside the party. These internal enemies grow more desperate and more dangerous as they grow increasingly imperilled – and as they collaborate with the spies and agents of Western liberalism.

The most important lines in the book:

  • “As the revolution deepens, class struggle intensifies.”
  • “The Party becomes strong by purging itself.”

You can imagine how this formulation was revelatory to a ruthless Chinese leader like Mao who had mastered the “You Die, I Live” world into which he had been born – a world in which you choose to either kill or be killed – and who was obsessed with how to prevent the decay which had destroyed every imperial dynasty before.

What Stalin offered Mao was not only a manual for purging his peers but also an explanation of why it was necessary. Purging his rivals was the only way a vanguard party could “purify” itself, remain true to its revolutionary nature and prevent a capitalist restoration.

Purging was the mechanism for the Chinese Communist Party to achieve ever greater “unity” with revolutionary “truth” as interpreted by Mao. It is the mechanism for preventing the process of corruption and putrefaction which inevitably sets in after the founding leaders of each dynasty leave the scene.

Crucially, Mao split with Khrushchev because Khrushchev split with Stalin and everything he stood for. The Sino-Soviet split was ideological – it was Mao’s claim to ideological leadership over the communist world. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. It was Mao’s claim to being Stalin’s true successor.

We hear a lot about how Xi and his peers blame Gorbachev for the collapse of the Soviet state but actually their grievances go much further back. They blame Khrushchev. They blame Khrushchev for breaking with Stalin. And they vow that they will never do to Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin.

Now, sixty years on, we’re seeing Xi making his claim to be the true Revolutionary Successor of Mao.

Xi’s language of “party purity”; “criticism and self-criticism”; “the mass line”; his obsession with “unity”; his attacks on elements of “hostile Western liberalism”, “constitutionalism” and other variants of ideological “subversion” –  this is all Marxism-Leninism as interpreted by Stalin as interpreted by Mao.

This is the language that the Deep Red princelings spoke when they got together and occasionally when I interviewed them and crashed their gatherings in the lead up to the 18th Party Congress.

And this was how Xi spoke after the 18th Party Congress:

‘‘To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the party’s organizations on all levels.’’

Today, the utopian destination has to be maintained, however absurd it seems, in order to justify the brutal means of getting there.  Xi has inserted a couple of interim goals – for those who lack revolutionary patience – but the underlying Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist logic remains the same.

This is the logic of his ever-deepening purge of peers who keep getting in the way.

The purge of the princeling challenger Bo Xilai; the security chief Zhou Yongkang; the two vice chairs of the PLA Central Military Commission Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong; the Youth League fixer Ling Jihua; the potential successor Sun Zhengcai just a fortnight ago.

None of this is personal. It’s dialectical. And inevitable.

It’s pushing and accelerating China’s journey along the inexorable corkscrew-shaped course of history.

“History needs to pushed along its dialectical course,” said Xi, in his speech to mark the party’s 95th birthday in 2015. “History always moves forward and it never waits for all those who hesitate.”

The same logic applies outside the party as within.

“The decadent culture of the capitalist class and feudalistic society must be opposed,” said the authoritative Guangming Daily, expanding on another of Xi’s speeches.

The essence of Maoism and Stalinism is perpetual struggle. This is the antidote to the calcification and putrefaction that has destroyed every previous dynasty, dictatorship and empire. This is why Xi and his Red Successor peers believe that Maoism and Stalinism is still highly relevant today. Not just relevant, but existential.

Xi has set in motion a purification project – a war against the forces of counter-revolution – that has no end point because the notional utopian destination of perfect communism will always be kicked a little further down the road.

There is no policy objective in the sense that a Wall Street banker or Canberran public servant might understand it – as a little more energy market efficiency here, or compression of the Gini coefficient there. Rather, this is how you restore dynastic vigour and vitality. Politics is the ends.

This is what Mao and Stalin understood better than any of their peers. This is what Xi Jinping’s Deep Red Restoration is all about. And why the process of extreme politics will not stop at the 19th Party Congress.

Which brings us to the title of this seminar.

Engineers of the human soul

At my first team bonding session in this building I asked who was the world leader who described artists and authors as “engineers of the human soul”.

Was this word image the creation of Stalin, Mao or someone else?

If you’re thinking Joseph Stalin, then you’re right:

“The production of souls is more important than the production of tanks…. And therefore I raise my glass to you, writers, the engineers of the human soul”.

To me this is one of the great totalitarian metaphors: a machine designed to forge complete unity between state, society and individual.

The totalitarian machine works to a predetermined path. It denies the existence of free will and rejects “abstract” values like “truth”, love and empathy. It repudiates God, submits to no law and seeks nothing less than to remold the human soul.

The quote is from Stalin’s famous speech at the home of the writer Maxim Gorky in preparation for the first Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers in October 1932. This marked the end of Stalin’s Great Famine and Cultural Revolution – the prototype for Mao’s Great Famine and Cultural Revolution – in the lead up to Stalin’s Great Terror.

For Stalin, Lenin and the proto-Leninists of 19th Century Russia, the value of literature and art was purely instrumental. There was no such thing as “art for art’s sake”. In their ideology, poetry has no intrinsic value beyond its purpose of indoctrinating the masses and advancing the cause of revolution.

Or, to use the engineering language of the original Man of Steel – Joseph Stalin – literature and art are nothing more nor less than cogs in the revolutionary machine.

But, if you think the answer is Chairman Mao, then you’re also right. Mao extended Stalin’s metaphor a decade later at his famous Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art delivered in two parts in October 1942, and published (in heavily doctored form) one year later:

“[Our purpose is] to ensure that literature and art fit well into the whole revolutionary machine as a component part, that they operate as powerful weapons for uniting and educating the people and for attacking and destroying the enemy, and that they help the people fight the enemy with one heart and one mind.”

This is when Mao made plain that there is no such thing as truth, love or artistic merit except in so far as these abstract concepts can be pressed into the practical service of politics.

Importantly, with contemporary significance, Mao’s talks on literature and art was his way of introducing the Yan’an Rectification Campaign – the first great systematic purge of the Chinese Communist Party. This was a project of orchestrated peer pressure and torture designed first to purge Mao’s peers and then to instil communist ideology deep within the minds of the hundreds of thousands of idealistic students and intellectuals who had flocked to Yan’an during the anti-Japanese war.

Importantly, the Communist Party never sought to “persuade” so much as “condition”. By creating a fully enclosed system, controlling all incentives and disincentives, and “breaking” individuals physically, socially and psychologically, they found they could condition the human mind in the same way that Pavlov had learned to condition dogs in a Moscow laboratory a few years earlier.

This is when Mao’s men first coined the term “brainwashing” – it’s a literal translation of the Maoist term xinao, literally “washing the brain”. Mao himself preferred Stalin’s metallurgical metaphor. He called it “tempering”:

“If you want to be one with the masses, you must make up your mind to undergo a long and even painful process of tempering.”

Mao’s Yan’an Talks on Literature and Art vanished and were then resurrected and republished everywhere at the onset of the Cultural Revolution – the most audacious and successful act of social engineering that the world has ever seen.

And, most relevant to all of us today, if you are thinking President Xi Jinping, then you’re also right.

President Xi, or Chairman Xi to use a more direct translation, was speaking at the Beijing Forum on Literature and Art, in October 2014. Xi’s Forum on Literature and Art was convened on the 72nd anniversary of the young Chairman Mao’s Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art.

Xi was arguing for a return to the Stalinist-Maoist principle that art and literature should only exist to serve politics. Not politics as we know it – the straightforward exercise of organisational and decision-making power – but the totalitarian project of creating unity of language, knowledge, thought and behaviour in pursuit of a utopian destination.

“Art and literature is the engineering that moulds the human soul; art and literary workers are the engineers of the human soul.”

Like Mao’s version, Xi’s art and literature forum speech was not published until one year later.

Like Mao’s speech, the published version made no acknowledgment that large chunks had been added, deleted and revised – to reflect the political imperatives of the times.

Like Stalin and Mao, Xi’s speech marked a Communist Party rectification campaign which included an all-out effort to elevate the respective leaders to cult status. Nothing in Communist Party choreography happens by accident.

It should be noted here that when Mao was rallying the country in 1942 he did so under the banner of ““patriotism” – because the idea of communism had absolutely no pulling power.

It’s no different today. Xi:

“Among the core values of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the deepest, most basic and most enduring is patriotism. Our modern art and literature needs to take patriotism as its muse, guiding the people to establish and adhere to correct views of history, the nation, the country and culture.”

And the old warnings against subversive western liberalism haven’t changed either.

For Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Xi, words are not vehicles of reason and persuasion. They are bullets. Words are weapons for defining, isolating and destroying opponents. And the task of destroying enemies can never end. (This deserves a stand alone discussion of United Front strategy – but I’ll leave this for another day).

For Xi, as with Stalin and Mao, there is no endpoint in the perpetual quest for unity and regime preservation.

Xi uses the same ideological template to describe the role of “media workers”. And school teachers. And university scholars. They are all engineers of ideological conformity and cogs in the revolutionary machine.

Among the many things that China’s modern leaders did – including overseeing the greatest burst of market liberalisation and poverty alleviation the world has ever seen – those who won the internal political battles have retained the totalitarian aspiration of engineering the human soul in order to lead them towards the ever-receding and ever-changing utopian destination.

This is not to say that China could not have turned out differently. Elite politics from Mao’s death to the Tiananmen massacres was a genuine contest of ideas.

But ideology won that contest.

Today the PRC is the only ruling communist party that has never split with Stalin, with the partial exception of North Korea. Stalin’s portrait stood alongside Marx, Engels and Lenin in Tiananmen Square – six metres tall – right up to the early 1980s, at which point the portraits were moved indoors.

For a long time we all took comfort in thinking that this ideological aspiration existed only on paper, an object of lip service, while China’s 1.4 billion citizens got on with the job of building families and communities and seeking knowledge and prosperity.

But it has been much more than lip service.  Since 1989 the party has been rebuilding itself around what the draft National Security Law calls “ideological security” including defending itself against “negative cultural infiltration”.

Propaganda and security – wen and wu, the book and the sword, the pen and the gun – are once again inseparable. Party leaders must “dare to show their swords’’ to ensure that “politicians run newspapers”, said Xi, at his first National Propaganda Work Conference, on August 9, 2013.

Xi has now pushed ideology to the forefront because it provides a framework for “purifying” and regaining control over the vanguard party and thereby the country.

In Xi’s view, shared by many in his Red Princeling cohort, the cost of straying too far from the Maoist and Stalinist path is dynastic decay and eventually collapse.

Everything Xi Jinping says as leader, and everything I can piece together from his background, tells me that he is deadly serious about this totalising project.

In retrospect we might have anticipated this from the Maoist and Stalinist references that Xi sprinkled through his opening remarks as president, in November 2012.

It was made clearer during Xi Jinping’s first Southern Tour as General Secretary, in December 2012, when he laid a wreath at Deng’s shrine in Shenzhen but inverted Deng’s message. He blamed the collapse of the Soviet Union on nobody being “man enough” to stand up to Gorbachev and this, in turn, was because party members had neglected ideology. This is when he gave his warning that we must not forget Mao, Lenin or Stalin.

In April 2013 the General Office of the Central Committee, run by Xi’s princeling right hand man, Li Zhanshu, sent this now infamous political instruction down to all high level party organisations.

This Document No. 9, “Communique on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere”, set “disseminating thought on the cultural front as the most important political task.” It required cadres to arouse “mass fervour” and wage “intense struggle” against the following “false trends”:

  1. Western constitutional democracy – “an attempt to undermine the current leadership”;
  2. Universal values of human rights – an attempt to weaken the theoretical foundations of party leadership.
  3. Civil Society – a “political tool” of the “Western anti-China forces” dismantle the ruling party’s social foundation.
  4. Neoliberalism – US-led efforts to “change China’s basic economic system”.
  5. The West’s idea of journalism – attacking the Marxist view of news, attempting to “gouge an opening through which to infiltrate our ideology”.
  6. Historical nihilism – trying to undermine party history, “denying the inevitability” of Chinese socialism.
  7. Questioning Reform and Opening – No more arguing about whether reform needs to go further.

There is no ambiguity in this document. The Western conspiracy to infiltrate, subvert and overthrow the People’s Party is not contingent on what any particular Western country thinks or does. It is an equation, a mathematical identity: the CCP exists and therefore it is under attack. No amount of accommodation and reassurance can ever be enough – it can only ever be a tactic, a ruse.

Without the conspiracy of Western liberalism the CCP loses its reason for existence. There would be no need to maintain a vanguard party. Mr Xi might as well let his party peacefully evolve.

We know this document is authentic because the Chinese journalist who publicised it on the internet, Gao Yu, was arrested and her child was threatened with unimaginable things. The threats to her son led her to make the first Cultural Revolution-style confession of the television era.

In November 2013 Xi appointed himself head of a new Central State Security Commission in part to counter “extremist forces and ideological challenges to culture posed by Western nations”.

Today, however, the Internet is the primary battle domain. It’s all about cyber sovereignty.

Conclusion

The key point about Communist Party ideology – the unbroken thread that runs from Lenin through Stalin, Mao and Xi – is that the party is and always has defined itself as being in perpetual struggle with the “hostile” forces of Western liberalism.

Xi is talking seriously and acting decisively to progress a project of total ideological control wherever it is possible for him to do so. His vision “requires all the Chinese people to be unified with a single will like a strong city wall”, as he told “the broad masses of youth” in his Labor Day speech of May 2015. They need to “temper their characters”, said Xi, using a metaphor favoured by both Stalin and Mao.

There is no ambiguity in Xi’s project. We see in everything he does and – even in a system designed to be opaque and deceptive – we can see it in his words.

Mr Xi did not invent this ideological project but he has hugely reinvigorated it. For the first time since Mao we have a leader who talks and acts like he really means it.

And he is pushing communist ideology at a time when the idea of “communism” is as unattractive as it has been at any time in the past 100 years. All that remains is an ideology of power, dressed up as patriotism, but that doesn’t mean it cannot work.

Already, Xi has shown that the subversive promise of the internet can be inverted. In the space of five years, with the assistance of Big Data science and Artificial Intelligence, he has been bending the Internet from an instrument of democratisation into a tool of omniscient control. The journey to Utopia is still in progress but first we must pass through a cyber-enabled dystopia in order to defeat the forces of counter-revolution.

The audacity of this project is breathtaking. And so too are the implications.

The challenge for us is that Xi’s project of total ideological control does not stop at China’s borders. It is packaged to travel with Chinese students, tourists, migrants and especially money.  It flows through the channels of the Chinese language internet, pushes into all the world’s major media and cultural spaces and generally keeps pace with and even anticipates China’s increasingly global interests.

In my opinion, if you’re in the business of intelligence, defense or international relations; or trade, economic policy or market regulation; or arts, higher education or preserving the integrity of our democratic system – in other words, just about any substantial policy question whatsoever – then you will need a working knowledge of Marxism-Leninism Mao Zedong Thought. And maybe, after the 19th Party Congress, you’ll need “Xi Jinping Thought” too.

END”

That is the real problem facing China.  Xi and the Chinese government have decided to give up economic reform and go back to the time of Mao and Statin.  This is real Communist ideology.

One may think that John Garnault is exaggerating.  It cannot be that bad.  But as noted above, with the Conference on Statism at the Asia Society, many Chinese experts, old friends of China including Orville Schell and Chrarlene Barshefsky, who was the USTR who negotiated the US China WTO agreement, believe that China has returned to Statism.  That is the same point of Nicholas Lardy above.

When I was in Beijing China in the mid-2,000s, I met many Chinese lawyers.  One lawyer told me in Beijing that there was a saying in China—Mao made China stand up, Deng made China rich and the hope is that the new leader will give China some form of Democracy.  That Chinese lawyer now lives two blocks away from me in Washington State.

Another Chinese lawyer in Beijing believed strongly in the mid-2,000s that China was on the right path to a new opening that might lead to a limited form of Democracy.  He now lives 30 minutes away from me.

Many Chinese have fled China because of the fear of what is going on in China now.

My hope and prayer is that I am wrong, but I do not think so.

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

Because of a major disagreement between President Trump and Congress, a major part of the Government, including the Commerce Department and the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), were shut down for over a month.  As a result, Commerce and the US International Trade Commission have extended all trade investigation deadlines by 35 to 40 days.

QUARTZ SURFACE PRODUCTS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES—ITC QUESTIONNAIRES AND CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES TRAP

We are in the process of representing a substantial number of US importers and fabricators, US producers of downstream products, in the Quartz Surface Products from China Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case.  Quartz Surface Products are used to produce kitchen countertops, shower stalls and many other downstream products.

The Commerce Department recently issued a critical circumstances determination exposing thousands of importers to millions of dollars in liability and bankruptcy in a situation in which the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) goes no critical circumstances in over 90% of the cases.

Cambria, the Petitioner in the case, has taken the position that it not only represents the producers of the slab, the raw material, but also all the producers of the downstream products, the fabricators.  We have learned that there are more than 4,000 fabricators of the downstream producers with 1000s of jobs at stake.  Cambria essentially argues that it is the sole representative of an industry with more than 4,000 companies.

Cambria’s objective in this case is very clear—drive up the prices of the raw material so as to drive out the fabricators, the downstream producers, all 4,000 of them.  We are working to include the fabricators in the domestic industry, but the fabricators have to be willing to answer the ITC questionnaires so as to have their voices heard.

The ITC questionnaires in the case are attached US producers–Quartz surface products (F) Foreign producers–Quartz surface products (F) US importers–Quartz surface products (F) US purchasers–Quartz surface products (F) Questionnaire Transmittal Letter QSP INITIAL ITC E-MAIL RETURN INSTRUCTIONS.

If anyone has any questions about the Section 301 case, the trade war with China, IP Protection, Huawei problem, the Quartz Surface Products case, antidumping or countervailing duty law, customs laws and any other trade or customs questions, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE IS A TWO-WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 20, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR UPDATE – DECEMBER 21, 2018

Dear Friends,

Another difficult newsletter to write as every day there is more news.  Also trying to understand the current state of US China Trade Relations is like trying to tell the future by looking at tea leaves at the bottom of the cup.

At the Trump Xi Meeting on December 1st at the G-20 meeting in Argentina, there was a deal to delay the 301 tariffs for 90 days during which time negotiations would happen between the US and Chinese governments.  The Chinese government was to send a negotiating team to Washington DC on December 15th, but that did not happen.  The latest is that negotiations continue by phone and the Chinese negotiating team will come to Washington DC in January.

Meanwhile, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has issued the attached new notice, MARCH 2 USTR NOTICE PUBLISHED, setting a hard date of March 2nd for US China Trade Deal.  If there is no deal by March 2nd, the tariffs on $200 billion in imports automatically go from 10% to 25%.  The USTR has also issued a new attached Section 301 update, USTR FULLL 301 Report Update.

The core of any US China deal will be provisions to prevent IP Theft, Forced Technology Transfer and cyber hacking for commercial gain.  So, what was a dim hope of a US China trade settlement at the G-20 has brightened the hope a little more, but there is still a very long way to go.

Making the situation more difficult was the December 1st arrest of Huawei CEO, Ms. Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of the founder, in Vancouver, Canada based on an extradition warrant from the United States for bank fraud.  Immediately many Chinese officials took this action as a personal attack on China by Canada and the United States.  Many Chinese commentators saw this action as an attempt by President Trump to increase pressure on China with regards to trade relations.

Readers of this newsletter, however, will remember the point last month that the Justice Department has raised US China trade relations to a new serious level by starting a new initiative to go after China officials, not only from a trade policy point of view, but also with criminal indictments and investigations for IP Theft and other issues.

On December 20th, the Justice Department further increased the pressure by bringing an indictment against two Chinese individuals for cyber hacking.  This is not politics.  This crisis has risen to criminal activity governed by the Rule of Law.

But apparently the Justice Department did pull its punches because it only went after the two individuals and not the corporate entities associated with the hacking.

That is just where Ms. Meng finds herself—immersed in a criminal action exposing her to 30 years in prison for bank fraud.  Although Ms. Meng received bail and is staying at her Vancouver house, she is due back in Canadian Court in February.  And there is probably a good chance that Ms. Meng will be extradited to the United States, where she will face even tougher problems.

The Canadian Trade Advisor has stated that this is a Rule of Law question, not China policy issue.

But the problems for Huawei have expanded exponentially.  As many international banks now refuse to do business with Huawei because the risks are too great.

But there are probably bigger issues behind the push by many countries to get Huawei out of their telecommunications networks.  On December 14th, it was reported that all five Western Intelligence Agencies have created a real campaign to kill Huawei’s activities in Western countries.

In addition, however, there has been an effort from the Chinese government to keep the Huawei problems separate from the trade negotiations.  The Chinese government has a real incentive to do this because its economy is facing very strong problems with the sharp decline in the Chinese stock market.  One Chinese economic expert is comparing the Chinese stock market to the 1929 stock market crash in the United States that led to the Great Depression.  That Chinese economist also believes that the Chinese economy is not expanding but contracting significantly because of the US China trade war and the Chinese government’s policy of killing the private industry.

My firm is also representing a number of US importers and fabricators, US producers of downstream products, in the Quartz Surface Products Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case.  As part of that effort, we are trying to persuade US fabricating companies and importers to fill out the questionnaires from the US International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) so that their voices will be heard.  Those questionnaires are attached below.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

G-20 DIM HOPE BECOMES BRIGHTER HOPE BUT??

The day before the US China meeting in Buenos Aires Argentina, USTR Lighthizer stated that there would probably be a deal.  And that is what happened.

Apparently at the start of the GP-20 meeting, President Xi made a 20-minute speech outlining the steps that the Chinese government was willing to take to end the trade war.

Although China agreed to immediately import US agricultural products, the key to the 301 case is IP Theft and Forced Technology Transfer.  The real issue is what is China prepared to do.

Meanwhile, the United States Trade Representative has issued the attached new notice, MARCH 2 USTR NOTICE PUBLISHED, setting a hard date of March 2nd for US China Trade Deal.  If there is no deal by March 1st, the tariffs on $200 billion in imports automatically go from 10% to 25%.

Apparently, the latest word is that the US and Chinese governments continue to negotiate by phone and the first real face to face meeting will be in January.  But that does not give much time to reach an agreement by March 1st.

Bill Bishop, a known China expert, in his Axios Sinocsim newsletter stated on December 14th:

“I’d already heard that the Chinese are planning to make big concessions, because they understand U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer won’t “accept warmed-over promises.”

  • And, now it appears this could be true, as indicated by the temporary cuts in tariffs on U.S. autos, mentioned in the intro above.
  • So as long as Trump keeps his resolve there may actually be a chance for some significant concessions on trade, moves that Chinese President Xi Jinping can spin domestically as not due to U.S. pressure but as part of the deepening of reform.”

On the other hand, my partner, who reads the Chinese Press in Chinese, commented on the December 13th speech by Xi Jinping on the anniversary of the market opening by Deng Xiaoping:

“I just read a seminar of a group of Chinese scholars reviewing the Xi Jinping speech. The take away:

1.) Reform is dead: permanently. Here, “reform” means move to an open, market economy with minimal involvement by the CCP and minimal involvement by SOEs. This kind of reform would mean the end of CCP control, and that prospect is dead, permanently.

  1. On the trade war, what the Chinese government hopes is: they will enter into some written agreement with Trump. But Trump will soon be swept away. As soon as that happens, the Chinese will tear up the agreement. This shows a mistaken understanding of the U.S. system: we don’t have one man/one party rule in the U.S. So the Chinese are viewing this from the standpoint of how their own system works. But it is interesting to see how this matter is analyzed in China.

Note this is what the Chinese scholars said. I agree, but this is coming from the Chinese side, not from me.”

Such a misreading of the US trade situation is extremely dangerous.  As mentioned in the last blog post, based on quotes from numerous sources, the Chinese government has succeeded in uniting both ends of the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans, against China.  This trade situation is not going to change any time soon no matter what party is in power.

But other articles have stated that the US and Chinese governments continue to negotiate by phone and there will be face to face meetings in January.  On the other hand, the word is that the Chinese government will agree to make a number of trade concessions, but not agree to any “structural” changes.

The real question is what is meant by the word “structural”?  Again, the core issues in the Section 301 deal are IP Theft, Forced Technology Transfer and cyber hacking.  If the Chinese government’s intent is to make no enforceable concessions in these areas, these negotiations will fail.  That would be a major blow to China.

As indicated below, the indictment and US and Canadian actions against Huawei have made the negotiations more difficult.  But the Chinese government has attempted to keep the trade negotiations and Huawei situation separate, probably because of the big problems with the Chinese economy as explained below.

IP THEFT, FORCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND CYBER HACKING REMAIN THE CORE ISSUES OF THE 301 CASE

The core of the Section 301 case is intellectual property, rights which are Constitutionally protected rights.  Stealing intellectual property (“IP”) is piracy, pure and simple.

As the United States Trade Representative states on page 4 of its attached full 301 report, USTR FULL 301 REPORT CHINA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER:

The Federal Register Notice described the focus of the investigation as follows:

First, the Chinese government reportedly uses a variety of tools, including opaque and discretionary administrative approval processes, joint venture requirements, foreign equity limitations, procurements, and other mechanisms to regulate or intervene in U.S. companies’ operations in China in order to require or pressure the transfer of technologies and intellectual property to Chinese companies.  Moreover, many U.S. companies report facing vague and unwritten rules, as well as local rules that diverge from national ones, which are applied in a selective and non-transparent manner by Chinese government officials to pressure technology transfer.

Second, the Chinese government’s acts, policies and practices reportedly deprive U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology- related negotiations with Chinese companies and undermine U.S. companies control over their technology in China. For example, the Regulations on Technology Import and Export Administration mandate particular terms for indemnities and ownership of technology improvements for imported technology, and other measures also impose non- market terms in licensing and technology contracts.

Third, the Chinese government reportedly directs and/or unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and/or acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and generate large-scale technology transfer in industries deemed important by Chinese government industrial plans.

Fourth, the investigation will consider whether the Chinese government is conducting or supporting unauthorized intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks or cyber- enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, and whether this conduct harms U.S. companies or provides competitive advantages to Chinese companies or commercial sectors.

The Section 301 Report then goes on to list ten IP Agreements the Chinese government signed with the United States from 2010 to 2016, including the recent 2016 agreement between President Xi and President Obama to not require the transfer of technology as a precondition of doing business in China.  See page 8 of the USTR 301 report above.

On November 20, 2018, before the G-20 meeting, the USTR issued the attached an interim report in the Section 301 case, USTR FULLL 301 Report Update.  The Update states, in part:

“USTR has undertaken this update as part of its ongoing monitoring and enforcement effort. In preparing this update, USTR has relied upon publicly available material, and has consulted with other government agencies. As detailed in this update, China fundamentally has not altered its acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, and indeed appears to have taken further unreasonable actions in recent months.

Section II describes how China continues its policy and practice of conducting and supporting cyber-enabled theft and intrusions into the commercial networks of U.S. companies and those of other countries, as well as other means by which China attempts illegally to obtain information. This conduct provides the Chinese government with unauthorized access to intellectual property, including trade secrets, or confidential business information, as well as technical data, negotiating positions, and sensitive and proprietary internal business communications.

Section III describes how, despite the relaxation of some foreign ownership restrictions and certain other incremental changes in 2018, the Chinese government has persisted in using foreign investment restrictions to require or pressure the transfer of technology from U.S. companies to Chinese entities. Numerous foreign companies and other trading partners share U.S. concerns regarding China’s technology transfer regime.

Section IV describes China’s discriminatory licensing restrictions and how the United States has requested consultations and is pursuing dispute settlement under the WTO in China Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (WT/DS542). China continues to maintain these discriminatory licensing restrictions.

Section V describes how, despite an apparent aggregate decline in Chinese outbound investment in the United States in 2018, the Chinese government continues to direct and unfairly facilitate the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese entities, to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and generate large-scale technology transfer in industries deemed important by state industrial plans. Chinese outbound investment is increasingly focused on venture capital (VC) investment in U.S. technology centers such as Silicon Valley, with Chinese VC investment reaching record levels in 2018.

SECTION 301 PROCEDURES

As to the procedures in the Section 301 case, please see my October 1, 2018 blog post for a detailed explanation of the 301 case, three outstanding lists and opportunity to request a product exclusion request.  The three lists of tariffs cover $250 billion in imports from China.

CANADA’S ARREST OF HUAWEI CEO MENG WANZHOU—YOU CAN RUN BUT NOT HIDE FROM US EXTRADITION WARRANTS

As stated above, making the US China trade negotiations more difficult was the December 1st arrest of Huawei CEO, Ms. Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of the founder, in Vancouver, Canada based on an extradition warrant from the United States for criminal offenses.

Although many Chinese officials took this action as a personal attack on China, when one digs down into the details, it becomes apparent that this action raises a major rule of law issue – bank fraud to get around Iran sanctions.

INTERNATIONAL EXTRADITION AND JUDGMENT AGREEMENTS ARE IMPORTANT

US judgments are not enforceable in China. Also, US extradition warrants are not enforceable in China.

With regards to the Huawei situation, one Hong Kong commentator complained that the United States is not arresting Chinese criminals in the US.  But the reason that the US does not arrest Chinese criminals is that the Chinese government has determined that it does not want to have an international agreement with the United States to allow for mutual enforcement of judgments or mutual extradition warrants for criminals.

Many Chinese commentators may believe that the China does not have to follow the international agreements that it signed because it is a developing country and/or the agreements are unequal treaties.  Other countries, such as US, Canada, EU, Japan, Korea, and even Taiwan, however, take these international agreements very seriously and understand the importance of a country keeping its word in international negotiations.

These countries have mutual agreements with the United States to enforce judgments and extradite criminals.  This is called the Rule of Law.

The United States does intend to extradite Chinese individuals, who break US laws, to face judgment in US courts.  As Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division stated on November 1, 2018 with regard to extraditing Chinese individuals for stealing US Intellectual Property:

“The Criminal Division fully supports the Attorney General’s initiative to counter Chinese economic aggression.   Every day, the Chinese engage in efforts to steal American trade secrets and commit other illegal acts intended to enrich their economy at the expense of American businesses. . . .

We see it time and again: Chinese actors have stolen wind turbine technology in Wisconsin, agricultural research in Kansas, cancer drug research in Pennsylvania, and software source code in New York.

Wherever we see examples of this kind of criminal behavior, the Department will investigate it and prosecute it to the fullest extent possible. We also will continue to work hard to ensure that offenders face justice in U.S. courts.

Our Office of International Affairs is the focal point for all extraditions around the globe. In just the past few years, the Department has successfully extradited nine Chinese individuals, including two for theft of trade secrets. Long prison terms for these offenders help to create much-needed deterrence. . . .”

Emphasis added.

US JUDGMENTS NOT ENFORCEABLE IN CHINA GIVE CHINESE COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY

But the Chinese government’s decision not to have any agreement with the United States or other countries with regards to the enforcement of judgments or extradition warrants also gives Chinese individuals a false sense of security.

The US government cannot touch me because I am in China Ha Ha.  Chinese companies, however, are no longer small or even medium companies in the Chinese countryside.  Many Chinese companies, such as Huawei, are multinational companies and in Huawei’s case with operations in over one hundred countries.  As soon as the Chinese individual takes a step out of China, however, he or she can be arrested.  You can run, but eventually you cannot hide from US extradition warrants and judgments.

Ms. Meng Wanzhou knew she was under criminal indictment in the United States.  She probably had even seen the indictment.  Ms. Meng also has a husband and several houses in Vancouver, Canada.  One of her children is going to school in Boston, Massachusetts.  As soon as Ms. Meng decided to visit her family outside of China, she is a target.  She, therefore, should have taken the criminal indictments very seriously.

Apparently, Huawei has now hired two very large US law firms to defend itself and hopefully Ms. Meng in the US.  Ms. Meng needs a very good US criminal lawyer because in all probability Canada will extradite Ms. Meng to face criminal proceedings.

THE CHARGES AGAINST HUAWEI AND MS. MENG ARE SERIOUS –BANK FRAUD AND VIOLATIONS OF IRAN SANCTIONS

One key point to keep in mind is that like ZTE, Huawei uses US semiconductor chips and other high technology in its products.  Selling Huawei phones to Iran with American semiconductor chips in them is a violation of the US law regarding exports to Iran.

On December 9, 2018, the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled “Silicon Valley Helped Build Huawei Washington Could Dismantle It” stated that Silicon Valley giants, such as Intel, Broadcom and Qualcomm, are supplying $10 billion in high tech products, including semiconductor chips, every year.  As the article states:

“These interdependencies show how any U.S. actions against Huawei for alleged sanctions violations, which could go as far as a ban on it buying from American suppliers, could devastate Huawei’s operations, and curtail business for U.S. tech companies.”

Moreover, the key allegation against Ms. Meng is bank fraud.  As the Wall Street Journal explained on December 10th in an article entitled “Two British Banks Ensnared in Huawei Dispute”:

“To comply with banking and anti-money-laundering laws, banks must collect information from clients on their business and financial activities, and do additional due diligence and monitoring of high-risk clients. But in a twist to the usual narrative, the banks in this matter haven’t been accused of any wrongdoing and are instead portrayed as victims in court filings.

The court filings in Canada allege that at least three other global banks were misled by Huawei employees and representatives about the relationship between Huawei and Skycom.

One filing describes an August 2013 meeting and presentation by Ms. Meng to an executive at one bank—identified Friday as HSBC by Ms. Meng’s lawyer. Ms. Meng came to the meeting with an English interpreter and a PowerPoint presentation written in Chinese, and made a series of statements.

In an English translation delivered to the HSBC executive soon after, Ms. Meng stated in the presentation that Huawei complied with international sanctions laws and had sold shares it previously held in Skycom. The relationship was one of “normal business cooperation,” Ms. Meng stated, according to the filing.

Her lawyer said Friday the idea Ms. Meng engaged in fraud would be “hotly contested.”

As a fast-expanding telecom giant, Huawei’s access to global banks was paramount in helping it supply equipment across dozens of countries’ telecom networks. For the banks, the growing Chinese client produced a steady stream of fees. Dealogic data shows HSBC and Standard Chartered were two of Huawei’s biggest financing partners, with top roles on most of its $17 billion in loan and bond sales in the past decade. Citigroup Inc., Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., DBS Group Holdings Ltd. and Bank of China were among the other main arrangers.  . . .

Canadian prosecutors said the alleged conspiracy between Ms. Meng and other Huawei representatives to mislead banks was driven by the company’s need to move money out of sanctioned countries through the international banking system.

In the court filings, authorities alleged that the misrepresentations by Huawei to banks “violated their internal policies, potentially violated U.S. sanctions laws and exposed the banks to the risk of fines and forfeiture.” Banks carried out transactions for Huawei through New York and Europe, exposing them to “serious harm” and decisions made without knowing Huawei’s true risk, the filings said.”

As the Wall Street Journal explained on December 10 in an article entitled “Arrest of Huawei CEO Hinges on Offshore Puzzle”:

“Ms. Meng said she had served on the Skycom board to ensure it complied with trade rules, according to newly released defense filings that cite the 2013 PowerPoint presentation to HSBC Holdings Ltd.

Ms. Meng’s lawyer said Friday that she and Huawei severed ties to Skycom in 2009 and can’t be held responsible for its activities in the years that followed.

U.S. prosecutors say Skycom remained under Huawei’s control; between 2010 and 2014, they say, Skycom was used as a front for Huawei’s dealings with Iran in an arrangement that duped banks into approving millions of dollars in transactions that violated sanctions.

Canadian officials arrested Ms. Meng, the 46-year-old daughter of Huawei’s billionaire founder Ren Zhengfei, on Dec. 1 at the request of the U.S., which is seeking her extradition to face multiple criminal charges that each carry up to 30 years in prison, a move that has enraged the Chinese government.  . . .

The case could hinge on a large piece of the Skycom puzzle: Who ultimately controlled the company after 2009?

The answer is shrouded in mystery in part because of the opaque ownership of Skycom during the time Ms. Meng served on its board. A Wall Street Journal examination of Hong Kong corporate records found that Canicula Holdings Ltd., a company registered in the Indian Ocean island nation of Mauritius, bought Skycom from a Huawei subsidiary in November 2007.  Canicula retained ownership until Skycom was dissolved last year. . .

Skycom was registered in Hong Kong in 1998 by people whose names matched those of Huawei executives, according to corporate records. The Chinese city is one of the world’s easiest places to set up businesses, allowing companies to register with minimal documentation in as fast as a day and for as little as a few hundred U.S. dollars.

Unlike some corporate havens, Hong Kong records show directors and provide other basic information.

In the decade before Ms. Meng joined, Skycom had six directors. The names of five of them and another person identified as an early shareholder match the names of executives who worked at Huawei.

By the time Ms. Meng was named director in 2008, corporate filings show that the shares in Skycom owned by Hua Ying Management Co. Ltd., a wholly owned unit of a Huawei investment company, had been transferred to Canicula.

Ms. Meng’s lawyers said Skycom was sold in 2009, without specifying who bought it. U.S. authorities said in their indictment against Ms. Meng that Huawei continued to control Skycom after that year, and that Skycom employees were also Huawei staffers. Skycom workers used Huawei email addresses and badges, official Skycom documents bore the Huawei logo, and multiple Skycom bank accounts were controlled by Huawei employees, court documents say.

Employees in Iran used different sets of stationery stating “Huawei” or “Skycom” for different business purposes, according to court documents.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2011 that an employee at an accounting firm listed in Skycom’s Hong Kong records said Huawei owned the company.

In court documents including an extradition request to Canada, U.S. prosecutors allege that multiple banks engaged in millions of dollars of transactions between 2010 and 2014 that they wouldn’t have otherwise been involved with as a result of Ms. Meng’s misrepresentations.”

But who brought Huawei to the attention of the US government—Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Corp.  As stated in the December 6. 2018 Dow Jones Newsletter:

“A federally appointed overseer at HSBC Holdings PLC flagged suspicious transactions in the accounts of Huawei Technologies Co. to prosecutors seeking the extradition of the Chinese company’s finance chief, people familiar with the matter said.

A monitor charged with evaluating HSBC’s anti-money-laundering and sanctions controls in recent years relayed information about the Huawei transactions to federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York, the people said . . .

The Journal reported in April that the Justice Department had launched a criminal probe into Huawei’s dealings in Iran, following administrative subpoenas on sanctions-related issues from both the Commerce Department and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

HSBC in 2012 agreed to pay the U.S. $1.9 billion and enter into a five-year deferred- prosecution agreement over its failure to catch at least $881 million in drug- trafficking proceeds laundered through its U.S. bank and for concealing transactions with Iran, Libya and Sudan to evade U.S. sanctions. . . .”

Now the other shoe is dropping as the Wall Street Journal reported on December 20, 2018 in an article entitled “Some Global Banks Break Ties with Huawei”, these same foreign banks are now severing ties with Huawei because there is simply too much risk:

“Huawei Technologies Co., targeted as a national security threat by the U.S. and other governments, faces a new risk: reduced access to the global financial system.

Two banks that helped power the Chinese company’s rise as a global technology supplier, HSBC Holdings and Standard Chartered PLC, won’t provide it with any new banking services or funding after deciding that Huawei is too high risk, people familiar with those decisions said.

While HSBC made its decision last year, Standard Chartered moved more recently as concerns about Huawei escalated this year from a Justice Department investigation into whether the company violated U.S. sanctions on Iran, some of the people said. . . .

Huawei, active in about 170 countries, relies on international banks to manage cash, finance trade and fund its operations and investments. For more than a decade, HSBC, Standard Chartered, and Citigroup plugged Huawei into the global financial system as it entered new markets, providing it with everything from foreign currencies to bond funding from Western investors. Chinese banks finance Huawei in some markets but don’t have the reach to service it globally.

Standard Chartered recently decided it had to sever business with Huawei, people familiar with the matter said. Its relationship with the company dates back to the 2000s, and includes providing regional and global cash pools that free up excess cash in local Huawei units and let it pay suppliers in multiple currencies.

HSBC stopped working with Huawei last year, people familiar with the matter said, after the bank and a court-appointed monitor flagged suspicious transactions by the company to U.S. prosecutors in 2016. According to Canada court filings, HSBC was one of at least four global banks that Ms. Meng or other Huawei executives allegedly misled about Huawei’s ties to Skycom Tech, a Hong Kong company operating in Iran. The bank is still a mortgage lender on two homes Ms. Meng and her husband own in Vancouver, according to Canada property records. . . .

Other banks that have provided funding or services to Huawei, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. and ING Group NV, declined to comment on whether they would enter into new business. An ANZ spokesman said it takes its due diligence responsibilities very seriously and has detailed policies and processes in place for use when engaging clients. A spokesman for ING, whose subsidiary Bank Mendes Gans runs a cash pool for Huawei in Europe, said the bank takes its sanctions policy extremely seriously and continually assesses clients for risks.”

Indictments are very serious legal problems that cannot simply be ignored because the individual thinks he or she is a high level Chinese official and that will protect him or her from arrest. High Level Chinese Government and Companies do not get a pass from US and other countries laws and regulations because they are from China.

On December 17, 2018, the Canadian Press in an article entitled “Freeland says corners could not be cut with U.S. arrest request of Huawei exec” stated:

“Cutting corners to avoid arresting a Chinese executive at the request of the Americans simply was not an option to keep Canada out of a difficult political situation, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Monday.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Freeland said that type of tactic would erode Canada’s commitment to the rule of law at a time when it is under threat across the globe.

“I think people need to be very careful when they start to suggest that corners be cut when it comes to the rule of   law and when it comes to international treaty obligations,” said Freeland.

“That is one of the core foundations of everything that’s great about our country, one of the core foundations of our democracy,” she added.

“It’s not an accident that among our heroes are the RCMP.” . . . .

Freeland rejected that notion outright, saying it would undermine Canada’s credibility with other countries, including Canada’s “extradition partners.”

The Chinese government and state-run media have vilified the Canadian decision to arrest Meng, and ridiculed the rule-of-law argument. U.S. President Donald Trump also undermined Canada’s position when he mused in  an interview last week he might intervene in the Meng case if it would help him get a trade deal with China.

“You might call it a slippery slope approach; you could call it a salad bar approach,” Freeland said. “The rule of law is not about following the rule of law when it suits you.”

But there are probably bigger political issues when it comes to Huawei.  On December 14th, Bill Bishop, a China expert, reported in his Sinocism Axios newsletter that there is a real campaign to kill Huawei’s operations in many countries.  Mr. Bishop cited to a December 13th article from the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, entitled “How the “Five Eyes’ cooked up the campaign to Kill Huawei” which states:

“In the months that followed that July 17 dinner, an unprecedented campaign has been waged by those present – Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand and the UK – to block Chinese tech giant Huawei from supplying equipment for their next-generation wireless networks. . . .

Not all agreed to speak publicly about China when they returned home, but all were determined to act. And the Five Eyes network would include allies like Japan and Germany in the conversation.

This coming in from the cold was viewed as a countermeasure to China and its many proxies, who have long argued fears over its rising power and influence were a fiction, or worse still, signs of xenophobia.

Since that July meeting there has been a series of rare public speeches by intelligence chiefs and a coordinated effort on banning Huawei from 5G networks. It began with one of Malcolm Turnbull’s last acts as Prime Minister.

The Sunday before he was deposed Turnbull rang the US President Donald Trump to tell him of Australia’s decision to exclude Huawei and China’s second largest telecommunications equipment maker ZTE from the 5G rollout.

Australia’s statement on the rules it would apply to building next-generation wireless networks was released on August 23 and largely lost in the leadership maelstrom.

Huawei was not named but it ruled out equipment being supplied by “vendors who are likely to be subject to extra judicial directions from a foreign government”. . . .

Washington’s sharp focus on Beijing plays into Trump’s obsession with trade wars but it would be wrong to think it’s solely driven by the President. Over the past two years Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Departments of Defense, State and the security agencies have come to the conclusion China is a strategic threat.

US prosecutors have filed charges against Chinese hackers and, in an audacious sting in April, American agents lured Chinese Ministry of State Security deputy director Yanjun Xu to Belgium, where he was arrested for orchestrating the theft of military secrets.

There is also speculation further indictments are imminent over a concerted Chinese hacking campaign known as “Operation Cloud Hopper”, which is believed to have penetrated networks across the globe, including Australia.

In addition the White House used its bi-annual report on China, last month to say Beijing had “fundamentally” failed to change its behavior around cyber espionage giving it unfair access to intellectual property, trade secrets, negotiating positions and the internal communications of business.

The report added weight to revelations in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald the same week that China had diverted internet traffic heading to Sydney and its peak security agency had overseen a surge in attacks on Australian companies.

This industrial scale cyber theft is just part of a form guide which convinced the Five Eyes intelligence chiefs that Beijing would not hesitate to recruit Huawei to its cause and the company would have no choice but to comply.

All the evidence before the spy bosses at the dinner in Canada pointed to a rising superpower mounting the most comprehensive campaign of espionage and foreign interference that any had witnessed.

The Party was aggressively exporting a worldview that was hostile to democracy and actively sought to undermine it.

A new Great Game was afoot and the West had been slow to act. But it is acting now.”

Although the press has been focused on China cyber hacking US and other Western targets, what goes around comes around.  The Chinese government and companies must expect many other countries, including the US, EC, Australia, Canada, Japan and other countries, to be cyber hacking China.  How did the US government get internal company documents of ZTE to go after it for sales to Iran of US technology?  What evidence does the United States and other countries have on Huawei?

In n October 19, 2915, blog post . I made this point citing testimony of James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama.  More specifically, on September 29, 2015, in response to specific questions from Senator Manchin in the Senate Armed Services Committee, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that China cyber- attacks to obtain information on weapon systems are not cyber- crime. It is cyber espionage, which the United States itself engages in. As Dr. Clapper stated both countries, including the United States, engage in cyber espionage and “we are pretty good at it.” Dr. Clapper went on to state that “people in glass houses” shouldn’t throw stones. See http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/15-09-29-united-states-cybersecurity- policy-and-threats at 1 hour 8 minutes to 10 minutes.

In response to a question from Senator Ayotte, Director Clapper also specifically admitted that the attack on OPM and theft of US government employee data is state espionage and not commercial activity, which the US also engages in. See above hearing at 1 hour 18 and 19 minutes.

But when the Chinese government cyber hacks US companies to obtain trade secrets and other intellectual property for commercial gain, that is another matter.  That is the core of the cyber hacking Agreement that President Xi and President Obama signed and the core of the Section 301 case.

But James Clapper’s testimony shows that when the Chinese government plays cyber hacking games, the US and many other governments will cyber hack China and its companies back and they are pretty good at it.  Huawei and ZTE are legitimate espionage targets because of their relationship to the Chinese military and their evasion of Iran Sanctions and US export control laws.

The US government, I am pretty sure, will cyber hack companies if it leads to a Justice Department indictment for criminal activity.  The US will not cyber hack to turn over commercial information to a US competitor, but they will cyber hack when it is in the interest of the US government to do so and that means criminal prosecution.  So, officials in those Chinese companies must take care.

And that brings us to the recent Justice Department indictments against Chinese individuals for cyber hacking for commercial gain.

MORE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INDICTMENTS AGAINST CHINESE GOVERNMENT’S CYBERHACKING AND IP THEFT

In my last blog post, I stated that although the Chinese government denies, denies and insists that Chinese companies do not steal US IP and then brags about stealing IP, the Justice Department disagrees and has taken these issues to another level—criminal investigations resulting in prison time.  On November 1, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new case and a new initiative to combat Chinese economic espionage for stealing IP on semiconductor technology from Micron.  The Justice Department statements related to those indictments are attached, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT IP THEFT SESSIONS ANNOUNCEMENT NEW CHINA INITIATIVE IP THEFT ANOTHER JUSTICE DEP ANNOUNCE IP THEFT.  This China initiative began under the Obama Administration and has bipartisan support.

On December 20th, the Justice Department raised the issue even higher issuing an attached announcement, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INDICTMENT AGAINST CYBER HACKINGw, of new indictments stating:

Two Chinese Hackers Associated With the Ministry of State Security Charged with Global Computer Intrusion Campaigns Targeting Intellectual Property and Confidential Business Information

Defendants Were Members of the APT 10 Hacking Group Who Acted in Association with the Tianjin State Security Bureau and Engaged in Global Computer Intrusions for More Than a Decade, Continuing into 2018 . . . .

The unsealing of an indictment charging Zhu Hua (朱华), aka Afwar, aka CVNX, aka Alayos, aka Godkiller; and Zhang Shilong ( 张 士 龙 ), aka Baobeilong, aka Zhang Jianguo, aka Atreexp, both nationals of the People’s Republic of China (China), with conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft was announced today. . . .

Zhu and Zhang were members of a hacking group operating in China known within the cyber security community as Advanced Persistent Threat 10 (the APT10 Group).   The defendants worked for a company in China called Huaying Haitai Science and Technology Development Company (Huaying Haitai) and acted in association with the Chinese Ministry of State Security’s Tianjin State Security Bureau.

Through their involvement with the APT10 Group, from at least in or about 2006 up to and including in or about 2018, Zhu and Zhang conducted global campaigns of computer intrusions targeting, among other data, intellectual property and confidential business and technological information at managed service providers (MSPs), which are companies that remotely manage the information technology infrastructure of businesses and governments around the world, more than 45 technology companies in at least a dozen U.S. states, and U.S. government agencies. The APT10 Group targeted a diverse array of commercial activity, industries and technologies, including aviation, satellite and maritime technology, industrial factory automation, automotive supplies, laboratory instruments, banking and finance, telecommunications and consumer electronics, computer processor technology, information technology services, packaging, consulting, medical equipment, healthcare, biotechnology, pharmaceutical manufacturing, mining, and oil and gas exploration and production. Among other things, Zhu and Zhang registered IT infrastructure that the APT10 Group used for its intrusions and engaged in illegal hacking operations.

“The indictment alleges that the defendants were part of a group that hacked computers in at least a dozen countries and gave China’s intelligence service access to sensitive business information,” said Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. “This is outright cheating and theft, and it gives China an unfair advantage at the expense of law-abiding businesses and countries that follow the international rules in return for the privilege of participating in the global economic system.”

“It is galling that American companies and government agencies spent years of research and countless dollars to develop their intellectual property, while the defendants simply stole it and got it for free” said U.S. Attorney Berman. “As a nation, we cannot, and will not, allow such brazen thievery to go unchecked.”

“Healthy competition is good for the global economy, but criminal conduct is not. This is conduct that hurts American businesses, American jobs, and American consumers,” said FBI Director Wray. “No country should be able to flout the rule of law – so we’re going to keep calling out this behavior for what it is: illegal, unethical, and unfair. It’s going to take all of us working together to protect our economic security and our way of life, because the American people deserve no less.”

“The theft of sensitive defense technology and cyber intrusions are major national security concerns and top investigative priorities for the DCIS,” said DCIS Director O’Reilly. “The indictments unsealed today are the direct result of a joint investigative effort between DCIS and its law enforcement partners to vigorously investigate individuals and groups who illegally access information technology systems of the U.S. Department of Defense and the Defense Industrial Base. DCIS remains vigilant in our efforts to safeguard   the integrity of the Department of Defense and its enterprise of information technology systems.”

According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court . . . .

Over the course of the MSP Theft Campaign, Zhu, Zhang, and their co-conspirators in the APT10 Group successfully obtained unauthorized access to computers providing services to or belonging to victim companies located in at least 12 countries, including Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The victim companies included at least the following: a global financial institution, three telecommunications and/or consumer electronics companies; three companies involved in commercial or industrial manufacturing; two consulting companies; a healthcare company; a biotechnology company; a mining company; an automotive supplier company; and a drilling company.

The Technology Theft Campaign

Over the course of the Technology Theft Campaign, which began in or about 2006, Zhu, Zhang, and their coconspirators in the APT10 Group successfully obtained unauthorized access to the computers of more than 45 technology companies and U.S. Government agencies based in at least 12 states, including Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The APT10 Group stole hundreds of gigabytes of sensitive data and information from the victims’ computer systems, including from at least the following victims: seven companies involved in aviation, space and/or satellite technology; three companies involved in communications technology; three companies involved in manufacturing advanced electronic systems and/or laboratory analytical instruments;   a company involved in maritime technology; a company involved in oil and gas drilling, production, and processing; and the NASA Goddard Space Center and Jet Propulsion Laboratory.   In addition to those   victims who had information stolen, Zhu, Zhang, and their co-conspirators successfully obtained   unauthorized access to computers belonging to more than 25 other technology-related companies involved   in, among other things, industrial factory automation, radar technology, oil exploration, information technology services, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and computer processor technology, as well as the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Finally, the APT10 Group compromised more than 40 computers in order to steal sensitive data belonging to the Navy, including the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, salary information, personal phone numbers, and email addresses of more than 100,000 Navy personnel.

*              *              *

Zhu and Zhang are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory sentence of two years in prison. . . .

INTERNATIONAL COALITION TO ISOLATE CHINA ON IP THEFT, FORCE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND CYBER HACKING

As stated in my last blog post, although many Chinese and US commentators believe that the only country pushing back on China in the IP area is the United States, that simply is incorrect.   Many other countries are jumping on the Trump band wagon when it comes to IP violations by the Chinese government.

In fact, these US China trade negotiations are simply a prelude to negotiations China will have with many other countries.  The early 2000 process of China joining the WTO started, not with “multilateral” negotiations of China with many countries.  Instead, first China negotiated a WTO Agreement with the United States and then other countries, including the EC, negotiated a WTO agreement based in large part on the Agreement China had negotiated with the United States.

One should expect to see the same process here.  First China negotiates these issues with the United States and then with many other countries.

As mentioned in the last newsletter, on IP, China will face a united front against IP Theft, Forced Technology Transfer and Cyber Hacking by the US, EC, Canada, Mexico, Japan and probably Korea against it.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT NEEDS A TRADE DEAL BECAUSE MANY PROBLEMS IN THE CHINESE ECONOMY

One reason that the Chinese government has not linked the Meng/Huawei problem with the US trade negotiations is that President Xi and the Chinese government need a deal.  The Chinese economy is hurting, and the situation has gotten much worse and faster than anyone in China predicted.

As my last blog post stated, the Chinese economy appears to be changing from a private economy with a smaller state-owned economy to an economy dominated by State-Owned companies.  The Chinese saying has changed from Guo Tui Min Jin to Guo Jin Min Tui.

Private entrepreneurs in China are reportedly facing taxes as high as 60%.  When the private entrepreneurs cannot pay their taxes, the Government simply buys the company out and takes over.  80% of Chinese employees, however, are employed by the private sector.

Recently, the Chinese government has stated that in 2019 it will cut taxes and pour more money into the system.  But the problem is that many in China do not believe the Chinese government.

On December 20, 2018, in an article entitled, China stock market meddling will be reduced after bad year, vows Beijing” the South China Morning Post stated:

“Financial Stability and Development Commission, part of the People’s Bank of China, says the heavy hand of intervention will be replaced by the light touch China pledges to attract more funds into stocks after the market reported one of the world’s worst performances in 2018

China’s heavy-handed intervention in stock trading will cease and investment funds will be encouraged to buy into its equity market, as Beijing hopes to boost a stock market that has been among the world’s worst performers this year.

The Financial Stability and Development Commission, part of the People’s Bank of China, announced on Thursday that the world’s second largest economy must fully implement “market principles” to “reduce administrative intervention in stock trading”.

The decision followed a meeting with the country’s financial regulators and major banks, brokerage houses and fund managers, chaired by deputy central bank governor Liu Guoqiang.

The conference agreed that China must follow “international practices” to cultivate “medium- and long-term investors” as well as allow various new asset managers access to the capital market.

It was not enough to boost market sentiment immediately, as the benchmark Shanghai Composite Stock Index closed on Thursday at a two-month low.

Beijing’s efforts to draw fresh funds into stocks may not work, due to weakening confidence in China’s economic growth outlook, according to Hao Hong, managing director and head of research at Bocom International in Hong Kong.

“Beijing has eased the intensity of its crackdown on shadow banking, and has pumped ample liquidity into the interbank market. But the money is just circulating between banks [and not reaching the real economy],” he said.

“There is no sign of an economic rebound in the near term.”. . .  .

China’s benchmark Shanghai stock index has so far lost 25 per cent in 2018. Compared to its peak in the summer of 2015, the index has lost more than 50 per cent, and China’s stock market capitalization has fallen below that of Japan’s.

In fact, the Chinese stock market has fallen like a rock and many average Chinese simply do not trust it anymore.

On December 21, 2018 the Epoch Times in an article entitled “ China May Be Experiencing Negative GDP Growth” reported on a December 16 speech by Xiang Songzuo, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for International Monetary Research at China’s Renmin University, who reportedly has stated that the Chinese stock market is looking like the US stock market in 1929 just before the Great Depression:

Xiang challenged the figure given by the National Bureau of Statistics, which claims that China’s rate of GDP growth is at 6.5 percent. According to some researches, Xiang said, the real growth rate could be just 1.67 percent, while more dismal estimates say that China’s economy is actually shrinking.

In his speech, Xiang said that the Chinese regime leadership had made major miscalculations, especially in terms of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) stance in the Sino-U.S. trade war. He criticized propaganda slogans aired by Party- controlled mass media, such as “The Americans are lifting rocks only to have them smash on their own feet,” “China’s victory is assured,” or “China will stand and fight” as being overly confident and ignorant of the real difficulty that the country faces.

Beyond the CCP’s stubborn attitude towards U.S. demands, a second cause for the recent downturn in the Chinese economy was the severe hit to private enterprises this year, Xiang said. Private investment and investments into private enterprises have slowed sharply, severely impacting confidence among entrepreneurs.

Various official statements implying the eventual elimination of private business and property have reduced private sector confidence. This includes the idea, put forward by some Party-backed scholars, that the market economy has already fulfilled its role and should retreat in favor of planned, worker-owned economics.

Xiang said: “This kind of high-profile study of Marx and high-profile study of the Communist Manifesto, what was that line in the Communist Manifesto? The elimination of private ownership—what kind of signal do you think this sends to entrepreneurs?”

Chinese law, social governance, and state institutions are rife with their own problems, he said. Xiang noted that even on the 40th anniversary of China’s “reform and opening up”—the term of the economic reforms started by former CCP leader Deng Xiaoping—current leader Xi Jinping still had to explicitly suggest greater protections for individual and corporate property.

Xiang said that a huge challenge for China is the Sino-U.S. trade war. He believes that it is no longer a trade war, but a serious conflict between the Chinese and American systems of values. The China-U.S. relationship is at a crossroads, he said, and so far there has been no solution found to resolve their differences.

In the short term, China faces drops in consumption across the board, from auto sales to real estate. Exports are also hard-hit due to the trade war and the gradual shift in the global supply chain.

Xiang criticized the Chinese regime’s reliance on increasing domestic consumption in order to keep the economy growing. Falling investment cannot be offset by consumption.

Throughout 40 years of market economic reforms, Xiang said, Chinese consumption patterns have demonstrated five phases. The first was to satisfy the demand for basic necessities like food and clothing; the second to satisfy demand for the “three new must-have items” (watches, bicycles, and radio sets); the third to supply non-essential consumer goods; the fourth to match demand for automobiles, and the fifth being real estate consumption.

However, each of these phases have all but come to an end. The Chinese authorities are hard-pressed to stabilize the exchange rate, foreign exchange reserves, and housing prices, Xiang said. Given these challenges, it will be even more difficult to stabilize investment, exports, the stock market, and employment rate.

Xiang said that in the first three quarters of 2018 before October, corporate bond defaults have exceeded 100 billion yuan ($14.51 billion). According to official data, the corporate defaults will exceed 12 billion yuan ($1.74 billion) this year, while a large number of enterprises have gone bankrupt.

Cao Dewang, a Chinese billionaire entrepreneur and the chairman of Fuyao, one of the largest glass manufacturers in the world, said that now a large number of enterprises have closed, as well as state-owned enterprises. Bohai Steel Group Company Limited, one of the world’s top 500 enterprises, went bankrupt. Its liability ratio reached 192 billion yuan ($27.86 billion).

Surging local Chinese government debt is another source of crisis. According to the National  Audit Office, local authorities owed 17.8 trillion yuan ($2.58 trillion), but He Keng, deputy director of the Financial and Economic Affairs Committee with China’s National People’s Congress, said that the real figure is 40 trillion yuan (about $5.8 trillion).

Xiang warned that China’s poorly performing stock market has come to resemble conditions during the Wall  Street Crash of 1929.

The devastating Wall Street stock market crash lasted for more than a decade, with most stocks falling 80 or 90 percent, Xiang said. The stocks of 83 firms fell by over 90 percent, 1,018 fell by over 80 percent, 2,125 by over 70 percent, and 3,150 by around 50 percent.

While unsound regulatory policy has exacerbated the problems, Xiang does not believe they are the underlying cause of the developing crash.

“Look at our profit structure,” he said. “Frankly speaking, China’s listed companies don’t really make money. Then who has taken the few profits made by China’s more than 3,000 listed companies? Two-thirds have been taken by the banking sector and real estate. The profits earned by 1,444 listed companies on the SME board and growth enterprise board are not even equal to one and half times the value of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. How can this kind of stock market become a bull market?”

Xiang made reference to a report comparing the profitability of Chinese and U.S. companies. American listed companies are in the billions, but among numerous Chinese tech and manufacturing companies, only one—Huawei—had profits in excess of $10 billion, but it was not a listed company.

The root problem concerning the Chinese economy, Xiang said, was that the majority of Chinese businesses rely on arbitrage, or taking advantage of price differences between markets, to make profits.

Official data claims that in the past ten years, IPOs (initial public offerings or stock market launches) have increased by more than 9 trillion yuan ($1.31 trillion), Xiang said. “Forty percent of it went to the stock market, speculation, and financial companies, but not investment into main businesses. Then can this be considered a good situation for listed businesses? Now you can say goodbye to the equity pledges, game over.”

“I’m acquainted with many bosses of listed companies. Frankly speaking, quite a few of them didn’t use their equity pledge funds to do real business, but just play at arbitrage,” he said. “They have many tricks: our listed companies buy financial management firms and housing. The government makes official announcements saying that our listed companies invested one to two trillion yuan in real estate. Basically China’s economy is all dealing with virtual money, and everything is overleveraged.”

“Starting in 2009, China embarked on a path of no return. The leverage ratio has soared sharply. Our current leverage ratio is three times that of the United States and twice that of Japan. The debt ratio of non-financial companies is the highest in the world, not to mention real estate,” he said.

As the economic downturn pressure is huge, the authorities have resorted to their old methods: loosening monetary policy, employing radical credit schemes, loosening fiscal policies, and using radical capital policies, said Xiang.

However, he thinks that the short-term adjustment of credit and currency cannot fundamentally solve the economic imbalances and gaps in development mentioned above.

“We are still trapped within the box of the old policy,” he said. “The key to whether transformation will be successful is the vitality of private enterprises—that is, whether policy can stimulate corporate innovation. We have been making a game of credit and monetary tools for so many years; isn’t this the reason we are saddled with so many troubles today? Speculation has driven housing prices so high.”

The core challenge facing private enterprises is not financing difficulty, though there are problems in this area, Xiang said. The fundamental problem is fear of unstable government policy.

“The leaders in the State Council said it clearly in the meeting of the Standing Committee: in China, the government is what can be least trusted. Therefore, in order to solve the debt problem, first, the debts that the government owes businesses need to be resolved, followed by the problem of state-owned enterprises owing private enterprises, and then that of large private enterprises owing smaller ones,” he said.”

Mr. Xiang’s speech dovetails what I have heard from friends who recently returned from China.  Their friends in China have told them that management in China companies has been telling its workers to be prepared to “chi ku” eat bitter, for the next ten years because of the poor economy and save their money.  Saving money in China does not result in increased consumption.

The problem with the Chinese government’s policy of stealing Intellectual Property is it sends a very clear message to Chinese entrepreneurs and its own inventors—your work, your inventions mean nothing because everything is owned by the State.  With Chinese scientists on average being paid $85,000 a year from the South China Morning Post and a campaign of belittling intellectual property, how can China grow and prosper?

That is the real problem facing China.  The Chinese government needs a trade deal before true disaster hits.

QUARTZ SURFACE PRODUCTS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES—ITC QUESTIONNAIRES

We are in the process of representing a substantial number of US importers and fabricators, US producers of downstream products, in the Quartz Surface Products from China Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case.  Quartz Surface Products are used to produce kitchen countertops, shower stalls and many other downstream products.

The Commerce Department recently issued a critical circumstances determination exposing thousands of importers to millions of dollars in liability and bankruptcy in a situation in which the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) goes no critical circumstances in over 90% of the cases.

Cambria, the Petitioner in the case, has taken the position that it not only represents the producers of the slab, the raw material, but also all the producers of the downstream products, the fabricators.  We have learned that there are more than 4,000 fabricators of the downstream producers with 1000s of jobs at stake.  Cambria essentially argues that it is the sole representative of an industry with more than 4,000 companies.

Cambria’s objective in this case is very clear—drive up the prices of the raw material so as to drive out the fabricators, the downstream producers, all 4,000 of them.  We are working to include the fabricators in the domestic industry, but the fabricators have to be willing to answer the ITC questionnaires so as to have their voices heard.

Attached are the ITC questionnaires in the case, Foreign producers–Quartz surface products (F) US importers–Quartz surface products (F) US producers–Quartz surface products (F) Questionnaire Transmittal Letter QSP US purchasers–Quartz surface products (F)to my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com.

If anyone would like help with these questionnaires, please feel free to contact me.

If anyone has any questions about the Section 301 case, the trade war with China, IP Protection, Huawei problem, the Quartz Surface Products case, antidumping or countervailing duty law, customs laws and any other trade or customs questions, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

https://uctradewar.contact2client.com/6102-2/

US CHINA TRADE WAR – TRUMP TRADE CRISIS – PRINCIPLES TO REMEMBER WHEN ANALYZING TRUMP’S TRADE ATTACKS

White House Washington DC

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR — JUNE  30, 2018

Dear Friends,

Have had a difficult time writing this blog post because Trump’s trade policy has been so difficult to figure out.  Watching all these trade actions is like watching a pinball machine.

This first article will be an overview setting certain principles to keep in mind when analyzing Trump’s trade policy.  This article will then be followed by a series of articles on each specific trade action.

This overview article, however, will concentrate on answering some questions.  First, is there a method to Trump’s trade madness?  (Shakespeare Quote Hamlet)  What are the principles driving Trump’s trade policy?  What is President Trump’s problem with the WTO?  Will President Trump lose the midterms because of his trade policy and the collateral damage on downstream steel and aluminum users and the retaliation impact on US agriculture industry?

There are so many major trade actions going on, all creating real winners and true losers in the US economy that it is difficult to see a pattern.  This many trade actions also stretch the resources of the US government.  USTR Lighthizer is involved in intense NAFTA negotiations with Canada and Mexico, which are complicated by the demands of agriculture, but also negotiations with China and numerous other countries.  President Trump does not pick his battles, but apparently risks trade attacks against every country and the resulting retaliation.

Finally, although not a fan of Trump, on June 28, 2018, Julian Zelizer, a CNN political analyst, stated that Democrats have “badly underestimated Trump”:

While Congress and the courts have significant power when it comes to checking legislative initiatives from the Oval Office, a president who is intent on dismantling policies — such as stripping away regulations or withdrawing from international agreements — can get a lot done if he or she is determined.  . . .

The possibility for President Trump to seriously transform American policy keeps growing and the potential for a two-term presidency can no longer be dismissed.

See https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/opinions/democrats-badly-underestimated-trump-zelizer/index.html.

Trump’s impact on trade policy cannot be underestimated.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

MYRIAD US TRADE ATTACKS, RETALIATION BY TRADE PARTNERS AGAINST US EXPORTS, G-7 DEBACLE AND THE TRADE ATTACKS ON CHINA—IS THERE A METHOD TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRADE MADNESSS?

SEVERAL POINTS TO CONSIDER

STRONG ECONOMY AND TRADE DEFICIT

To understand Trump’s trade policy, one should start with several simple facts.   First, the US economy is roaring with the lowest unemployment rate in decades and the lowest Black and Hispanic unemployment rates in history.

Second, in 2017 the US Trade Deficit in goods with the World was $810 billion, almost a trillion dollars.  The US trade deficit in goods with China in 2017 was $375 billion, EC $151 billion, Mexico $70 billion and Canada $17 billion.

Trump firmly believes that the US cannot follow the same trade path because the US simply cannot afford it.  Recently, President Trump stated that the United States will no longer do stupid trade, but smart trade and in trade the US will no longer be the world’s piggy bank.

One of Trump’s key promises in the election was that he would fix the trade problem. That is why President Trump tore up the Trans Pacific Partnership and announced the renegotiation of NAFTA.  President Trump keeps his campaign promises.

Trump also probably believes that the US economy is strong enough so that he can risk tough trade talks and even a trade war if necessary.  But can the US economy withstand a world trade war on so many different fronts?

SO MANY TRADE ACTIONS

In spring it looked like Trump would negotiate separate trade deals with Mexico, Canada and EU to stop retaliation in the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases.  In June, the risk of a global trade war increases with the breakdown in negotiations and actual tariffs and retaliation against US exports in the Section 232 cases, the threat of tariffs on $50 billion to $250 billion on Chinese imports in the Section 301 Intellectual Property case, NAFTA negotiations??, ZTE Mess, and the breakdown on trade in the G-7 talks in Canada.  EC, Canada, Mexico, China, India and numerous other countries have implemented retaliation lists against US exports because of the Section 232 tariffs.

Trump also is about to release another attack with a Section 232 case on automobiles, even though all the US automobile companies oppose the case.

Trump is demanding fair and reciprocal trade, not stupid trade.  See June 20, 2018 Trump speech in Minnesota at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4SdNUG4X8.

THE SPEED OF TRUMP AND THE OBAMA LESSON

But there are several other issues at work here.  Sebastian Gorka, formerly with the Trump White House and a Fox News commentator, often talks about “the speed of Trump”.

Some back history here.  Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, made a point that a crisis should not be wasted stating, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

But if one looks back on the Obama Presidency, many crises were let go to waste.  In the first two years of his Presidency, Obama had a majority in the House of Representatives and a filibuster proof 60 Democratic majority in the Senate.  But very few new legislative bills were enacted into law.

During that first two years, Democratic Senators and Congressmen warned President Obama that he had to do something to increase jobs.  But Obama decided to concentrate on healthcare for all.

Then before the first midterms, Obama lost the Ted Kennedy Senator seat to Republican Scott Brown, who promised to stop the push for Obamacare.  Because the Republicans now had 41 Senators, if the Republicans stayed strong, Obamacare could not be passed in Congress as regular legislation.  Then in the first midterms in November 2009 President Obama lost the House of Representatives, which went Republican.

So, President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate pushed through Obamacare on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2009, late at night using the reconciliation process, which required only 51 votes.  This was important because once the new Congressional term were to begin in 2010 the Democrats no longer had a majority in the House of Representatives.

Although President Obama won reelection in 2012, in the second midterms in 2014, Obama lost the Senate.  Now facing a Republican House and Senate, President Obama was forced to rely on a pen and phone to move his policy through.

But since Obama relied on a pen and a phone, the next President Trump could undo the vast majority of Obama’s policies with his own pen and phone.  That is just what President Trump has done.  Regulations have been cut enormously in the Trump Administration.  President Obama’s legacy is in tatters, in part, because President Obama did not use his time wisely.

In effect, the Obama record was a teachable moment for Donald Trump.  Trump knows that he may only have 2 years with a House and Senate majority so he has to move swiftly to do deals and make change. Trump has moved swiftly to undo Obama’s policies and legislate his own policy.

That may be the reason Trump is risking a trade war with the World.  Trump is hoping that in the first midterms he can do better than President Obama and hold the House and gain seats in the Senate, but that is a hope and not a sure thing.

In his book Art of the Deal, Trump stated that if you are going to do anything, do it big, which brings us to several more points.

TRUMP FEARS NOTHING AND LIKES CHAOS

The Washington Post recently published an op-ed entitled, “You can smell Trump’s fear”, but that commentator has completely misread Donald Trump. On June 19th, despite the constant drumbeat of attacks of separating children at the border, attacks on trade, and numerous other issues, Trump was cool and calm at a speech to the National Federation of Independent Businesses.  See https://youtu.be/ZiSnXNfbQ7k.

Am reminded about the famous statement of a Union soldier who watched General Ulysses Grant at the Battle of the Wilderness writing orders with shells exploding all around him: “Ulysses don’t scare worth a damn!”  Donald Trump does not scare worth a damn.

Trump also likes chaos and he creates the chaos by often taking a new look at established positions.  He reframes and resets issues, starts discussions from an entirely new point of view.

Substantial change to Federal policy, however, means that many oxen will be gored, the status quo will be changed, and entrenched interests do not like change.  Trump, however, apparently likes to ride the back of the chaos tiger.

On June 10, 2018, Jim Hanson, President of Security Studies Group, in an article on Fox News entitled “Trump’s willingness to walk away at the G7 and North Korea summits shows his foreign policy is working,” stated:

“This brings us to the biggest wild card President Trump brings to the world stage: he is a change agent. It would even be fair to say he creates chaos and misdirection – and then looks for an advantage. This drives many of his critics to distraction.

But when you are dealing with longstanding problems and well-entrenched interests, metaphorically knocking over a few apple carts or a conference table or two can break that deadlock. . . .

Peace through strength and fair trade are an excellent one-two punch and they work well together.  . . . The Trump administration has a plan and it is working successfully around the world.”

Although Trump is not afraid, he is concerned, and his one concern right now is the impact of his own trade policy on his base, including manufacturing and agriculture.

THE WTO PROBLEM—THE MFN PRINCIPLE BLOCKS RECIPROCITY

Recently it was reported that Trump has stated privately that he wants to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (“WTO”).  Trump cannot do this, however, without Congressional approval.

Trump has also made clear that he wants his trade policy to be reciprocal.  In other words, US tariff rates should mirror the tariff rates of other countries.  But there is a problem with that position—The WTO and its bedrock Most Favored Nation principle.

Once a country, such as China, becomes an “MFN” country, the United States cannot treat China “less advantageously than any other country with MFN status”.

This MFN principle puts low tariff countries, such as the US, at a major disadvantage in trade negotiations.  If China has a tariff of 30% on car imports, the US cannot raise its tariff on China car imports to 30%, because its car tariff for the rest of the World is 2%.  Since China is an MFN country, Trump must charge China the same tariff as it has with other countries.

One exception to the MFN principle is Free Trade Agreements (“FTA”), but if a country, such as the United States, already has low tariffs to encourage free trade, it is at a major disadvantage because it must reduce tariffs further or make some other concession in a FTA to get tariff reductions from other countries.

The MFN principle, however, is why President Trump has looked for other ways to raise tariffs on specific countries, such as the Section 232 National Security cases and the Section 301 intellectual property case against China.

AMERICANS ARE COMING AROUND TO TRUMP’S ECONOMIC TRADE NATIONALISM

Because of the enormous trade deficit in goods, Trump has succeeded in persuading many Americans that the US weakness on trade has put the US at an unfair trade disadvantage.

On June 11th, it was reported that a Quinnipiac University Poll found that a majority of swing voters, 55 percent, support tariffs on Chinese imports.  80 percent of Republican voters support Trump’s trade actions to date.

Because of Trump, the average American is learning about the many trade barriers to US exports.  Trump’s call is for reciprocity.

Why should Canadians put tariffs of over 275% on US dairy products?

Why should British Columbia put up what amounts to an 80% tariff, the highest tariff in the World, on US wine to protect large British Columbia wine producers? Both the dairy and wine problems make President Trump’s point that NAFTA is not a FTA, but a FFTA, a Fake Free Trade Agreement.

Why should Europe have higher tariffs on US cars of more than 10% when US tariffs are only 2%?

Why should China get away with charging much higher tariffs on US exports and have policies to force US companies to give up their technology?

All of these issues are causing public opinion in the US to turn away from free trade. Many American voters, American free trade periodicals, Republican and Democratic politicians are coming around to Trump’ tough trade position.

G-7 TALKS

At the G-7 talks in early June, President Trump stared down Chancellor Merkel and others on trade and slammed Prime Minister Trudeau for his criticism of the US after Trump left the talks.  See photo at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/10/angela-merkel-photo-donald-trump-diplomacy.  The photograph of the Merkel Trump stare down speaks volumes.

After the breakdown of the G-7 talks on trade, Trump sent out a tweet stating:

“Fair trade is now to be called fool trade if it is not reciprocal.  Not fair to the people of America! $800 billion trade deficit.  Why should I, as president of the United State, allow countries to continue to make massive trade surpluses, as they have for decades, while our farmers, workers & taxpayers have such a big and unfair price to pay?”

During the G-7 talks, Trump stated to reporters that the US would no longer accept “ridiculous and unacceptable” tariffs imposed by other countries on US exports and threatened to “stop trading” with nations that would not lower their tariffs.

Trump further stated: “We’re like the piggy bank that everybody’s robbing – and that ends,”

In a speech on June 25th in South Carolina, Trump described the G-7 dust up with Canada in detail.  See speech on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyf8Uie16tE.

On June 12, 2018, Investors Business Daily, a free trade periodical, which has opposed Trump on trade, stated in an editorial entitled “G-7 President Trump Didn’t Sign G7’s Leftist Agenda – Smart Move”:

“President Trump created a quite a stir among the other Western leaders by refusing to sign the “communique” that capped the G7 summit. But he was right to do so. . . .That’s particularly true of trade.

The summit communique, for instance, exhorts G7 members to “reduce tariff barriers, non-tariff barriers and subsidies.”

A reasonable goal, most economists would agree. The G7 leaders get angry at Trump because he believes that current trade deals, while good on some levels, actually are unfair to the U.S.  . . .

But what did Trump say at his press conference as he left the fruitless G7 confab . . . .?

“You want a tariff-free (trade system), you want no barriers, and you want no subsidies because you have some cases where countries are subsidizing industries, and that’s not fair,” Trump said, elaborating his own ideas about trade . . . . “So you go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy-free.”

Sounds pretty free trade to us. The fact that he questions current trade deals doesn’t signal a hatred of free trade. It does show a disdain for deals that pretend to be free trade but are really government managed trade. Often to the U.S.’ detriment. .  . .”

WILL TRUMP LOSE THE MIDTERMS BECAUSE OF HIS TRADE POLICY?

On November 6, 2018, voters in the midterms will vote based on many issues, including immigration, taxes or simply firmly held beliefs of never Trump or pro-Trump.  But in contrast to many past elections, trade policy will be an important because of the impact on Trump’s base.  Trade and the collateral damage caused by the Trump trade policy could be the fly in the ointment of Trump ‘s desire to hold the Republican Congress.

President Trump on June 28th spoke at the opening of the new FoxConn Plant in Wisconsin, in part, because of his concern about the impact of trade retaliation on Wisconsin farmers.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhihQ52gyc8.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE—STEEL ALUMINUM USERS AND FARM BELT

In March 2018, President Trump and the Commerce Department in the Section 232 cases levied 25% tariff on Steel imports and 10% tariff on Aluminum imports.  Originally the EC, Canada and Mexico were to be exempted from the tariffs if trade deals were negotiated with the US.  No trade deals were negotiated.

On May 1st, President Trump imposed the tariffs against the three countries and predictably all three countries retaliated by levying billions in dollars in tariffs on US exports.  The tariffs and counter tariffs will be described in an upcoming article.  In the Section 232 cases alone, 10,000 exclusion requests have been filed by US steel and aluminum users, and the Commerce Department has only addressed a hundred from 18 different companies.

The retaliation by trade partners, including Canada, EC, Japan, India, Mexico and China, is already taking its toll on US farmers.  In contrast to the rest of the US economy, farm incomes are down.

STEEL AND ALUMINUM USERS

Downstream steel/aluminum users are now being deeply hurt by the Section 232 tariffs.  Many users have to compete in the downstream export markets, and they cannot compete if US prices for the steel and aluminum inputs are significantly higher than world market prices.

One indicator of the injury to the downstream industries is the many trade cases filed in the last year by injured US industries against downstream steel products including: Steel Propane Cylinders, Steel Racks, Stainless Steel Flanges, Forged Steel Fittings, Certain Steel Wheels, Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets, Carbon Steel Flanges, and Certain Carbon Closing Staples.

The Section 232 tariffs are forcing companies, such as Harley Davidson, the well-known motorcycle producer, to move some of its production offshore, and threatens the very existence of the largest US steel nail producer, Mid-Continent Nail, because it is a downstream steel user.

AUTOMOBILES 232 CASE

In contrast to Section 232 Steel case which the US Steel Industry supported, the US automobile industry opposes the Section 232 on automobiles.  On June 29th, General Motors filed comments, General_Motors 232 Autos Comments, and state in part:

“increased import tariffs could lead to a smaller GM, a reduced presence at home and abroad for this iconic American company, and risk less—not more—U.S. jobs. . . .

Combined with the other trade actions currently being pursued by the U.S. Government—namely the 232 Steel and Aluminum tariffs and the Section 301 tariffs against Chinese imports—the threat of additional tariffs on automobile imports could be detrimental to our company . . . .”

What used to be good for General Motors was good for the US economy.  But now President Trump and Secretary Ross think they know better.

AGRICULTURE

Trade is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.  It is a regional issue.  As part of his base, Trump has the manufacturing states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the Rust Belt, which has been badly injured by imports from China and other countries.  The Rust Belt does not want more trade agreements.  The Blue Collar working class in the Rust Belt were a major reason Trump won the Presidency.

But Trump’s other constituency is the rural agriculture states, including Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota to name a few, all of which are dependent on exports. In contrast to other parts of the US economy, farm incomes are falling and have not increased in 15 years.  On June 26th CBS New Money Watch reported that according to the CDC, farmers are committing suicide in “staggering numbers”, a higher rate than other occupational groups.

IOWA IS HOLDING OUT FOR TRUMP

Iowa is ground zero for the farm vote.  On June 25, 2018, in an article entitled “’We’re riding a tiger’: The Iowa GOP bets it all on Trump– The president’s trade war could cripple the state, but Republicans trust in him as negotiator- in-chief” Politico reported:

“Donald Trump’s trade war with China could cost Iowa farmers hundreds of millions of dollars and do untold damage to the state economy.

But you’d never know it from talking to Republicans at the recent state GOP convention here. When Iowa Republican Party Chairman Jeff Kaufmann asked more than 1,100 delegates a defining question — who was still behind President Donald Trump? — there was no hesitation. In an exuberant display of unity, more than 1,100 delegates sprang to their feet, whistling, cheering and offering prolonged applause. . . .

The Republicans’ patience with their president amid an escalating trade war is as remarkable as it is politically perilous in an agricultural swing state that has historically held a deep disdain for trade meddling.
On June 15, Trump announced 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods and China promised to exact retaliatory tariffs, including on a key Iowa export: soybeans. . . .

With nearly $2 billion in soybean exports to China, [Iowa] has the largest exposure to the tariffs of any state in the nation . . .

GOP leaders are convinced Trump will deliver a better deal for Iowa in the end . . . .
None of it guarantees Trump will be able to replicate his 2016 victory here. A White House policy that’s viewed as hostile to farmers could precipitate a backlash from the dozens of rural counties that swung for Trump in 2016 after previously backing Barack Obama. Those are the kinds of counties Trump needs to win states like Iowa and Wisconsin in 2020. . . . .

Even the most loyal of Republicans acknowledged that volatility surrounding trade issues could scramble the state’s political equation.

“As of right now, I’d say we’re supportive of him trying to make free trade freer. We’re willing to stick with him through the negotiation,” Kaufmann said. “If nothing has changed, and we’re in an all-out trade war, and it’s six to eight months from now and you ask me this question, I may have a different answer.”

CONCLUSION

Will trade voters stick with Trump because they know something has to be done because the trade deficits are too big?  $800 billion simply is not sustainable.

But Trump has a limited amount of time.  As we get closer to the midterms, if Trump has nothing to show on trade, including trade agreements, and only retaliation and injured manufacturers and farmers, there will be hell to pay.  So, Trump has a chance to make major changes in the trade area, but he cannot blow the chance and waste the crisis.  That Obama mistake is one that Trump cannot afford to make.

Now the burden is on USTR Robert Lighthizer and Secretary Wilbur Ross at Commerce to negotiate and finalize trade agreements.

If anyone has any questions about these cases or about the Trump Trade Crisis, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–US China Trade War Update–Trump’s Tweets and Xi’s Speech Calm the Trade War WatersTRADE WAR EXPANDS WITH US THREATENING TARIFFS $150 BILLION IN CHINESE IMPORTS, SECTION 301, SECTION 232 STEEL AND ALUMINUM CASES, DAMAGE TO US AG STATES and US CHINA TRADE WAR RISKY CHICKEN GAME

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR UPDATE APRIL 10, 2018

Dear Friends,

This is an update to the first blog post, which gave an overview of the Trump Trade War.

President Trump’s tweets on April 8th and 10th and most importantly President Xi’s April 10th speech did a lot to calm the nerves of investors in the US and China that no trade war was imminent.  President Xi in his April 10, 2018 speech at the BOAN Conference in Hainan pledged to open China further to imports and to investment and to protect the intellectual property rights (“IPR”) of foreign companies.

Now in response to the Section 301 case, we can expect a round of intense negotiations between the US and China until November 18, 2018 to see if President Xi’s promises can be put into writing and the threats of a trade war averted.  Although President Xi pledged to move the reform process expeditiously, the Section 301 case has external deadlines.  After the May 15th hearing and final comments on May 22nd, there are still 180 days, 6 months, or until November 18, 2018 before the US takes action under Section 301.

Section 301 are usually settled with trade agreements so the question is what will China agree to and what will be in the Agreement.

Most importantly, the hope is that this Section 301 action can also help solve the Steel and Aluminum crisis in the Section 232 case as part of these negotiations so that China will lift its $3 billion in retaliation on US imports, which has already been put in place.  That is a hope of many US farmers.

My next update will describe the exclusion process in detail in the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, the Section 201 Solar case and the procedures going forward in the Section 301 IP China case.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

  1. If anyone wants to unsubscribe to the newsletter, please let me know and I will remove them from the list.

PRESIDENT XI’S SPEECH AND PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TWEETS HELP CALM THE TRADE WATERS AND HOPEFULLY AVERT A TRADE WAR

As the potential for a US China full blown trade war appeared to escalate last week with increasing rhetoric from both sides, cooler heads appeared to prevail as both sides stepped back from the brink.

On April 8, 2018, over the weekend and before the President Xi April 10th speech, President Trump appeared to step back and tone down his rhetoric with regards to China.  Trump specifically tweeted:

“4/8/18, 5:12 AM

President Xi and I will always be friends, no matter what happens with our dispute on trade. China will take down its Trade Barriers because it is the right thing to do. Taxes will become Reciprocal & a deal will be made on Intellectual Property. Great future for both countries!”

Very smartly, President Trump decided not to attack China or the Chinese people and that did a lot to calm the waters and provoke a positive reaction from China.  As President Xi stated in his April 10th speech, “With the future in mind, we need to treat each other with respect and as equals.”

After President Xi’s speech, President Trump tweeted on April 10th:

“4/10/18, 10:51 AM

Very thankful for President Xi of China’s kind words on tariffs and automobile barriers…also, his enlightenment on intellectual property and technology transfers. We will make great progress together!”

In effect, all the US anti-trade rhetoric had created a crisis atmosphere and the question is how China would react.  President Xi’s speech helped the US walk back the rhetoric in preparation for negotiations.  Although Trump maybe a good negotiator, the other side still has to come to the table.

Thus, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s speech on April 10th speech at the Boao forum in Hainan, China was extremely important to clear the rhetoric away in preparation for negotiations.  The Boao forum is an annual forum of Asian government and business leaders in Hainan.  In that speech, although not referring to Trump trade action by name, President Xi responded by pledging to open China more to foreign investment and imports and to substantially increase protection for intellectual property held by foreign companies.

One can see the entire April 10th President Xi speech at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgUcL4rdpI0.

President Xi’ made clear in the speech his support for global development cooperation and peace.  He stated that only peaceful development and cooperation can bring a win-win situation.  He also stated that China has no choice but to pursue development and connectivity, and that reform and innovation are keys to human development.  President Xi emphasized that countries have to treat each other with respect and as equals.

President Xi described China as a socialist country with Chinese characteristics, not a Communist country. President Xi stated that China will not threaten anyone else or the international system.  It is determined to build World Peace and global prosperity.

President Xi also stated that China is committed to its strategy of opening up China, and China will stay open and will open up even further.  President Xi stated that greater openness will move economic globalization further so as to benefit people.

President Xi also pledged to take concrete action and measures to significantly broaden market access in the financial area, insurance, and other areas.  Xi specifically mentioned easing equity restrictions in the automobiles area.

President Xi pledged stronger IP protection and to protect IPR of foreign companies and to expand imports.  He also stated that China does not seek a trade surplus but a balance of payments and that China will significantly lower imports tariffs for autos and other products.  Xi specifically stated:

“With regard to all those major initiatives I have just announced, we have every intention to translate them into reality sooner rather than later.  We want the outcomes of our opening up efforts to deliver benefits as soon as possible to all enterprises and people in China and around the world.”

President Xi also stated:

“Openness versus isolation and progress versus retrogression, humanity has a major choice to make.  In a world aspiring for peace and development, the Cold War mentality and zero‐sum mentality look even more out of place.”

Xi called for “a new approach to state‐to‐state relations, featuring dialogue rather than confrontation and partnership instead of alliance.”

Xi further stated that China will create “a more attractive investment environment. Investment is like air and only fresh air attracts more investment from the outside.”

With regards to intellectual property, President Xi stated:

“Stronger IPR protection is the requirement of foreign enterprises, and even more so of Chinese enterprises.  We encourage normal technological exchanges and cooperation between Chinese and foreign enterprises, and protect the lawful IPR owned by foreign enterprises in China.”

The real question now will be implementation, and China will no longer have the luxury of taking as much time as it wants to make these reforms because the Section 301 clock is ticking.  After the May 22nd final comments at USTR, pursuant to the Section 301 statute, the Trump Administration has another 180 days or six months or until November 18, 2018 before it takes action and imposes tariffs on the $50 billion in imports.

Most Section 301 cases end up with a negotiated settlement so we should expect the same end game in this case with intense negotiations by both sides.

If anyone has any questions about these cases or about the Trump Trade Crisis, Section 301 IP Case against China, Section 201 Solar Case, Section 232 case on Steel, Aluminum or Uranium or 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.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR APRIL 7, 2018

Dear Friends,

This is the first of two blog posts.  The first blog post gives an overview of the Trump Trade War/Crisis with the World and specifically with China.  The second blog post will get into the details and the complexities of the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, the Section 301 China Intellectual Property (“IP”) case and the Section 201 Solar Cells case.  But this trade war is getting bigger and bigger.

Having just returned from a month in Europe on March 26th, I wanted to put together another blog post, but every day there has been another significant trade development.  While in Europe, I was thinking that my next blog post would be entitled “Trump’s World Trade War”. Had the Trump Administration taken a World Trade War too lightly?

But after I returned from Europe, the narrative changed as country after country negotiated country exemptions out of the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs.

But then on April 1st the Chinese government issued a $3 billion retaliation list aimed at US imports in response to the Section 232 tariffs, much of it agricultural products.  On April 3rd. the Trump Administration announced $50 billion in potential tariffs on Chinese imports in the Section 301 case.  See attached Presidential Proclamation and 301 Fed Reg Notice with US retaliation list, FED REG NOTICE 301 PLUS PROPOSED US RETALIATION LIST FED REG PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION 301 CHINA  The Chinese government immediately reacted with its own attached list of $50 billion in tariffs on US imports into China.  China-301-Retaliation-List-Chinese-and-English.  Both lists will be described in more detail in my second blog post. Both lists cover many, many different products from agricultural products to machinery, automobiles and airplanes.

On April 5th, in response to China’s $50 billion in retaliation, President Trump proposed and USTR Lighthizer agreed on another $100 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports.  $150 billion in tariffs on Chinese imports completely offsets the $130 billion in US exports to China.  The US and China are now involved in a game of trade war chicken.  Who will blink first?

So the new title of the newsletter below is “Trump’s World Trade War?? Maybe Not.  Now Definitely Yes”  But as Shakespeare stated in Hamlet, maybe there is a method to Trump’s madness.  Trump appeared to be ready to start a World Trade War at the beginning of March, but at the end of March, Trump appeared much more interested in using the threat of high tariffs to get a better trade deal to open up foreign markets.  Tariffs give Trump leverage in trade deals.

But then the trade war started to escalate with China as both sides created retaliation lists.  The only shining light in this trade conflict is that the $150 billion tariffs will not take place right away.  There will be a hearing in May to determine which imports to target and then the actual decision implementing the US tariffs will be months away.

The Chinese government will also not implement the $50 billion in threatened tariffs until it sees what the Trump Administration does. Meanwhile there will be intense negotiations between the US and Chinese governments.

Two readers have criticized me for not focusing enough in past blog posts on the trade deficits with China and high tariffs China puts on US exports.  US exports in 2017 were $2.4 trillion, $1.6 trillion in goods and the impact of a trade war on US companies and jobs is becoming very clear.  With regards to China, the United States exported $130.369 billion to China in 2017, imported $505.597 billion in 2017 leaving a trade deficit of $375.227 billion.  Concentrating only on trade deficits, however, ignores the very large amounts exported by the United States to the World and China.

But the real question is strategy.  Trump’s strategy apparently is to use the threat of high tariffs on imports from China and other countries to extract better trade deals which lower duties on and barriers to US exports.  As indicated below, USTR Lighthizer’s strategy, in part, is based on the belief that China has not kept its promises.  The Chinese government negotiates, but does not live up to its deal so only a true threat of big trade retaliation will force China to change its practices when it comes to intellectual property and mercantilism.  if the strategy works, more power to President Trump.

But, sovereign countries may not react the same way as private businesses.  Sovereign countries are very aware of face and whether the US Government respects the other country.  If President Trump pushes too hard, he risks so angering the other country, that no trade deal can be negotiated.  See the movie the Gathering Storm when Winston Churchill asked his British constituents on a subway train whether his government should negotiate a peace treaty with Hitler.  The answer was never!!

More importantly, because of the real negative economic impact Trump’s trade policy has already had on farm states, which is a core constituency and part of Donald Trump s base, Trump should know that he truly has bet the House/his Presidency on his trade deals.  If his trade strategy does not work, the economic damage his policy will do on his constituency will badly damage Republicans in the mid-terms and he probably will be a one term President.  Going into the midterms, Republican Senator Grassley from Iowa, which has been hit hard by Trump’s trade policy, has stated that Trump will own any harm caused by his trade strategy and any retaliation caused by it.  Senator Grassley should know because Iowa is changing from a state that was firmly in the Republican camp and pro-Trump to a now battleground state.

The objective of this blog has been to warn about the perils of protectionism.  I do not want to exaggerate the situation.  If Trump’s strategy works and he gets better trade deals, he will be in a very good situation.  But if the trade deals go south, especially with China, Trump’s core constituents will be badly hurt in a trade war by retaliation and there will be election hell to pay.  Trade is becoming Trump’s Obamacare lightening rod.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

  1. If anyone wants to unsubscribe to the newsletter, please let me know and I will remove them from the list.

TRUMP’S WORLD TRADE WAR?? MAYBE NOT.  NOW DEFINITELY YES.

On February 27th, USTR Robert Lighthizer on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox News stated that it was ridiculous to think that the United States was going to get into a trade war with China.  On April 6th, in light of Trump’s decision to impose another $100 billion in tariffs on China’s imports in response to China’s threatened $50 billion on US exports, Lighthizer’s statement is simply ridiculous.  The United States has a full-blown trade war with China.  Lighthizer’s original statement, however, indicates that he may have underestimated the response of other countries to his trade demands.

At the start of March, it certainly appeared that the Trump Administration had started a trade war not only with China, but with the entire world.  In effect, the United States apparently had created a World Trade War. With tough trade NAFTA negotiations with Mexico and Canada, Europe issuing its own retaliation list in response to the Section 232 Aluminum and Steel Tariffs along with very tough tariffs for China and long retaliation lists aimed at US exports, it certainly looked like a World Trade War.

As I visited many cities in Germany, including Berlin, my fear was that the Trump Administration, like Germany, was taking a trade “war” too lightly. On March 2, 2017, President Trump tweeted:

“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!”

President Trump apparently was referring to a $100 billion bilateral trade deficit with a certain country, but it was not clear which one. In 2017, the U.S. ran a global goods deficit of $810 billion. The largest bilateral trade deficit was $375 billion with China.  But in 2017 total US exports were $2.4 trillion with $1.6 trillion being goods.  Agricultural products amounted to only $137 billion, the rest were manufactured goods.

This tweet followed the announcement to impose broad tariffs  of 25% on steel imports, and 10% on aluminum imports pursuant to the Section 232 cases.  On March 16th, the EC issued its own attached retaliation list, TWO EU RETALIATION LISTS.

In response, on March 2, 2018, the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) in an article entitled, “Trade Wars Are Good, Trump Tweets,” immediately criticized Trump’s trade action along with many economists and others, stating:

That is what most economists would call a classic “trade war,” which Investopedia defines as “a negative side effect of protectionism that occurs when Country A raises tariffs on Country B’s imports in retaliation for Country B raising tariffs on Country A’s imports.”

Most economists and policy makers consider trade wars unpredictable, destabilizing and damaging, the most notorious example being the cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation intensified by the 1930 American Smoot-Hawley law that aggravated the Great Depression.

At a March 21st hearing in the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, USTR Lighthizer gave a measured step by step argument on the Section 232 Tariffs and the Section 301 China IP Case against China to explain Trump’s trade strategy.  To see the two hour plus hearing before Ways and Means, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxqNWw5PObk.

On March 22nd, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appeared before the House Ways and Means Committee to defend the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum tariffs.  Many Representatives expressed substantial concern about the retaliation against different US exports products, such as agricultural products, and the impact on downstream steel users.  To see this long hearing with Wilbur Ross, click on the following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vylt-NTsT8I.

Upon my return from Europe, on March 26th, the situation appeared to change with a number of countries, including Canada, Mexico, South Korea, the EC, Argentina and Brazil, negotiating final or temporary trade agreements with the US in the Section 232 cases to get country wide exemptions.  See attached Section 232 Fed Reg notice outling exemptions for countries and for products, which can be filed by US end user companies. EXCLUSION FED REG STEEL AND ALUMINUM.  The exemptions for Canada and Mexico are only good depending upon the results of the NAFTA negotiations.  The EC, Brazil and Argentina exemptions are only good until early May when hopefully final agreements will be negotiated.  This was apparently part of USTR Lighthizer’s strategy before tackling China.  See below.

With regards to South Korea, in the final agreement, in exchange for a country wide exemption from the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum tariffs, it agreed to limit its steel exports to 70% of the average steel exports over the last three years and also open up its own market slightly to more auto imports from the US.  Since South Korea is the third largest steel exporter to the US, that reduction does mean that there will be less steel in the US market.

But then the trade war started to escalate again, especially with China.  On April 1st, China announced it was levying tariffs on 128 different US imports into China totaling $3 billion in response to the Section 232 tariffs on Steel and Aluminum.  China also took its case to the WTO and stated that since there are no negotiations, it can levy those tariffs now.  See the attached $3 billion Chinese retaliation list, SECTION 232 CHINA LIST RETALIATION TARGETS, which has already been imposed on US imports into China.

On April 3rd, pursuant to the Section 301 case on Intellectual Property, the Trump Administration announced its threatened $50 billion-dollar tariff list to offset the intellectual property allegedly stolen by China every year.  See attached list and Presidential Proclamation, FED REG PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION 301 CHINA FED REG NOTICE 301 PLUS PROPOSED US RETALIATION LIST.  Immediately, China announced its own attached $50 billion retaliation list on tariffs to be imposed on US imports, China-301-Retaliation-List-Chinese-and-English, if Trump follows through on his threat.

On April 5th, in response to the Chinese $50 billlion retaliation list, President Trump asked the USTR to add another $100 billion on the $50 billion already proposed against China.  The April 5th exchange between the President and USTR Lighthizer are attached.  TRUMP STATEMENT 100 BILLION LIGHTHIZER RESPONSE.  On April 6th, China said it would respond, but $150 billion is more than total US exports to China of $130 billion.

US proposes, China retaliates, the US raises the anti.  China responds.  This is a true trade war and exactly what the Wall Street Journal and others have predicted.

The only good point is that neither list has been implemented yet and as described below in more detail, the actual implementation of the tariffs is probably months away.

TRUMP HAS BET THE HOUSE/HIS PRESIDENCY ON BETTER TRADE DEALS

In his book, the Art of the Deal, Donald Trump states at page 222:

“USE YOUR LEVERAGE

The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it.  That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.  The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have.  Leverage is having something the other guy wants.  Or better yet, needs.  Or best of all, simply can’t do without.”

Trump has made it clear that he wants tariffs.  Through the Section 232 process and the Section 301 IP Case against China, Trump got his tariffs and his leverage.  Now the question is what is Trump’s trade strategy.

On March 10th, in a Pennsylvania speech after the announcement of the Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, President Trump stated with regards to trade:

European Union. . . They kill us on trade… They have trade barriers.  We can’t even sell our farming goods.   . . . Then they say we want those tariffs [aluminum and steel] taken off.  We are going to tax Mercedes Benz, BMW.  . . .You want money to come into our country.   . . . We are like $100 billion down with the European Union.  We had stupid politicians doing stupid things.  Think of $100 billion.  I’ve already had $71 billion Mexico, $130 billion.  That is a real number.  The deal was bad the day they made it.  Mexico charges a 16% tax nobody talks about.  I talk about it.  We are either going to renegotiate NAFTA – and I say we won’t put the tariffs on Mexico and Canada.  Canada is brutal.  We have a deficit with Canada.  They send in timber, steel a lot of things.  Our farmers in Wisconsin are not treated well when we want to send things to them.

I don’t blame them.  Why should I blame them?  They outsmarted our politicians for decades.  I don’t mean Obama.  I mean all of them since Bush the first.  That includes a lot of territory.  Ronald Regan. . . Not great on trade.

We used to be a nation of tariffs.  Countries had to pay for the privilege of taking our product, our jobs.  They had to pay.  They want to sell their products.  They had to pay.  Today in China.  They sell a car to the US they pay 2.5%.  We sell a car in China, which is almost impossible to do, it is probably . … 25%.  That is why we have a trade deficit with China.  It is not good.  We are changing it.  It takes a while. . .

We have a trade deficit with countries of the world…of almost $800 billion.  Who makes these deals?  . . . It is more than Obama.  Plenty of Presidents allow that to happen.  We are going to get a lot of things straightened out.  NAFTA is under work right now.

Now they are going to be very good. . .If you make a decent deal for the American people, we will have no problem with tariffs.  I said ..  something to the European Union. Look you are killing us.  We are losing $100 billion a year…You are not accepting our product.  I want to help the farmers . . .

You hear the European Union.  It sounds innocent.  It is not innocent.  They are very tough and smart.  They sell stuff into us and we … charge them practically nothing.  We sell things into them, you can’t get through the barriers.  They have artificial barriers.  It is not monetary, environmental.  They come up with things you would not believe.  We can’t get our product in there.  I said open up your barriers.  Get rid of your tariffs and we will do this. . .  We have a lot of work to do.

That is the Trump strategy.  Raise tariffs and if necessary raise tariffs again and then use those tariffs as leverage to get a better trade deal.  But what if the other country does not cooperate and puts out its own retaliation list?  That is the risk of Trump’s trade policy; the economic situation in Trump country, especially in the agriculture states, turns down.

To see a more optimistic prediction of the Trump trade strategy, see this April 4th interchange between Neil Cavuto on Fox Business with Larry Kudlow, now Trump’s new economic advisor, stating that deals will be worked out.  See https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cavuto-battles-kudlow-in-tense-standoff-you-dont-sound-like-the-larry-kudlow-i-respected-and-admired/.

Meanwhile, on April 5th the Commerce Department reported that in February 2018, the US trade deficit rose to $57.6 billion, 9½%, to its highest level in almost 10 years, although the trade deficit with China narrowed sharply falling 18.6% to $29.3 billion.  In February US exports of goods increased 2.3% to $137.2 billion, but goods imports jumped 1.6% to $214.2 billion.

On April 4th, Mark Zandl, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, predicted that Trump’s trade policy to date has cost 190,000 jobs.

THE DOWNSIDE OF TRUMP’S TRADE WAR STRATEGY–AGRICULTURE

But in the agriculture states, a hard rain is going to fall and is falling.  Just from the initial attached $3 billion-dollar list, which has gone into effect, agriculture has been the top target. SECTION 232 CHINA LIST RETALIATION TARGETS. Agriculture experts expect that the soybeans, sorghum, beef, pork, wheat, corn and cotton are all on the target lists for both cases.  For most of these farm products, US farmers export billions to China.

Attached is list from Washington State indicating the potential indirect impact to the state of the $50 billion in tariffs, which may go into effect. China 301 retaliation by Value US China-301-Retaliation-List-Chinese-and-English.  Attached is another spreadsheet of the actual impact on Washington State of the $3 billion in tariffs in effect now in response to the steel and aluminum tariffs, WASHINGTON STATE China 232 FINAL retaliatin list and Washington exports.  The total is over $150 million in Washington State exports, including cherries ($100 million), Aluminum Scrap ($49 million), Apples ($17.6 million) and wine ($1.4 million).

On April 5, 2018, in an article entitled “What a Trade Fight Would Mean For Trump Country”, the Washington Examiner looked at the downside of the Trump trade war and attacks on other countries.  Farmers are getting smashed and they are a core Trump constituency.  As the Washington Examiner states:

President Trump’s hardball tactics to extract trade concessions from China could crush communities that fuel his political support, with Republicans in Congress paying the price in November.

A Brookings Institution analysis revealed that a U.S.-China trade war would impact agriculture and manufacturing and could disproportionately cost working class jobs in counties Trump carried in the 2016 election. Of the 2,783 counties affected, the president won 2,279; compared to just 449 that went for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Nearly 1.1 million jobs in Trump country are tied to trade with China, according to the Brookings study. Voters there, supportive of the president’s agenda and long eager for the U.S. to combat Beijing’s unfair trade practices, might give the administration latitude to negotiate better terms.

But if the confrontation escalates and the economy suffers, congressional Republicans could shoulder the blame. Already facing a challenging re-election environment, they count a growing economy among their few advantages. They have minimal time to weather any storm and, unlike Trump, can’t rely on the loyalty of the GOP base.

“This could have a huge, negative impact in the midterms — and beyond — if the trade tit for tat continues,” Dave Carney, a veteran Republican strategist based in New Hampshire, said. Although, he added: “If the president gets concessions and jobs continue to grow and most importantly voters give him credit for that victory, then things will improve for his party.”

The Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank in Washington, examined industries and jobs that would be affected by a trade war with China based on the threats being lobbed back and forth since Trump began moving in March to crack down on Beijing. . . .

Nothing concrete has actually happened, yet. Wall Street, and top executives at corporations who stand to lose business, are operating under the assumption that a deal will be reached before the saber-rattling evolves into an extended showdown. . . .

The agriculture industry, the economic backbone of many rural communities in the heartland, is less sanguine and isn’t waiting for negotiations between Washington and Beijing to falter to sound the alarm. In a press release, the American Soybean Association said “Chinese Retaliation is No Longer a ‘What If’ for Soybean Farmers.”

Soybean farmers export 60 percent of their crop, about $14 billion worth annually, to China. ASA Vice President Davie Stephens, a soybean farmer in Clinton, Ky., said he awoke Wednesday morning to a 30-40 cent per bushel drop in the price of soybeans, which appeared related to the increased specter of a trade war.

“Farmers are worried,” Stephens said in a telephone conversation. “My local community would feel the impact.”

Trump at times has been bellicose in his rhetoric, vowing that he would do whatever is necessary to force China to treat U.S. imports fairly. “When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose,” he tweeted. But the administration in general sought to calm nerves, with top officials insisting that Trump is intent on avoiding a major spat with Beijing.

“You know, there are carrots and sticks in life, but he is ultimately a free trader. He’s said that to me, he’s said it publicly. So he wants to solve this with the least amount of pain,” Larry Kudlow, the president’s chief economic adviser and an ardent free trader, told reporters.

Republicans worried about the midterm elections don’t sound reassured. Hoping to run on a $1.3 trillion tax overhaul that accelerated economic growth in the first quarter of the year and delivered massive tax cuts, Republicans have seen their economic message usurped by Trump’s proposed tariffs.

Worse, Republicans fear that an unintended trade war might erase the economic gains they’re depending on to buttress the party against political headwinds that threaten to wipe out their majorities in the House and Senate. As Brookings discovered, more than 2.1 million jobs could be adversely affected by a confrontation with China, including almost 1 million in the 449 Clinton counties.

That’s because China’s potential retaliatory targets include white-collar industries such as pharmaceuticals and aerospace. House Republicans are defending 23 districts won by Clinton 17 months ago, and trade war aftershocks that rumble through Clinton counties could add to GOP woes in the affected red seats.

Working-class voters might not fret too much about stock market volatility attributed to Trump’s trade policies. But it could push the white collar set right into the arms of the Democrats, especially in educated, upscale suburbs that typically vote Republican but are drifting, because of dissatisfaction with the president’s polarizing leadership.

“If I were a Democrat, what I would be running up Trump’s ass is how these shenanigans are DESTROYING values in 401ks and college savings plans,” a GOP strategist said. “Most people don’t know a cashew farmer or whiskey distiller but do worry about their own retirement account and paying for college.”

The problem for President Trump is that according to an April 5th article by Newsmax, as reported by Morning Consult, Trump’s approval rating across the 50 states has fallen to 41%.  The Rasmussen Poll shows Trump rising to 51%, but when polling is done at a state level, it is not that pretty.  In contrast to West Virginia, which shows a huge bump for Trump, Iowa dropped by 9 points, Idaho dropped by 6 points, Montana by 5 points and Oklahoma by 5 points.  These states have several things in common.  First, they are strong Republican red states and second they are agriculture states.  Iowa has been a very reliable Republican state, but is now considered a battleground state.

In addition, on February 8, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that in contrast to the rest of the economy, farm Incomes are falling, “Farm incomes are forecast to decline 7% to $60 billion in 2018.”

To win the midterms, these states have to stay in the Republican column.  For Trump to win the Presidency in 2020, he has to carry the farm belt.  If he loses the farm states, he loses the Presidency.

On April 5, 2018, the Wall Street Journal in article entitled “Tariff Showdown Shifts to Intense Negotiation Period,” stated:

Congress has been reluctant to do anything beyond warn the Trump administration that it risks a full-blown trade war, although behind the scenes some lawmakers, especially Republicans, want the government to find a quick solution to the tension.

“Every town hall I go to, trade or tariffs is one of the big questions. That’s what’s on their mind,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) . . . . “They are starting to question the president and where we’re going with this,” she said, adding that she was going to express her concerns directly to Mr. Trump on Wednesday. “I need for him to understand that we’re hurting in the Midwest and this is not helping.”

Iowa is among the largest soybean- producing states, and the state’s other senator, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, noted on Wednesday that he had cautioned Mr. Trump his administration would own any harm caused by Chinese retaliation.

Emphasis added.

THE REAL PROBLEM OF A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA—THE AVERAGE AMERICAN SUPPORTS TRUMP ON THIS ACTION—CHINA STARTED IT

On the day, China announced its $50 billion retaliation list, much of which was aimed at constituents of Donald Trump, including US farmers in rural states, Rasmussen reported that Donald Trump’s popularity for the first time in its daily polling had shot to 51%.

The People’s Daily recently asked me to comment on the Section 232 and 301 trade actions against China.  As I stated in my comments, the majority of Americans, 70% in recent polls, believe that it is time to stand up to China’s trade practices.  Many Americans see Chinese trade practices as being unfair.  So the perception of trade disputes with China is very different than the perception of trade disputes with other countries, such as the EC, Mexico and Canada.  In fact, after the Chinese Government proposed $50 billion in tariffs in response to the US tariffs and Trump countered with another $100 billion in proposed tariffs, many Americans indicated strong support for President Trump.

The Chinese press indicates that many Chinese are very angry at the US and Trump, but the US Press indicates that many Americans believe that China has taken too much advantage of the US China trade relationship and strongly support President Trump.  With both the Chinese and US populations riled up, this makes it much more difficult for the Governments to step back and negotiate a settlement.

In the March 22nd Editorial, “Trump’s China Tariffs”, the Wall Street Journal, in effect, stated that China started the trade war.  Although the Wall Street Journal states that Trump’s trade policy with China is the wrong economic strategy to get it to change, the WSJ also states:

“No one should be surprised by the $60 billion in border taxes on China, given that Mr. Trump campaigned on worse. He is also responding to the genuine problem of Chinese mercantilism. China’s government steals the intellectual property of U.S. companies or forces them to turn it over, and Beijing uses regulation to discriminate against foreign firms.

This might have been tolerable when China was a smaller economy trying to reform, and the U.S. made a reasonable bet in 2001 when it let China enter the World Trade Organization. The gamble was that China would continue to reform, adapt to global trade norms, and eventually become a genuine market economy.

That hope showed early promise but has become forlorn as President Xi Jinping has pushed “national champions” like Huawei and Tencent. Facebook still can’t operate in China, and Tesla is punished with a 25% tariff on imported electric cars. The U.S. tariff on cars from China is 2.5%. China’s predatory behavior has eroded political support in the West for the very free-trade rules that have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty.”

Emphasis added.

But the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”) in the same editorial warned:

“The President’s trade hawks, led by White House aide Peter Navarro, want to punish China more than they want to change its behavior. Mr. Navarro really does believe that China today is the equivalent of Germany a century ago. Mr. Trump said Thursday that this tariff action would be “the first of many.”  This is the mentality that could lead to a trade war and economic damage for everyone.  . . .”

When it comes to free trade and economics, the Wall Street Journal is the voice of reason, which many free trade Republicans in Congress listen to.

On April 6, 2018, after Trump’s announcement of another $100 billion in tariffs, the WSJ in an article entitled “The Architect of Trump’s Tough-on-China Policy” described in detail USTR Lighthizer’s strategy with regards to China:

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s tough policy on China trade took shape in a White House meeting last August—and at the center was an often-overlooked man.

Decades of quiet negotiations had gotten nowhere, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told senior White House advisers and cabinet officials gathered in the Roosevelt Room.

“China is tap, tap, tapping us along,” he said, meaning it regularly promised policy changes but didn’t deliver. He punctuated his talk with charts showing how the trade deficit with Beijing had widened. . . .

U.S. Ambassador to China Terry Branstad, linked by videophone, asked for a chance to conduct another round of talks based on a rapport he was developing with the Chinese. He found little support. It was time to act, starting with a formal investigation of China for unfair trade practices, Mr. Lighthizer argued.

A few days later, Mr. Trump announced an investigation of alleged Chinese violations of U.S. intellectual-property rights—headed by Mr. Lighthizer. It marked the start of the most dramatic and high-risk effort in decades to force the world’s second largest economy to change its behavior, which culminated this week in an order threatening to slap tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports, a move that also had Mr. Lighthizer’s imprint on it.

After China threatened tariffs on an equal amount of imports from the U.S., Mr. Trump on Thursday called that “unfair retaliation” and said he might put tariffs on a further $100 billion of Chinese imports, tripling the amount subject to them. A Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman said on Friday Beijing ”is fully prepared to hit back forcefully and without hesitation.”

Mr. Lighthizer’s role became clear to the Chinese when the Trump economic team landed in Beijing in November for a round of discussions. Mr. Trump made sure the U.S. trade representative met with top Chinese leaders while some others waited outside.

In a session with President Xi Jinping, Mr. Lighthizer laid out how fruitless the U.S. considered past negotiations and how the president was concerned the U.S. trade deficit continued to expand. While US officials saw Mr. Lighthizer’s comments as a lawyerly argument, Chinese officials described their reaction as shocked.

Today, Mr. Lighthizer is exchanging letters with China’s senior economic envoy on measures Beijing could take to head off a trade war. Negotiations are likely to stretch over many months— an ambiguity that could rattle financial markets and lift prices on goods earmarked for tariffs. . . .

Many U.S. businesses say they are fed up with what they view as unfair Chinese subsidies to local companies, and strong-arm tactics that make them hand over technology to Chinese partners. Still, they worry U.S. threats of tariffs could backfire and leave them vulnerable to retaliation. . . .

Early in the Trump administration, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a longtime Trump ally who had done business in China, was expected to lead China economic policy. He privately referred to Mr. Lighthizer, a former trade attorney, as his lawyer, say business executives, who took it as a slight. A Commerce official said Mr. Ross meant only that the two had worked together previously on steel issues.

Mr. Ross’s star dimmed when the president dismissed an early package of deals the commerce secretary negotiated with Beijing as little more than a repackaging of past offers, say senior White House officials. “Shut it down,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Ross in July when he stripped Mr. Ross of his China role and closed down the talks, according to senior administration officials.

Mr. Ross continues to work on China issues, including advising Mr. Lighthizer on which Chinese imports to target for tariffs, a Commerce official said.

Mr. Lighthizer, by contrast, managed to bridge a sharp divide over trade among Mr. Trump’s warring factions.

To so-called nationalists like trade aide Peter Navarro, who was itching to take on China, Mr. Lighthizer was a China hawk. Mr. Navarro is mainly an idea man, who has seen his role as making sure the White House carries out the president’s campaign pledge to stop China from “ripping us left and right.” Mr. Lighthizer runs a trade agency, plots strategy and carries it out. The two have worked together to develop on China policy, though they sometimes disagree on tactics.

To the so-called globalists such as former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, who worried about the impact of trade fights on markets, Mr. Lighthizer was the skilled attorney and former congressional aide who understood how Washington worked.

To Mr. Trump, Mr. Lighthizer was a kindred spirit on trade—and one who shuns the limelight. The two men, who have a similar chip-on-the-shoulder sense of humor, bonded. Mr. Lighthizer caught rides to his Florida home on Air Force One. Mr. Trump summons Mr. Lighthizer regularly to the Oval Office to discuss trade matters, administration officials say.

“Lighthizer has everyone’s trust, regardless of their views on trade,” said Kevin Hassett, the White House chief economist. . . .

Mr. Lighthizer, on the other hand, is a skilled international trade litigator, more in the mold of former U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, who negotiated China’s entry into the WTO. The Trump team thinks China experts have been too quick to back off in negotiations with Beijing.

By the time he took office in May, the administration was fighting internally over whether to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports globally. China policy was on the back burner.

While Mr. Lighthizer believed the metal glut was due to Chinese excess production, say administration officials, he thought a fight at that point would be self-defeating because the focus would be on U.S. tariffs, not Chinese trade and investment practices. Assessing tariffs on all steel exporters, many of which are U.S. allies, would paint the U.S. as a villain instead of China.

Rather than risk the ire of Mr. Trump, who considered steel tariffs a campaign promise, Mr. Lighthizer worked quietly with Mr. Cohn and others to get the issue set aside in favor of other priorities.

U.S. trade representatives often regard themselves as lawyers for U.S. exporters, trying to open up new markets. Mr. Lighthizer saw things differently, viewing big U.S. companies as job outsourcers that sometimes had to be reined in.

At a September meeting with about 100 CEOs organized by the Business Roundtable, he said he understood they had to maximize profits, which sometimes meant exporting jobs. “My job is different,” he told the group, according to participants. “My job is to represent the American workers. We’re going to disagree.” It was a position some in the audience found arrogant. . . .

As with his boss, bluntness is his calling card. In the mid-1980s, as a U.S. Trade Representative official who negotiated with Japan, he once grew so frustrated he took a Japanese proposal, turned it into a paper airplane and floated it back at the Japanese negotiators as a joke. In Japan, he became known as “the missile man.”

In a Senate hearing last month, when Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington said his China plans could hurt U.S. aircraft makers, he dismissed her concerns as “nonsense.”

As the U.S. moved toward confrontation with China last fall, after the August Roosevelt Room session, Mr. Lighthizer worked to make sure the administration was united. Previously, the U.S. had often balked at confronting China out of fear a fight would tank the global economy and make China less willing to help on national-security issues.

Defense chief Jim Mattis, though, backed a tough approach because he was concerned China was illicitly obtaining U.S. technology and could gain a military edge, say individuals familiar with his thinking. Others in the national-security agencies were tired of what they felt were unmet Chinese promises on Korea and other security issues.

Mr. Cohn, then the economy chief, was as fed up with Beijing as Mr. Lighthizer, say officials. As a longtime president of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Cohn had lobbied to do business unimpeded in China and didn’t get the approvals he sought.

At the end of February, China sent its chief economic envoy, Liu He, to Washington to try to restart negotiations. Mr. Liu was ready to pledge that Beijing would open its financial market.

He found a frosty welcome. The Chinese embassy had requested 40 visas so Mr. Liu could bring a full entourage. The State Department granted just a handful.

Mr. Liu couldn’t get any time with President Trump. Instead, he met with Mr. Lighthizer, Mr. Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The three delivered a simple message, say officials familiar with the talks: The U.S. isn’t going to get “tapped around” like prior administrations.

The U.S. wanted substantial changes in trade practices and barriers, which Mr. Lighthizer detailed. They included cutting the tariff China imposes on auto imports from 25% to something closer to the U.S. tariff of 2.5%. The U.S. also wanted a $100 billion reduction of its $375 billion annual merchandise trade deficit with China. To punctuate those demands, the administration planned to threaten tariffs.

One more obstacle needed to be cleared away. President Trump, frustrated that the steel- tariff matter had been indefinitely delayed, was sympathetic to pitches by Messrs. Navarro and Ross that he should finally move on the issue. In early March, Mr. Trump said he would impose 25% tariffs on steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum from any exporting nation.

The international response threatened to drown out the China initiative as U.S. allies complained they were unfairly targeted.

On Tuesday evening, March 20, senior officials gathered again in the Roosevelt Room to decide how to proceed with the tariffs scheduled to go into effect in three days. Mr. Navarro, the trade adviser, argued tariffs should be imposed across the board as the president threatened, say officials. That would increase U.S. leverage with steel-exporting nations, which could be expected to offer concessions to avoid tariffs, he argued.

Mr. Lighthizer, aligned this time with Mr. Ross, pressed for an alternative course. Grant nearly all nations except China temporary exclusions from the tariffs, they proposed, according to participants, but then limit their exports through quotas. That would make the U.S. seem more reasonable in steel negotiations and help form a coalition against China.

The group produced a memo in which the different views were articulated. Mr. Trump backed Mr. Lighthizer’s side.

With the steel issue defused, at least temporarily, Mr. Trump announced on March 22 the U.S. would threaten tariffs on Chinese imports. He thanked Mr. Lighthizer for his help and invited him to say a few words.

“This is an extremely important action,” Mr. Lighthizer said, “very significant and very important for the future of the country, really, across industries.”

Over coming months, the ability of the U.S. to maintain pressure on China will depend on factors including the reaction of markets, opposition by U.S. industries and farmers, and retaliation by China against U.S. companies. Chinese leaders say they are confident they would prevail in a trade war, say U.S. individuals who have met with them recently, and chalk up U.S. threats to Mr. Trump’s midterm congressional electioneering.

Jorge Guajardo, a former Mexican ambassador to China and now a Washington consultant, has seen up close how Beijing can pressure companies and wear down governments. “The big question is, ‘Will the U.S. blink?’” he said. “Or will they stay the course so China is forced to understand there is a new way of doing business.”

As I predicted in past newsletters when Robert Lighthizer originally obtained the USTR job, he would be a very tough negotiator especially with China.

To also see the raw emotion about China’s trade policies, see the videos mentioned above at the following two links.  The first link is for Robert Lighthizer’s testimony at House Ways and Means on March 21st with the focus on the Section 301 against China at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxqNWw5PObk.  The second link is to the testimony of Wilbur Ross at the House Ways and Means on March 22nd at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vylt-NTsT8I.  Throughout the hearings, all the Congressmen and Ross himself put tremendous emphasis on China’s overcapacity in the Steel and Aluminum industries.  Many Congressmen agreed that substantial pressure had to be put on China because of its trade policy and the perception that for too long China has taken advantage of the US in trade negotiations.  The videos are long, but the US emotions and political feeling about trade with China are very real.

On March 25th in another editorial entitled “Donald Trump’s China tariffs make sense”, USA Today came out in favor of the Trump trade policy with regards to China:

“The Chinese should know that business as usual isn’t fair trade: Our view

President Trump has done many counterproductive things on trade. His recently announced (and later scaled back) steel tariffs, for example, will punish car makers and other industrial users of steel. And his decision to pick fights with nations in Europe and North America needlessly angers important allies.

But with his announcement to impose penalties on up to $60 billion in Chinese imports, Trump has finally hit on a trade action that makes a certain amount of sense.

China’s numerous state-owned companies limit access to Chinese markets, while exports to the United States continue at a robust level. Its practice of requiring foreign companies to share trade secrets in return for market access is nothing short of a shakedown. And its tolerance for (perhaps even encouragement of) theft of intellectual property makes it a lawless frontier for international companies trying to do business

Trump’s threatened tariffs are meant to effect change in China, not — as is often the case with tariffs — to protect U.S. industries that know how to throw their weight around politically.

Many free-traders will see these tariffs as yet another in a long line of counterproductive moves by the president. There could be some truth to that reasoning. But the tariffs also reflect a growing belief among U.S. business leaders that a laissez-faire approach simply isn’t working.

Such an approach relies on the power of markets, free enterprise and the survival of the fittest companies. In China, however, a gargantuan, single-party state holds the leverage to dictate terms to private companies.

Whether these tariffs work is an open question. China will naturally respond with its own tariffs, focused on U.S. agricultural products, and perhaps with a more truculent foreign policy. . . .

To truly be effective, these threatened tariffs should be combined with the U.S. re-entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership…, a proposed trading zone linking 11 nations (not including China) in Asia and the Americas. In fact, if the United States were to take only one action to put pressure on China, joining the TPP would be the better approach.

TPP would turn the dispute with China into a multilateral affair. In virtually all efforts to pressure a nation to change its ways, a concerted effort by multiple nations is more successful than one nation going it alone.

The road ahead won’t be easy. Trump has not done himself any favors by alienating many U.S. allies in Canada, Mexico and Europe. Or with his rash decision, at the beginning of his presidency, to take the United States out of TPP.

Even so, there’s nothing wrong with sending a message to China that business as usual isn’t sustainable.”

On March 25th, on New York Radio, the “The Cats Roundtable,” John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser, stated:

“[T]he president was trying to communicate to signal to China is for far too long China has taken advantage of its place in the world; trade organizations and trade arrangements. The Chinese have stolen intellectual property, patent information copyrights and trademarks, business secrets. They take the information and they don’t honor the patent rights as it might be or the copyright rights — they just copy it and build their own. It’s theft. There’s no other description for it, so when you steal somebody else’s property and make money off of it yourself, it really magnifies the consequences for American industry in a very negative way.”

I think this could be a little shock therapy.”

On April 6, 2018 in an opinion piece in the Washington Post entitled, “Trump is right: China’s a trade cheat”, Fareed Zakaria, a known Trump critic and commentator on CNN, a very anti-Trump TV network, stated his agreement on Trump’s trade China trade policy:

Ever since the resignation of top advisers Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster, it does seem as if the Trump White House has gotten more chaotic, if that is possible. But amid the noise and tumult, including the alarming tweets about Amazon and Mexico, let’s be honest — on one big, fundamental point, President Trump is right: China is a trade cheat.

Many of the Trump administration’s economic documents have been laughably sketchy and amateurish. But the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s report to Congress on China’s compliance with global trading rules [see attached report China 2017 WTO Report] is an exception worth reading. In measured prose and great detail, it lays out the many ways that China has failed to enact promised economic reforms and backtracked on others, and uses formal and informal means to block foreign firms from competing in China’s market. It points out correctly that in recent years, the Chinese government has increased its intervention in the economy, particularly taking aim at foreign companies. All of this directly contradicts Beijing’s commitments when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

Whether one accepts the trade representative’s conclusion that “the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO,” it is clear that the expectation that China would continue to liberalize its markets after its entry has proved to be mistaken. . ..

Look at the Chinese economy today. It has managed to block or curb the world’s most advanced and successful technology companies, from Google to Facebook to Amazon. Foreign banks often have to operate with local partners who add zero value — essentially a tax on foreign companies. Foreign manufacturers are forced to share their technology with local partners who then systematically reverse engineer some of the same products and compete against their partners. And then there is cybertheft. The most extensive cyberwarfare waged by a foreign power against the United States is done not by Russia but by China. The targets are American companies, whose secrets and intellectual property are then shared with Chinese competitors.

China is not alone. Countries such as India and Brazil are also trade cheats. In fact, the last series of world trade talks, the Doha Round, was killed by obstructionism from Brazil and India, in tandem with China. Today the greatest threat to the open world economy comes from these large countries that have chosen to maintain mixed economies, refuse to liberalize much more and have enough power to hold firm.

The Trump administration may not have chosen the wisest course forward — focusing on steel, slapping on tariffs, alienating key allies, working outside the WTO — but its frustration is understandable. Previous administrations exerted pressure privately, worked within the system and tried to get allies on board, with limited results. Getting tough on China is a case where I am willing to give Trump’s unconventional methods a try. Nothing else has worked.

TRADE WAR CHICKEN GAME—WHO WILL BLINK FIRST?

The United States and China have now entered a game of chicken, two governments going directly at each other over trade.  The question is which government will blink first: China or the United States.  I firmly believe that both countries—China and the United States need to stand down and negotiate a deal, but a deal which is enforceable.  We do not want this trade war to expand further.

To Chinese friends, I would say do not escalate the rhetoric.  Of course, China will retaliate if the $150 billion in tariffs are imposed, but as Trump has stated many times, he is a counterpuncher.  Threatening Trump is waving a red flag in front of a bull.  With the very real damage to Trump’s agricultural base, he knows how very serious these US China trade negotiations will be.

As mentioned in my blog posts just after the Presidential election in 2016, Trump’s victory was a seismic tipping point.  Trump won the election because he promised to be tough on trade. Trade was never a major issue in a US election.  Trade and specifically trade with China has now become one of the most important political issues in the US.  China is a major reason for this sea change in US politics.

As indicated above, the WSJ articulates the position of the many Americans and the US Congress perfectly.  When China entered the WTO, Premier Zhu Ronji was China’s economic genius.  He wanted to get China into the WTO not to appease the US, but to help China internally and push it to become a more market oriented country and to lessen the impact of the State-Owned Companies.  I heard Premier Zhu make this statement in New York City in the early 2000s.

But now China appears to be moving away from a market oriented country and putting much more emphasis on State-Oriented capitalism.  The Chines State uses its economic might to target technologies and increase its economic might so as to achieve a dominant economic position in the World.

The rise in China is to be expected as China achieves the very high historical position it held in the World.  But if China wants to use its economic might to achieve political dominance, the World will react to that strategy and counter it.

The perception is that the WTO has done nothing to deal with Chinese mercantilism and the rise of China’s state-oriented capitalism.  The WTO is to quote Mao a “paper tiger”.

The American perception of China’s mercantilism and its state-oriented capitalism means that there is little sympathy for China and that does not bode well for the future of US China trade relations.

As Trump has made clear in many political statements, his new trade policy will be reciprocity.  The United States will not open its border to Chinese imports if China shuts down its own border to US exports in the same sector.  The United States will not let Chinese companies invest in certain sectors of the US economy if China prohibits investment by US companies.

That is where the Trump trade policy is headed. With trade being the main political issue at the present time, I suspect that the Trump trade policy will become the US trade policy not only during the Trump Presidency but the US trade policy for many years in the future.

To my US friends, I would make the point that the Chinese have a different World view.  We have the American dream, but China has its own dream.  Thus, it would be a big mistake to make a personal attack on the Chinese government and the Chinese people.

On April 5th, in an article entitled “Mexican president to Trump: ‘Nothing and no one stands above the dignity of Mexico”, Politico reported:

President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico blasted Donald Trump in a video message on Thursday, vowing that “nothing and no one stands above the dignity of Mexico” and adding that the U.S. president’s main gripes were Congress’ problem, not Mexico’s. . . .

“As Mexicans, we may disagree among ourselves, especially during election periods, but we will always be united when it comes to defending our country’s dignity and sovereignty,” Peña Nieto said.

The same point stands with regards to China.  On April 5th I heard a Fox News reporter state we want the US to be the hegemon, the major power in the World.  China wants the same thing.  They want to be the hegemon, just like the United States, the major power in the World.  Does that mean that inevitably there will be a military conflict between the United States and China?  Hopefully not.

One reader blasted me because I did not describe China as Communist China.  Sorry, I do not want to go back to the period before Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger opened China to the outside world.  I do not want to go to war with China, but “hegemon” talk fuels nationalist/jingoist talk that we the United States are so powerful everyone must bow down to us.

That is what Adolf Hitler believed with regard to Germany and his memorial in Berlin is a parking lot over his old World War 2 bunker as Germany has done everything in its power to educate the average person about the real danger of the Nazi creed and, in effect, to expunge Hitler and Nazism from its history.  World War 2 left Germany destroyed and caused the deaths of 20 million people.  That is where puffed up nationalism leads.

Recently, in a video called the Value of Travel, Rick Steves, a well-known travel writer and producer on PBS, stated that he spends on average 4 months every year out of the United States. Steves stated that one of the major benefits of his travel experience is that he has learned that although we in the US have the American dream, people in other countries have their own national dreams.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYXiegTXsEs.

The point is that I view China as a friendly economic competitor and would rather trade with China than go to war with it.  President Xi Jinping has pledged to the peaceful rise of China, and I hope that is what China truly believes or millions of lives will be lost in another World War, something to be avoided at all costs.

The bottom line is that Trump’s trade war with China is very risky and it will be a very bumpy ride in the next few months with developments on a day by day basis.  But my firm hope is trade agreements that will be win win, not only for the United States, but for our trading partners, including China.  We all need good trade deals, which are enforceable.

In my second blog post, I will outline from a technical point of view, the developments in the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, the Section 301 IP Case against China, NAFTA negotiations and new trade cases against China.

If anyone has any questions about the Trump Trade Crisis, including the Section 232 case on Steel, Aluminum or Uranium or US trade policy, Section 301 intellectual property case against China, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–CHINA RETALIATION, 201 REMEDIES, VITAMIN C, TRUMP AND TRADE, TAX BILL, SECTION 301 CHINA, SECTION 201 SOLAR CELLS, SECTION 232 STEEL AND NEW CASES

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR FEBURARY 5, 2017 CHINA TRADE RETALIATION UPDATE

Dear Friends,

What goes around comes around.  President Trump has threatened retaliation against China and countries for various misdeeds by raising tariffs.  But the Chinese government has now upped the game and responded with its own trade case against US agricultural exports of Sorghum Grain to China.

MOFCOM SELF-INITIATES ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASE AGAINST SORGHUM GRAIN FROM THE US

On December 1, 2017, in the first time in over a decade, the Commerce Department self-initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty case against imports of aluminum sheet from China.

On February 4, 2018, Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) in China retaliated by self-initiating its own antidumping and countervailing duty case against imports of US sorghum grain.  Total China imports of US Sorghum Grain in 2016 were 5,869,000 tons worth more than $1.26 billion USD.

Notices of appearance are due at MOFCOM by February 24th.

In addition to dumping, the case targets large US agricultural subsidies for sorghum grain, such as Crop Insurance Program, Price Loss Protection Program, Agricultural Risk Protection Program, Marketing Loan Program, Export Credit Guarantee Program, Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Partner Program.

Some of the US companies that may be the targets of this MOFCOM action are: Agniel Commodities, LLC, Attebury Grain, LLC, Big River Resources, Bluegrass Farms of Ohio, Inc., Bunge North America, Inc., Cardinal Ethanol, LLC, Cargill, Inc., Consolidated Grain and Barge Co., DeLong Company  Inc., Enerfo USA, Inc., Fornazor International Inc., Freepoint Commodities LLC, Gavilon, Illinois Corn Processing, LLC, International Feed, Louis Dreyfus Commodities, Marquis Grain Inc., Mirasco Inc., Pacific Ethanol, Inc., Perdue AgriBusiness, LLC, The Scoular Company, Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC, Tharaldson Ethanol Plant I, LLC, United Wisconsin Grain Producers, and Zeeland Farm Services.  Attached is a list of more potential US target companies, US exporters of grain sorghum to China

This case is important because it signals the possible start of a trade war with China.  The US self-initiates antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China; China self-initiates antidumping and countervailing duty cases against the US.

President Trump has been threatening to levy numerous tariffs against China and other countries, but this Sorghum Grain trade case indicates that there is a price to pay for US tariffs and trade actions. Many in Washington DC are used to dealing with Japan, Taiwan and South Korea with regards to trade, but those countries are dependent on the United States for their national security.  Throw a trade rock at those countries, and they rarely throw one back.

China, however, is not dependent on the United States for its national security.  Throw a trade rock at China, and they will throw one back.  Moreover, this Sorghum Grain case is aimed directly at President Trump’s constituency—agriculture and the rural states.

Both the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily in numerous editorials have warned the Trump Administration that the only major economic issue that could stop the rise in the economy is a trade war.  Trump and the Republicans have tied their political star to the rising US economy.  But if Trump levies more tariffs against Chinese imports, expect the Chinese government to retaliate and aim its trade guns at products and constituencies that will hurt Trump and the Republicans the most—agriculture.

If anyone has any questions about this case, please feel free to contact me.

US CHINA TRADE WAR JANUARY 25, 2018 SOLAR CELLS 201 UPDATE

Dear Friends,

Attached is the Solar Cells Presidential Proclamation with Annexes, which was published today January 25th in the Federal Register, FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION SOLAR CELLS.  According to the Annex I (f), the 30% tariff will be applied to imports starting February 7, 2018.

In addition, a number of countries are excluded in Annex 1(b) from the tariff, including India and Ukraine, so long as their share of imports does not exceed 3%.

Within 30 days, the United States Trade Representative’s office (“USTR”) will publish a Federal Register notice, which will allow companies to petition for exclusion.  The Proclamation specifically also states that the President has “determined to exclude certain products from this action and goes on to state in paragraph 15, 4:

Within 30 days after the date of this proclamation, the USTR shall publish in the Federal Register procedures for requests for exclusion of a particular product from the safeguard measure established in this proclamation. If the USTR determines, after consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce and Energy, that a particular product should be excluded, the USTR is authorized, upon publishing a notice of such determination in the Federal Register, to modify the HTS provisions created by Annex I to this proclamation to exclude such particular product from the safeguard measure described in paragraph 8 of this proclamation.

Consumer products with solar cells, such as solar-powered backpacks and lanterns, will likely be excluded from the tariffs, but it will be tough to get other products out.

If anyone has any questions about these cases or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

JANUARY 23, 2018 UPDATE

Dear Friends,

A number of clients and news outlets have called me because yesterday, the United States Trade Representative’s office issued its Section 201 determinations in the Solar Cells and Washing Machines 201 cases.  The USTR announcements are attached. 201 USTR ANNOUNCEMENT SOLAR WASHING MACHINES President Trump Approves Relief for U.S

This update will address these two remedy announcements and also the decision by the US Supreme Court to look at the Vitamin C Antitrust case.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

IT BEGINS? SECTION 201 SOLAR CELLS/WASHING MACHINE DECISIONS

Yesterday, the United States Trade Representative’s office (“USTR”) announced affirmative Section 201 decisions in the Solar Cells and Washing Machines cases and issued tariffs.  The question is whether these decisions represent the first layer of bricks that President Trump puts up in a protectionist wall around the US.  We will have to wait and see.  The real test will be what President Trump does in the Section 232 cases on Steel and Aluminum.

But one interesting point is that Suniva, the US company that filed the Section 201 Solar Cells case, is majority owned by a Chinese Solar Manufacturer, Shunfeng International Clean Energy Ltd.

In the 1980s, as a result in part of a Section 201 case against imports of Automobiles and a Voluntary Restraint Agreement issued by the Japanese Government, Japanese car companies set up manufacturing operations in the United States.  Many Chinese solar companies may follow Shunfeng’s lead and set up manufacturing operation in the US.  That is especially true as the new Trump Tax Bill kicks in dropping corporate tax rates to 21%.

The remedies for the two Section 201 cases are specifically set forth below.

SOLAR CELLS

In the Solar Cells case, the remedy is:

Safeguard Tariffs on Imported Solar Cells and Modules
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Tariff increase 30% 25% 20% 15%
  • First 2.5 gigawatt of imported cells are excluded from the additional

It is still unclear how this will work in the sense that imports of the first 2.5 gigawatt are excluded from the additional tariff.  But in talking to one small solar cell importer, at the most during the year they import a total of 1 megawatt.  This tells me that the new tariffs first will not be retroactive and second probably will kick in after several months each year, when total imports reach the 2.5 Gigawatt level.

As stated before, these 201 tariffs are applicable to imports from all countries, including China, Malaysia, Germany, Canada and Mexico.  When total imports of solar cells and modules reach the 2.5 gigawatt level, the new tariff kicks in.  So, for example, if total imports of solar cells and modules into the US reach the 2.5 gigawatt level on May 15th, imports after that will be hit with a tariff.

WASHING MACHINES

The Washing Machines Remedy is set forth below.  This is similar to the Solar Cells Remedy in the sense that the first 1.2 million washers will have a lower tariff and the higher tariff will not kick in until after total imports reach the 1.2 million unit level.

Also 50,000 units of covered parts are excluded from the tariff.

Tariff-Rate Quotas on Washers
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
First 1.2 million units of imported

finished washers

20% 18% 16%
All subsequent imports of finished

washers

50% 45% 40%
Tariff of covered parts 50% 45% 40%
Covered parts excluded from tariff 50,000 units 70,000 units 90,000 units

So the point of both remedies is import quickly into the US market.  The first imports into the country in the Solar Cells case will have no tariff and in the Washing Machines case will have a lower tariff.

VITAMIN C ANTITRUST CASE RISES FROM THE ASHES

With the Second Circuit Appeal Court ruling in September 16, 2016 against the US importers, many assumed that the Vitamin C antitrust case against the Chinese companies was dead.  But on January 12, 2018, in the attached notice, 011218zr_3d9g (1), the Supreme Court announced that it was accepting the importers’ petition for certiorari in the Animal Science Products, et al v. Hebei Welcome, et al., Vitamin C Antitrust case.  But the appeal is specifically limited to question 2 raised in the Animal Science Products’ Petition for Certiorari:

  1. Whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign’s interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits), or whether a court is “bound to defer” to a foreign government’s legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the Ninth Circuit).

So the question for the Supreme Court is whether the Chinese government’s characterization of its own law is conclusive in the proceeding.

If anyone has any questions about these cases or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR JANUARY 20, 2017 BLOG POST

Dear Friends,

Have been in China and then intensely involved in a steel antidumping and countervailing duty case on cold drawn mechanical tubing (“CDMT”) and only now can come up for air and turn my attention to the blog.

Moreover, there are so many mixed signals coming out of the White House on trade it is difficult to know which way Trump is going to go.  As indicated below, the problem is probably retaliation by other countries and agriculture.  Trump wants to be tough on trade but half of all US agriculture products are exported.  One third of all Iowa corn is exported to Mexico.

Trump cannot kill NAFTA or be so tough on trade that US agriculture exports become the target of retaliation.  Trump is winning and the Republicans stand a chance of holding their own in the mid-term elections if the US economy is doing very well.  But taking a very protectionist stance by killing imports could very well backfire and hurt the US economy deeply.  If the US economy goes down, Trump and the Republicans go down.

But this could be the month where the direction of Trump’s trade policy starts to truly come into focus.  President Trump has to decide whether to impose additional tariffs on Solar Cells by January 26th and on Washing Machines by February 4th. But more importantly in the next 90 days, President Trump has to decide whether to impose additional tariffs on steel imports pursuant to Section 232 national security case.  After Steel comes aluminum and possibly a new case on uranium.  In addition, in the Section 301 case against intellectual property and China, Trump is talking about “fines” against China, whatever that means.  Does that mean a trade war with China?

More importantly, the most important development in trade may be the passage of the Trump/Republican tax bill, which has slashed corporate taxes to 21%.  This dramatic tax reduction is creating a manufacturing renaissance in the United States.  Apple has announced that it is repatriating almost $250 billion from overseas, much of which will be used to create new manufacturing facilities in the United States.

Unemployment, including Black and Hispanic unemployment, is the lowest in decades.  One way to cure the trade problem is by making US companies more competitive and that is just what Trump and the Republicans have done.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

WILL TRADE UPSET THE TRUMP ECONOMIC JUGGERNAUT IN JANUARY 2018?

TO DATE TRUMP HAS NOT IGNITED A TRADE WAR

Despite many warnings of doom and gloom regarding trade, some from this newsletter, President Trump apparently has taken a cautious approach to trade.  Although Trump has torn up the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) and threatened to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), Trump so far has gone slow on trade.  NAFTA has not been torn up, and to date President Trump has not imposed draconian tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum pursuant to the Section 232 National Security cases, probably in response to the many US producers that use imported steel and aluminum to produce downstream products made of steel.  Trump is learning that trade is “complicated”.

The Cold Drawn Mechanical Tubing (“CDMT”) case illustrates the problem with being tough on trade.  During the preliminary injury investigation at the ITC, one of my clients Voest Alipine Rotec (“Rotec”) told the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that if the ITC reached an affirmative preliminary injury determination, it would move offshore.  The ITC went affirmative and as Rotec testified in December at the ITC final hearing, Rotec opened up a new production facility in Mexico to take care of all of its export business, cutting US jobs.  When companies cannot get competitive raw materials, including steel products, they move offshore

TRUMP’S POLICIES HAVE CREATED AN ECONOMIC BOOM—CUTTING TAXES AND REGULATIONS WORKS

As indicated below in the article on the Tax Bill, another very important reason for Trump’s go slow approach is that the US economy is climbing upward like a rocket, and President Trump does not want to do anything to damage the trajectory of the economy.  On election day, the Dow Jones average was 18,259.  It has now climbed to over 26,000 creating over $5 trillion in new wealth.  Trump’s policy of cutting regulations and the passage of the Trump tax bill are major reasons for the huge surge in the economy.

Democratic officials under President Obama told the American public to get ready for the new normal—US economic growth domestic product (“GDP”) could not get higher than 2.2% and would never go over 3%.  In the first year of the Trump Presidency, the US GDP is 3.2%.  With the elimination of regulations and the new Trump tax bill, which cut the corporate tax from 35 to 21%, many economists are now forecasting in 2018 a US GDP above 4%.

When the GDP goes up, all boats rise, and everyone, including the lower and middle class, are better off.  Rising GDP means jobs and more jobs, exactly what Candidate Trump promised.  Unemployment is the lowest it has been in decade.  Hispanic and Black unemployment is the lowest it has been in decades.  Manufacturing is having one of its best years since 2004.

When all boats rise that means the lower middle class and middle-class incomes go up also, and that is Trump’s core constituency. The Republican’s road to victory in the upcoming midterms in 2018 and Trump’s reelection in 2020 is dependent upon the economy.  As President Clinton himself stated, “It’s the economy stupid.” If the economy is rising, everyone’s income goes up as there are more jobs, which means more voters pulling the Republican lever in the voting booth, and there is a chance the Republicans can hold their own in the mid-terms.  The economy goes down and the Republicans will be crushed.

During the first term of President Obama, Democratic Senators and Congressmen were warning President Obama to focus on jobs for the lower and middle-class workers.  President Obama ignored the advice and focused on health care and an infrastructure program that did not work.  The average American wants a job, not a handout, because jobs lead to the American dream– a house to own and a good middle-class life.

Trump understands this desire and has focused on this core principle, which is exactly what he promised to do as a candidate.

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House and Presidential candidate and one of the true thinkers in the Conservative Wing of the Republic party, is predicting a great political surprise—the size of the Republican victory in the midterms.  Directly contrary to the many statements of Democrats and pundits in the mainstream media, Gingrich makes the strong political argument that because of the sharp rise in the US economy, Republicans will do very well in the midterms.  See http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/28/newt-gingrich-get-ready-for-great-political-surprise-2018.html.  People may not like the Trump package, but his economic policy so far is working.

SLAMMING TRADE AND STOPPING IMPORTS COULD STOP THE ECONOMIC BOOM

But the one problem with Trump’s economic initiative, which could be the flaw in his and the Republican strategy, is trade.  If Trump embarks on a sharp protectionist push, withdrawing from NAFTA and raising tariffs for many products coming into the US, that could drop economic growth like a rock.  All the business investor publications, such as the Wall Street Journal and the Investors Business Daily, are warning Trump to go slow on trade and not rip up the global trading system.  If Trump decides to create a trade war with other countries, the economy will slow and the Republicans will have no hope of winning the midterms and Trump will be a one term President.

One major reason for that is agriculture.  On January 9, 2018 in an editorial entitled “Will Trump Punish the Farm Belt?” the Wall Street Journal raised this very point:

“The U.S. economy is starting to grow at a faster pace, and deregulation and tax reform are pointing to an investment boost in 2018. But the big economic policy question now is whether President Trump is going to dampen this new growth enthusiasm by imposing tariffs and kicking off a global trade war.

That issue was in high relief Monday in Nashville, where Mr. Trump delivered a speech [to the American Farm Bureau] touting his policies for the rural U.S. economy that benefits from free trade. Mr. Trump can rightly point to White House progress on reducing government barriers to growth in American agriculture. . . .

But farmers are scared stiff that Mr. Trump might take a protectionist turn that would impose more government barriers. Highly efficient and productive, U.S. farmers thrive in a competitive global market. But tariffs are border taxes that raise costs for U.S. producers and consumers. . . .

Mr. Trump already walloped U.S. farm exporters when he dropped out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has given Europe, Australia and Canada an edge to meet growing Asian demand for high-value farm products. After Japan imposed 50% “safeguard” tariffs on frozen beef last July, U.S. imports dropped by a quarter. Imports from Australia, which has a trade deal with Japan and supplies about half of its frozen beef, increased by 30%.

Foreign leaders are working fast to lock in trade deals that are leaving the U.S. behind. In December the European Union finalized a “cars-for-cheese” pact with Japan that will slash tariffs on most dairy, meat and wine to zero from up to 30%. Canada last year reached an agreement with the EU that will make 99% of their exports duty-free.

Mr. Trump is also contemplating tariffs against China for stealing U.S. intellectual property. This should be addressed, but the danger is that U.S. agriculture is sure to be a top target for reprisal if the President gets into a trade war with Beijing. China is one of America’s top farm markets, with agricultural exports tripling over the past decade to $21.4 billion, including $14.2 billion in soybeans. Australia and Brazil can replace many U.S. exports in a trade spat.

The greatest danger to the Farm Belt is that Mr. Trump might withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. The U.S. sends about $18 billion a year in farm products to Mexico and $23 billion to Canada, which together account for a third of American farm exports. Since Nafta came into force in 1994, farm exports to Mexico and Canada have more than quadrupled. Soybean exports to Mexico have quintupled.  . . .

Responding to Mr. Trump’s trade threats, Mexico is already seeking alternative commodity suppliers. Last year Mexico reached deals to increase imports of wheat from Argentina and corn from Brazil as a hedge against U.S. withdrawal.

Mr. Trump devoted only a couple of lines to trade in his Nashville speech, and we hope it reflects what Mr. Trump has learned about trade on the job. More likely, it means Mr. Trump still hasn’t resolved the debate among his economic advisers.

One argument Mr. Trump should hear is that a U.S. withdrawal from Nafta would most hurt states like Iowa and Wisconsin that gave him his election victory. That’s especially true if the U.S. imposes additional protectionist measures—such as steel tariffs—that invite retaliation. After the U.S. blocked Mexican trucks from delivering goods across the border in 2009, Mexico slapped tariffs on U.S. table grapes, potatoes, juices, almonds and wines.

Trashing Nafta would be among the great self-inflicted wounds in history. It would also tell other countries that the U.S. can’t be trusted to keep its word on trade, which would make it impossible to cut the bilateral trade deals the President says he wants. This is a strategy for making America weaker.

Many Senators and Congressmen from Agricultural states, such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Montana, which all voted for Trump, have warned the President to go slow on trade and not tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  These Agricultural states are part of Trump’s base and one of the major reasons he won the Presidency.  In a January 7, 2018 article entitled “Farmers Seek a Tempered Nafta Stance”, the Wall Street Journal further stated:

“When President Donald Trump addresses the U.S. agricultural community Monday, farmers will be looking for signs that a recent push to lobby him in support of the North American Free Trade Agreement has been successful.

That effort, which has included Republican senators from farm states offering charts and graphs illustrating the benefits of the trade deal, has left some hopeful that the administration has softened an earlier tough stance on Nafta. Fueling those hopes has been the president’s refraining from harsh anti-Nafta rhetoric since his last tweet regarding the pact in August.

“We’re doing everything we can to have our voices heard,” said Sen. Deb Fischer (R., Neb.), a rancher and one of several lawmakers who attended a steak lunch with Mr. Trump in December. Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) brought a chart showing a negative impact of Mr. Trump’s anti-Nafta messages on hog futures. Last week, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R., Kan.) led another group to the White House to reinforce the message.

White House officials say Mr. Trump has continued to meet with “stakeholders on all sides” on the issue. One official familiar with the strategy said that in staying relatively quiet on Nafta, the president is giving U.S. negotiators maximum leverage in the talks.

Farm-state lawmakers say that in their sessions with him, Mr. Trump has been reassuring about Nafta, which has opened Mexican and Canadian markets to duty-free exports of billions of dollars in U.S. products. . . .

But trade, and Nafta in particular, is foremost on the farm community’s mind. The U.S. in 2016 sent $16.4 billion in agricultural and food products to Mexico and $23.4 billion to Canada, according to government figures. Farmers worry that without Nafta, the two U.S. neighbors would have the right to put tariffs on products from the U.S. and could turn to other countries for supplies of soybeans, corn and other farm products.  . . .

“While the president is increasingly listening to the dire concerns of farmers and ag state lawmakers, nobody has a sense of whether he’ll heed their warnings,” said former Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, co-chairman of Farmers for Free Trade, which seeks to preserve existing agreements that lower tariffs on agricultural exports.  . . .

Labor unions and left-leaning consumer groups have supported the tough stance. But business and farm lobbies have continued to lobby the administration by pointing to the benefits Nafta has brought over the last quarter century.

The farm-state lawmakers say they think they have made a difference.

“He said quite bluntly he had thought everyone wanted to get rid of Nafta, and that’s not right,” Ms. Ernst said in an interview. “I can’t speak to what the president intends to do going forward, but I think his perspective has changed a little bit.”

After the December meeting, Mr. Roberts said Mr. Trump reassured him about Nafta’s fate. “Before I could even say, ‘Merry Christmas, Mr. President,’ he looked at me and put his thumb up and said we’re going to be all right on Nafta,” Mr. Roberts said on C-Span last month.  . . .

In his last public comments on Nafta, at a political rally in Florida, Mr. Trump left open the possibility of any outcome. “We’re gonna hopefully keep Nafta,” he said, then added: “But there’s a chance we won’t. And that’s OK.”

On January 7th the Wall Street Journal published an article by Robert Zoellick, a United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) under President George W. Bush, entitled “ Trump Courts Economic Mayhem”.  One point that Zoellick made, which I agree with, is that there are not going to be any new trade agreements under this President because he wants managed trade, not free trade.  Trump promised many new trade agreements with other countries, but it takes two to tango and the other countries have a choice on whether to enter in a new trade agreement with the US.  As Zoellick stated:

“President Trump’s new National Security Strategy argues that the U.S. must compete in a hostile world. Yet the White House also wants to retreat behind trade barriers. The Trump administration has stacked up a pile of trade cases that will come tumbling down early in 2018. More important than any specific case is the signal of a strategy of economic defeatism.

The U.S. is ready to block steel and aluminum imports through a rarely used “national security” rationalization. As an alternative, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had tried negotiating capacity cuts in Chinese production, but Mr. Trump waved him off with a demand for tariffs.

Because most of China’s metal exports already face U.S. tariffs of more than 80%, Mr. Trump’s tactic will likely trigger retaliation from other countries.

Next up are “safeguards” to block imports of solar panels and washing machines. Imposing “safeguards” doesn’t even require a claim of unfairness. On top of this, last year (through Sept. 20) the Commerce Department conducted 65 investigations of alleged low-cost or subsidized imports. That figure is a 16-year high, up 50% from the year before. . . .

No country wants to do a bilateral deal with Mr. Trump now because he demands managed trade, not fair competition. He wants excuses to raise barriers, not rules to boost trade. That’s why Mr. Trump will use his indictment of China’s intellectual-property practices to justify more protectionism, not solve the problems. During the president’s recent trip to China, when Beijing proposed opening some of its financial markets to U.S. companies, the Trump team dismissed this as the old way of doing business. The new way is to block Chinese exports. . . .

The U.S. is abandoning the challenge of setting new trade standards, whether for data, e- commerce or transnational services. America once attracted the world’s talent, but Mr. Trump’s hostility is driving people away. If he pulls the U.S. out of Nafta, even financial markets might recognize that his economic isolationism poses a risk to growth.

True competitors honestly assess their weaknesses, adapt and then grow stronger. Those are the qualities that made America great. This will be the year that trade policy could define Trump’s fearful America.”

Emphasis added.

COULD JANUARY BE THE MONTH WHEN TRUMP’S TRADE POLICY CHANGES DIRECTION

But there is some indication that Trump is listening to his critics.  Trump has told Lighthizer to do no harm in the NAFTA negotiations and to date has not created a trade war with China.  But as indicated below in the articles on Solar Cells, Section 301 and the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, President Trump will soon be at a trade crossroads and no one is sure which way he will jump.

TRUMP TAX BILL ALONG WITH CUTTING REGULATIONS HAS LED TO A US ECONOMIC BOOM

Probably the most important development from the trade point of view in the last few months, however, is the passage of the tax bill.  Many Democratic politicians, economic pundits and millennials predict that the trickle-down economics of lower taxes and less regulations simply will have no beneficial effect on the US economy and the lower and middle classes.  Instead, many economists and millennials advocate the Obama style redistribution, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Despite the fact that the Dow Jones average has gone up from 18,259 on the day Trump was elected to over 26,000, these same people strongly believe that Trump simply cannot be responsible for any uptick in the US economy.  The economy is rising because of Obama’s policies, but the facts and many economists are refuting the false statements.  On January 4th, Apple announced that it would pay $38 billion in taxes to the US government to repatriate $246 billion of overseas profits back to the US.  As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“The tech giant said Wednesday it plans $30 billion in capital spending in the U.S. over five years that will create more than 20,000 new jobs. It didn’t specify how much of that spending was already planned, but said the total will include building a new facility that initially will house customer-service operations, and $10 billion toward data centers across the country. Apple also is expanding from $1 billion to $5 billion a fund it established last year for investing in advanced manufacturing in the U.S.

Apple said its one-time tax payment was the result of recent changes to U.S. tax law, under which companies can pay a one-time tax of 15.5% on overseas cash holdings repatriated to the U.S. The company said in November that it had earmarked $36 billion to cover deferred taxes on its $246 billion.”

Meanwhile, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on January 11, 2018, as a result of the tax bill:

“Wal-Mart Stores Inc. would raise starting pay to $11 per hour for all its U.S. employees and hand out one-time bonuses as competition for low-wage workers intensifies and new tax legislation will add billions to the retailer’s profits.

The giant retailer is the largest private employer in the world with 2.3 million employees, including around 1.5 million in the U.S. Its current starting salary in the U.S. is $10 an hour after workers take a training course. The new wage increase will take effect in February.

This is the third U.S.-wide minimum wage increase at the company since 2015 as it works to improve its 4,700 U.S. stores while investing heavily to compete with Amazon.com Inc. online.

The company said the salary change would add $300 million to its annual expenses and it expects to take a $400 million charge in the current quarter for the one-time bonus. The amount of the bonus will vary based on length of service, reaching up to $1,000 for an individual with 20 years of service.”

As Scott S. Powell, a well-known economist of the Discovery Institute, stated on January 12th in Investors Business Daily, “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 Is Already Delivering”:

“If there is one thing about which most economists understand and agree it’s the law of supply and demand. A derivative of that law is that demand and velocity of transactions tend to diminish as costs increase. While few individuals disagree about this, many in the collective body of economists have become so politicized that when it comes to the  cost  of  variables,  such  as  taxes  and  regulations, that  consensus  all  but vanishes.

Indeed, to listen to many of the pundits and  experts  there  seems  to  be  confusion, denial  and  disagreement  about  how the cost of regulations and taxes actually affect economic  activity. . . .

Recently, Princeton economics professor and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Blinder stated in the Wall Street Journal that there was little economic evidence  “that  tax  benefits  showered  on  corporations  will  translate mostly  into  higher wages  and vastly  faster economic  growth.”

It’s not at all difficult to grasp the reasons for the markedly different economic performance of the Obama years as compared to what we have experienced in just one year of  the  Trump  administration. Obama’s best year of his two terms delivered a 2.6% growth rate, and he was the only president in some 88 years (since Herbert Hoover) to have failed to deliver economic growth of 3% in any one year he was in office.

In contrast, in the first two full quarters  of  the Trump  administration, the  economy experienced 3.2%  growth.

During his eight years, Obama oversaw an output of some 3,069 regulatory rules and nine new taxes that were part of the Obama Care health law, adding nearly $900 billion in costs to the U.S. economy, and a record 572,000 pages to the Federal Register. In contrast, in his first 11 months, Trump has eliminated some 66 significant rules while adding only three, which equates to a ratio of 22 to 1 — far exceeding the standards of his Executive Order 13771 requiring 2 old rules to be eliminated for every new one added.

The stock market closed out 2017 with a record increase for the eighth year of economic expansion, largely due to deregulation and anticipation of tax cuts.

No sooner had the ink dried on President Trump’s signature on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on December 22, then more than a dozen companies, such as AT&T, Comcast NBC, Boeing, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Kansas City Southern, announced special $1,000 bonuses to more than 300,000 employees, and tens of billions of dollars of spending increase on plant, capacity, facilities and workforce development.

2018 has come in like a lion with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivering more headline news. Now it’s reported that more than one million American workers at some 60 companies will be receiving pay raises and/or bonuses — undeniably attributable to the reduction of corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%. Wells Fargo, PNC, Bank of America, Fifth Third Bank, and BB&T, to name just a few — all cranked up minimum wages paid to $15/hour and spread the new-found wealth anticipated from tax savings in generous bonuses to more than a hundred thousand employees.

President Trump said from the beginning that lowering tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and making American companies more competitive would be the fuel that propels our economy to new heights.

It’s baffling that political bias can obviate empirical evidence and common sense. One surely doesn’t need   a Ph.D.  in economics to grasp how tax and regulatory costs affect behavior.

By helping companies become more competitive  through  lower  tax  rates, a  simplified tax code, incentivized capital investment, and removal of regulatory barriers, President  Trump  and  the  Republican  Congress  have  actually  delivered, in  the  first  year of  working  together, the  essential  foundation  to  make  America  great  again.”

On January 17, Stephen Moore, another well-known economist, stated in Investors Business Daily in an article entitled “Trump Tax Cut Is Already Working”:

“With the recent announcement of Walmart’s increasing starting wages and Fiat Chrysler’s opening a new plant (with 2,500 jobs) in Michigan, there are now more than a hundred companies that have offered bonuses and benefit hikes to their workers due to the tax cut. An estimated 1 million workers have benefited. This after less than one month.

Liberals disparage all of this as a “publicity stunt.” To hundreds of thousands of families, this is a wonderful stunt, and let’s hope to see a lot more examples of it in the weeks and months ahead.

The stock market has reached multiple new highs since the tax bill took effect on Jan. 1. Workers are more optimistic about the job market than any time in at least a decade.

I helped work with candidate Donald Trump to refine this tax reform plan, and I was ridiculed as too optimistic on how it might help the economy. But already Trump’s economic accomplishments have managed to exceed my lofty expectations. The tax cut isn’t the only factor here, but you’d have to be wearing ideological blinders to not see a link.

We are also learning that taxes influence how politicians behave.  . .

California and New York officials are investigating whether their states can convert income tax payments into tax-deductible charitable contributions to the state government. Good luck with that.

Why would they go to all this trouble if taxes didn’t matter to constituents? . .  . .

that charities are subject to the old adage: If you tax something, you will get less of it.

Well, yes, every politician in America should hold that thought — especially when they contemplate higher taxes on work, profits, savings and so on. But in this case, higher growth from lower tax rates is likely to lead to more income, and thus more, not less, charitable giving — just as we saw in the 1980s when tax rates fell from 70% to 28%.

The timeless economic lesson here is that taxes profoundly influence how and where we live our lives. We tax cigarettes and booze because we want people to consume less of them. There are proposals all over the country to tax soda pop, sugar and carbon emissions so we consume or produce less of them.

So why is it so hard to accept the reality that if we lower taxes on virtuous activities — work, investment, starting a business or saving for retirement — we will get more of these? And why is anyone surprised that this is already starting to happen?

By the way, government officials in China, Mexico, India and much of Europe are angry about America slashing its corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%: That giant sucking sound is capital and jobs from all over the world coming to low-tax America.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress — every one of whom voted against the tax bill — keep running around the country saying that their top agenda item, if they win the midterm elections, is to repeal this policy that is already creating jobs. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they started rooting for America rather than against it?”

But even before the tax bill, Maria Bartiromo, the well-known Fox Business consultant, was telling her friends buy US stocks.  As Ms. Bartiromo stated in a December 14, 207 article entitled “Dow 24000 and the Trump Boom”:

“I’m not in the habit of giving stock tips or making market calls. I’ve never claimed to be an investment strategist. But after spending years reporting on business and finance, I was convinced on the night of Nov. 8, 2016, that the conventional market wisdom was way off target. . . .

When I sat down around 10:30 on election night for a Fox News panel discussion, Dow futures were down about 700 points. Markets like certainty; it was understandable that some investors were selling. Mr. Trump seemed to present more uncertainty than Hillary Clinton, who was essentially promising a continuation of the Obama administration. Mr. Trump’s talk about ripping up the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, created big unknowns and potentially significant risks.

The election night selloff turned out to be a huge buying opportunity. Companies had been sitting on cash—not investing or hiring. Obama Care compliance was a nightmare for many business owners. It made them wonder what other big idea from Washington would haunt them in the future. Mrs. Clinton was likely to increase business costs further, while Mr. Trump had vowed to reduce them. Even in the middle of the election-night market panic, the implications for corporate revenue and earnings growth seemed obvious.

The next morning, with the Trump victory confirmed, I told my colleague Martha MacCallum that I would be “buying the stock market with both hands.” Investors began doing the same.

U.S. markets have added $6 trillion in value since the election, with investors around the world wanting in on America’s new growth story. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is now forecasting the third straight quarter of U.S. gross domestic product growth around 3%.

It’s not just an American growth story. For the first time in a long time the world is experiencing synchronized growth, which is why Goldman Sachs and Barclays among others have recently predicted 4% global growth in 2018. The entire world benefits when its largest economy is healthy, and the vibrancy overseas is reinforcing the U.S. resurgence.

As the end of the Trump administration’s first year approaches, it’s a good time to review the progress of the businessman elected on a promise to restore American prosperity.

Year One has been nothing short of excellent from an economic standpoint. Corporate earnings have risen and corporate behavior has changed, measured in greater capital investment.

Business people tell me that a new approach to regulation is a big factor. During President Obama’s final year in office the Federal Register, which contains new and proposed rules and regulations, ran to 95,894 pages, according to a Competitive Enterprise Institute report. This was the highest level in its history and 19% higher than the previous year’s 80,260 pages. The American Action Forum estimates the last administration burdened the economy with 549 million hours of compliance, averaging nearly five hours of paperwork for every full-time employee.

Behind these numbers are countless business owners who have told me they set aside cash for compliance, legal fees and other costs of regulation. That money could have been used to fund projects that strengthened their businesses. President Trump has charted a new course, prioritizing the removal of red tape and rolling back regulations through executive orders. The Federal Register page count is down 32% this year. Mr. Trump says red tape becomes “beautiful” when it is eliminated, and people who manage businesses certainly agree.     . . .

Much has changed this year. Companies from Broadcom to Boeing have announced they’ll move overseas jobs back to the U.S. American companies hold nearly $3 trillion overseas and may soon be able to bring that money home without punitive taxation. Businesses have begun to open up the purse strings, which is why things like commercial airline activity are rising substantially as executives seek new opportunities. Companies are looking to invest in growth. . . .

After reaching Dow 24000, where can markets and the economy go from here? I’m not going to make predictions, but it stands to reason that the economy is better off when federal policy doesn’t discourage people who have a demonstrated ability to work, earn, spend and invest.”

On January 7, 2018, Charles Gasparino, another business reporter for Fox News, stated in the New York Post, “On the economy, Trump Has Been Crazy Like a Fox”:

“With the Dow crossing 25,000, it’s worth pointing out the pitfalls that could reverse some of those gains — and how to avoid them.

One thing we don’t have to worry about is the economic sanity of President Trump.

In fact, it’s safe to say that the current president, for all his temperamental flaws and petty insecurities, makes his tightly wound predecessor, Barack Obama, look like a raving madman when it comes to showing sense on economic growth. Armchair psychiatrists are having a field day diagnosing the president’s mental state from afar, especially after his increasingly bizarre tweeting, but the market says otherwise.

Consider: The United States had one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world — so high that companies (and jobs) were fleeing to places like Ireland. That’s why it was perfectly sane to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent as Trump just did, and presto: Corporations are announcing plans to hire more workers, and the economy, which was expected to slow after seven years of weak growth, is heating up. The markets are predicting that growth with their surge.

Likewise, regulations have been strangling businesses for years while making it difficult for banks to lend to consumers and small business. Trump went out and hired perfectly sane regulators who basically pulled the federal government’s boot off the neck of the business community.

It was described to me as a de facto tax cut by one business owner that gives him leeway to hire more people. A major win for the working class.

And since so many of my fellow journalists are at it, let me do a little psychoanalysis of what an economically insane person might do as president.

An insane president would threaten a significant tax increase immediately upon taking office following a financial crisis, and then eventually impose one on individuals and small businesses still in recovery.

He’d impose job-crushing regulations on these same businesses as unemployment rose. He’d put a cumbersome mandate on businesses that upends the entire health care system just as the economy was finally turning a corner.

A really insane president would blow nearly $1 trillion on a stimulus plan with little planning and direction, wasting much of the money on boondoggles (see: Solyndra) and then laugh at the lack of “shovel ready” jobs created. He’d then try to spread his delusion to the masses, telling them to ignore historically low wage growth, anemic economic growth and the massive amount of people who dropped out of the work force because the stock market rallied, thanks in large part to the Fed printing money instead of his own fiscal policies.

Is Barack Obama crazy? No, but his post-2008 economic policies were. Are all Trump’s tweets sane? No, but smart investors with lots of skin in the game think his policies are perfectly rational, and that’s why the markets are soaring along with the prospect of economic growth.

Can Trump just sit back and act like a clown for the rest of his presidency as the economy and markets lift all boats? No again. Relying on the markets or the economy to disguise abhorrent presidential behavior is a fool’s game. Corrections always occur, and will occur if corporate earnings don’t match the investor enthusiasm built into Dow’s recent rise.

An unexpected burst of inflation that would force the Fed to raise interest rates could hurt both stocks and GDP. Trump might indulge his inner populist and engage in a trade war with China, or repeal NAFTA, both of which would undoubtedly hurt economic growth and stocks.

For all the good things about the business side of the tax reform bill, other parts are more complicated: Small businesses got a sliver of the tax breaks given to corporations; same goes for working-class people who don’t pay much in federal income taxes in the first place. But people who do pay a lot may get crushed when tax season rolls around. Individuals in high-tax states (like New York) could get hammered because the plan barely lowers the top rate and plugs so many deductions.

To pay for their higher taxes, these people could curb their personal spending, meaning less economic growth and possibly lower stock prices.

But none of these hiccups suggest a madman is at the helm of the US economy, which is something to consider the next time you hear Donald Trump is crazy.”

After sending out my newsletter, Harry C. Moser, President of the Reshoring Initiative contacted me and stated:

“Nice piece. I attach our data showing that reshoring and FDI job announcements in 2017 were up over 200% from 2016 to about 240,000, confirming your thesis. “

See his attached powerpoint.  Reshoring & FDI trends 4 slides

WILL 2018 BE THE YEAR OF THE US CHINA TRADE WAR?

As indicated above, the real concern is whether this January and 2018 will be the year a trade war start with China followed by a NAFTA crackup.

In November 2017 I was in Beijing during the Trump visit.  Xi Jinping and Chinese government officials know how important Trump is to their own economy and they gave Trump a “state visit plus”.  Chinese television stated that no US President was given such a welcome since President Nixon.  To see pictures and a video of Trump’s visit to China from Chinese television, which was broadcast all over China, see https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sx2x6qpy7cf77a1/AAAFty0_SwObgVvT-tXbVknVa?dl=0.

During and after the China visit, the US press stated that President Xi played Trump, but the Chinese media at the same time was saying that Trump played President Xi.

But pundits are predicting that 2018 is the year of the US China trade war.  I suspect that although President Trump will issue tariffs in the Section 201 Solar Products and Washing Machines cases, there will be no real trade war so long as the Chinese government opens up its own economy to foreign investment and imports.  Lighthizer is favoring changing Investment guidelines under CFIUS to ban all Chinese investment in areas where China bans US investment.  Essentially reciprocity.

Opening up Chinese barriers to US trade and investment is a strategy every Administration has followed with China be it Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barak Obama.  Trump, Wilbur Ross and USTR Lighthizer will keep up extreme pressure on China to open its markets to US exports and investment.  If China refuses, there could well be a trade war.  But such a trade war would be for the right reason.

But if Trump puts up protectionist high tariffs on Solar Cells, Washing Machines, steel, aluminum products, and China imports, that will be when the damage to the economy will happen.

SECTION 301 CASE AGAINST CHINA ON FORCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS

In the attached August 18th Federal Register notice based on an August 14th Presidential Memorandum, Presidential Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative whitehouseg, President Trump pulled the trigger on the Section 301 Intellection property case against China.  The Section 301 investigation could take a year and probably will lead to negotiations with the Chinese government on technology transfer.  If the negotiations fail, the US could take unilateral action, such as increasing tariffs, or pursue a case through the World Trade Organization.  Unilateral actions under Section 301, however, also risk a WTO case against the United States in Geneva.

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) held a hearing on October 10th at the International Trade Commission.  During the October 10th hearing, only two US companies appeared to argue that their IP was stolen by Chinese government actions.

Acting Assistant USTR for China Terry McCartin, commenting on the dearth of business witnesses, said some companies had expressed concern “about retaliation or other harm to their businesses in China if they were to speak out in this proceeding.”

On January 18th, it was reported that President Trump was considering a big “fine” as punishment for China’s alleged theft of intellectual property.  In an interview, Trump stated,

“We have a very big intellectual property potential fine going, which is going to come out soon.”

Although Trump did not define what he means by “fine,” Section 301 allows the US to impose retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods or other trade sanctions until China changes its policies.

Trump further stated:

“We’re talking about big damages. We’re talking about numbers that you haven’t even thought about.”

Trump said he will be discussing this action in his State of the Union address on January 30th.  Trump also recently stated that he hopes there will not be a trade war with China. “I don’t think so, I hope not. But if there is, there is.”

NAFTA PROBABLY WILL NOT BE TERMINATED. IF IT IS, REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING TRUMP, CAN KISS THE ELECTIONS GOODBYE

On August 16th, United States, Canada and Mexico sat down together for the first round of talks to formally reopen NAFTA.  On July 17th, the USTR released its attached “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”, USTR NAFTA RENGOTIATION OBJECTIVES.  On January 28th, there will be a major NAFTA negotiation round in Montreal.

But because of the warnings of the impact of a termination on the US economy and his own constituents, President Trump probably will not terminate NAFTA.  Negotiations will be slow, but the three countries eventually will come to a deal.  On January 17, 2018, Politico reported that Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who if very concerned about the impact of a withdrawal from NAFTA on agriculture, is now feeling more optimistic:

“Sen. Chuck Grassley said he took “some comfort” in Trump’s recent remarks at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s convention in which the president refrained from directly threatening to withdraw from NAFTA. . . .

Grassley also warned that if negotiations aren’t completed by a self-imposed March deadline and that deadline is not extended, “then there is no hope of agreement” because of the upcoming Mexican presidential election and the 2018 midterm elections in the U.S. Upon hearing that Trump said he would be “a little bit flexible” with regards to a NAFTA decision based on Mexico’s July election, Grassley said that “ought to give some comfort to the people that he is fairly reasonable on a timetable.”

On January 17th in an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Killing Nafta Would Ruin American Farmers”, Karl Rove, a well-known Republican strategist, predicted that if President Trump withdraws from NAFTA, that would hurt farmers and they would not vote Republican in the midterms or for Trump at reelection time:

“In a Wall Street Journal interview last week, President Trump said if he were to “terminate” the North American Free Trade Agreement, it “would be frankly a positive for our country.”

This bluster could be a negotiating ploy before the next trilateral Nafta talks, set for Jan. 28 in Montreal. If not, Mr. Trump should stop threatening. Withdrawing from Nafta would immediately kill American jobs, while handing Democrats the midterm elections on a silver platter. . . .

Nafta is especially important to American farmers and ranchers. U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada were $8.9 billion in 1993, before the agreement kicked in. Today, they are $39 billion, accounting for 30% of America’s farm exports.

These exports are critical in many states with key elections this year. In North Dakota, which Mr. Trump won by 36 points, Republicans want to flip the Senate seat held by Democrat Heidi Heitkamp. But the state’s commerce commissioner, Jay Schuler, says North Dakota exports 84% of its crops—worth $3.5 billion—to Mexico and Canada. Withdrawing from Nafta would subject those products to high foreign tariffs in force before the deal took effect, leaving farm families very unhappy.

Republicans also hope to flip Senate seats in Missouri and Indiana, both of which Mr. Trump carried by 19 points. The GOP is fighting to keep governorships in Iowa and Kansas, which the president won by 9 points and 21 points, respectively.

These campaigns will be much more difficult if farm economies are ruined by Nafta termination. Missouri is a major producer of corn, soybeans, beef and turkey; Indiana of corn and soybeans; Iowa of corn, soybeans and pork; and Kansas of wheat, corn and beef. Much of this is exported to Mexico. If the U.S. pulled out of Nafta, Mexican tariffs would snap back to 75% on American chickens, high-fructose corn syrup and potatoes, 45% on turkey, and 25% on beef. . . .

Then there are the car-making states. In the almost quarter-century since Nafta went into effect, the U.S. auto industry has built a hemispheric supply chain to help it compete with European and Asian auto makers.

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee each have important Senate races, and all but Indiana have governor’s contests, too. In each of those states, at least 9% of the workforce is tied to autos, and in Michigan the figure is 20%. Their exports of cars and auto parts range from $5.9 billion in Tennessee to $26 billion in Michigan.

If Mr. Trump made good on his Nafta threat, he would disrupt the auto industry’s supply chain, making American-made cars more expensive at home and less competitive abroad. Does he really want to blow up these states’ economies—along with those of roughly a dozen other states with auto production (including Missouri, Pennsylvania and West Virginia)?

I haven’t even gotten to the crucial elections in border states like Texas and Arizona, which are important way stations for trade with Mexico and whose economies would face major difficulties if Nafta disappears.

In discussing Nafta, Mr. Trump keeps getting his numbers wrong. Last week he declared that the U.S. has a $71 billion trade deficit with Mexico and “we lose $17 billion with Canada.” Actually, after counting sales of goods and services, the trade deficit with Mexico in 2016 was just $55.6 billion. With Canada, the U.S. ran a $12.5 billion surplus.

Does Mr. Trump ignore the U.S. advantage in services—everything from insurance to banking to logistics—because it undermines his anti-Nafta case? Or, despite coming from the service industry himself, does he think service jobs are less worthy than manufacturing ones? Try defending that proposition to employees at Travelers (a big insurance player in Canada) or FedEx and UPS (which provide logistics and shipping there) or Wal-Mart (Mexico’s largest retailer) or MetLife (which insures 78% of Mexican government employees) or Citibank (which owns Mexico’s second-biggest bank).

Any trade agreement that is two decades old needs updating. Nafta is no exception, especially given the growth of e-commerce and the digital economy. But bad policy is bad politics. Killing Nafta would damage Republicans in agricultural, auto and border states and help elect more Democrats in 2018, strengthening the party’s impeachment efforts. Mr. President, it isn’t worth it.”

THE TRADE WEAKNESS IN DONALD TRUMP’S ECONOMIC POLICY—NO TRADE DEALS TO DATE OR ON THE HORIZON—MAYBE TIME TO RENEGOTIATE THE TPP??

As stated in my last blog post, President Trump dropped the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, has made noises about dropping the US Korea agreement and may kill the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) with Mexico and Canada.  Even though NAFTA may ultimately be renegotiated, the real problem is that with Trump’s policy of weaponizing trade agreements, no other country will enter into a trade agreement with the US.  As Robert Zoellick, the former USTR under Bush, states above:

“No country wants to do a bilateral deal with Mr. Trump now because he demands managed trade, not fair competition. He wants excuses to raise barriers, not rules to boost trade. That’s why Mr. Trump will use his indictment of China’s intellectual-property practices to justify more protectionism, not solve the problems.”

As stated above, that is a huge problem for US farmers because almost 50% of farm products produced in the US are exported.

During the time when the TPP was being discussed in Congress, its passage was in trouble because many Senators and Congressmen believed the US did not get enough and many Senators and Congressmen wanted a a better deal.

On January 21, Tokyo will be hosting TPP talks for the other 11 countries that have decided to go forward with the TPP.  Maybe President Trump should consider a renegotiation of the TPP.  If the other 11 countries refuse to renegotiate the deal with the US, nothing lost, but the other 11 countries might be very interested if the US indicated possibly joining the TPP but under very strict conditions.  The appeal of the US market is huge to the other countries and that would give President Trump and USTR Lighthizer the chance to show off their negotiating skills.  Moreover, that would be one way for the US and Trump’s constituents, especially in the Agriculture area, to get a trade agreement they can benefit from with a number of other countries.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained

SECTION 201 SOLAR CELLS CASE

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case.

The ITC had to determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.”

The ITC reached an affirmative injury determination in the case on September 22, 2017, and then proposed a remedy to the President.

The Commission issued its report to the President on November 13, 2017.  The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) has held remedy hearings. and President Trump must issue his remedy determination on January 26th.  Many Solar Cells users along with newspaper editorials have urged the President to do nothing because of the bad impact on downstream solar companies, but many commentators expect the President to  issue tariffs against solar cell imports.

President Trump also faces a February 4th deadline to impose trade relief in response to the ITC 201 Affirmative decision on Washing Machines.

SECTION 232 STEEL AND ALUMINUM CASES PICK UP—SECTION 232 STEEL REPORT GOES TO THE PRESIDENT

As mentioned in the last newsletter, the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases appeared to stall, but the cases picked up steam again.  On January 11, 2018, the Commerce Department sent the final Section 232 Steel Report to the President.  On that day Commerce announced:

“Today Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross formally submitted to President Donald J. Trump the results of the Department’s investigation into the effect of steel mill product imports on U.S. national security. After this submission, by law, the President has 90 days to decide on any potential action based on the findings of the investigation.”

Commerce will release a public report after the President makes his decision in 90 days.

Across the board tariffs on steel imports would create enormous collateral damage on the many US producers that use steel as a raw material input to produce downstream steel products.  Such a remedy would probably result in the loss of 100s of thousands of US job.

That is the problem with purely protectionist decisions.  They distort the US market and simply transfer the problems of the steel industry to other downstream industries.

NEW SECTION 232 CASE AGAINST URANIUM IMPORTS

On January 16th, Ur-Energy USA Inc. and Energy Fuels Resources Inc. filed a section 232 petition at Commerce claiming that imports of uranium from state-owned and state-subsidized companies in Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan now fulfill 40 percent of U.S. demand, compared to the less than 5 percent satisfied by U.S. production. The Denver-based companies claim that imports from China will grow in the coming years. The companies also argue the volume of imports from Russia will only grow after a decades-old agreement that restricted imports from that country in exchange for suspending anti-dumping duties expires in 2020.  The Petition states:

“The U.S. uranium industry needs immediate relief from imports that have grown dramatically and captured almost 80% of annual U.S. uranium demand. Our country cannot afford to depend on foreign sources — particularly Russia, and those in its sphere of influence, and China — for the element that provides the backbone of our nuclear deterrent, powers the ships and submarines of America’s nuclear Navy, and supplies 20% of the nation’s electricity.”

NO SYMPATHY FOR BOMBARDIER IN BOEING FIGHT.

Recently, a number of reporters have contacted me about the Civil Aircraft from Canada, Bombardier-Boeing, case because the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) will vote on the injury case on January 26th.  I have told the reporters that there is a 95% chance that the ITC goes affirmative and that Antidumping and Countervailing Duty orders are issued.

As stated in prior newsletters, I have no sympathy for Bombardier because the Quebec Government directly invested $1 billion into Bombardier’s production process, which resulted in a very high CVD rate. The entire purpose of the US CVD law and CVD laws along with WTO Subsidy Agreement and the WTO Civil Aircraft Agreement is that private companies should not have to compete in commercial markets against the Government and that is just what has happened at Bombardier.

Also Bombardier refused to participate and cooperate in the Commerce Department’s antidumping case, which was a fatal error, resulting in a very high Antidumping Rate based on All Facts Available.  Essentially an AFA rate is a penalty for a respondent refusing to cooperate in the Commerce Department’s investigation.  The Canadian Government would have reached an identical decision in the Antidumping Case if a a respondent refused to provide requested information in its questionnaire response.  The EC would take the same position.

WINE FIGHT AGAINST BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADA

In the attached complaint filed by the United States against Canada on Wine, WTO WINE COMPLAINT, on October 2, 2017 the Trump administration revived an Obama-era World Trade Organization case against Canadian rules that have allegedly kept U.S. wine off grocery store shelves in British Columbia.

On January 16th, the Australian Government jumped into the case, challenging the Canadian government’s handling of wine sales, accusing Ottawa of practices that appear to discriminate against imported wine.  Australia says that the Canadian government and four provinces – British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia – use taxes, duties and a range of distribution, licensing and sales measures that unfairly affect imported wine. It argues that such practices are in violation of the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.  Australian Trade Minister Steven Ciobo stated:

“While it would have been preferable to resolve this issue bilaterally, it is appropriate to commence dispute proceedings given the lack of progress.”

In fact, BC Wine regulations are probably the most protectionist in the World, worse than China requiring the equivalent of an 80% tariff to sell imported wine.  BC protectionist measures on wine simply feed into the Trump argument that NAFTA is not a true free trade agreement.

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES – A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TRADE REMEDY WHICH ACTUALLY WORKS

As stated in numerous past newsletters, there is another more productive way to solve the Steel crisis and fix the trade problem and help US companies, including Steel and other companies, adjust to import competition.  This program has a true track record of saving US companies injured by imports.

This was a problem personally approved by President Ronald Reagan.  The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports.  Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports on an individual basis to make them more competitive.  The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

But as stated in the video below, for companies to succeed they must first give up the mentality of international trade victimhood.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure.  Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

In addition, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.  To retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job is $50,000.  To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works.  In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, 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.

But TAA for Companies has been cut to the bone.  On August 22, 2017, the U.S. Commerce Department announced $13.3 Million to Boost Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturers for the TAA for Firms/Companies program.

Are such paltry sums really going to help solve the manufacturing crisis in the Steel and other industries?  Of course not!!

But when the program was originally set up, the budget was much larger at $50 to $100 million.  If the program was funded to its full potential, yes steel companies and other companies could be saved.

To those libertarian conservatives that reject such a program as interference in the market, my response is that this program was personally approved by your icon, President Ronald Reagan.  He understood that there was a price for free trade and avoiding protectionism and that is helping those companies injured by import competition.  But teaching companies how to be competitive is a much bigger bang for the buck than simply retraining workers.  And yes companies can learn and be competitive again in the US and other markets.

NEW RECENT TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

ALUMINUM SHEET-FIRST SELF-INITIATED COMMERCE CASE IN MANY YEARS

On November 28, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) announced the self-initiation of antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of common alloy aluminum sheet from the People’s Republic of China (China).  This is the first time Commerce has self-initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty case in probably over 10 years.

SODIUM GLUCONATE, GLUCONIC ACID, AND DERIVIATIVE PRODUCTS

On November 30, 2017, PMP Fermentation Products, Inc. filed AD and CVD cases against imports of Sodium Gluconate, Gluconic Acid, and Derivative Products from China and France.

PLASTIC DECORATIVE RIBBON

On December 27, 2017, Berwick Offray, LLC filed AD and CVD cases against imports of Plastic Decorative Ribbon from China.

LARGE DIAMETER WELDED PIPE

On January 17, 2018, American Line Pipe Producers Association filed AD and CVD cases against imports of Large Diameter Welded Pipe from China, Canada, Greece, India, Korea and Turkey.

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

CHINESE ANTIDUMPING CASES AGAINST US

BUTAN-1 FROM US, TAIWAN AND MALAYSIA

On December 29, 2017, China’s Ministry of Commerce initiated an antidumping investigation against Imports of Butan-1-ol from US, Taiwan and Malaysia.  The four US companies targeted by the case are:

1)  Eastman Chemical Company

2)  The Dow Chemical Company

3)  BASF Corporation

4)  OXEA Corporation

CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS

Attached are newsletters from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office about Chinese trade law.  Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2018.01 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2018.02 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2018.03.

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NO NEW RECENT 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA

If anyone has any questions about these cases or about the Trump Trade Crisis, Taxes and Trade, NAFTA, FTAs, , including the impact on agriculture, the impact on downstream industries, the Section 232 cases, the 201 case against Solar Cells, 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.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–TRUMP TRADE CRISIS, NAFTA NEAR COLLAPSE, NO FTAS, THIRD COUNTRIES BEAT US OUT ON TRADE DEALS, AD CASES MORE POLITICAL, NO SYMPATHY FOR BOMBARDIER, 201 SOLAR, 301 CHINA, TAA FOR COMPANIES

Winder Building United States Trade Representative Washington DC. United States Trade Representative is chief US trade negotiator. Winder Building created 1848

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR OCTOBER 20, 2017

Dear Friends,

Having just returned from a month-long trip to Europe, the trade situation under the Trump Administration has heated up to the boiling point, but the target is not just China.  The Trump Administration appears to be attacking all trade with the firm belief that all prior trade deals that the US entered into were a raw deal.  NAFTA negotiations are at a standstill, and many believe Trump’s real intention is to kill NAFTA.

The United States is at a trade crossroads and apparently Trump and his supporters have decided to become much more protectionist, while the rest of the World is moving to free trade agreements.

As also stated below, directly contrary to statements by Trump supporters, the Trump trade policy is not a continuation of President Reagan’s trade policy.  Although President Reagan took pragmatic trade actions when he had to, he was a strong free trader and we know that was his position because he said so.

President Trump is very protectionist and truly does not want free trade deals.  He ripped up the TPP with no attempt at renegotiation.  He has made such strong demands of Canada and Mexico that he knows they will reject with the purpose of eventually killing the deal.

The decisions on TPP and NAFTA have been taken without any real idea of the negative ramifications, the costs, of terminating these deals on US farmers and corporations, many of which have interconnected supply chains that have been finely calibrated to produce lower cost consumer products so as to be competitive with lower priced imports of that final product from China.  Many believe that the real effect of killing NAFTA will be to move production to China or other lower cost countries.

Moreover, Trump won the election because of rural states and the farmers in those rural states but US agriculture is dependent on exports.  When Trump slams trade, he slams his own constituents, farmers in the rural states, which elected him as President.

One of the other losers in the Trump trade policy besides agriculture will be the high tech companies because these two sectors will bear the brunt of the trade retaliation that is coming.

Trump wants to protect the low tech industry, the Steel industry with its 141,000 jobs and the heck with everyone else.

The Trump trade policy is based on one arrogant presumption—the US market is the largest in the World and the rest of the World must kowtow, come on bended knee, to get into the US and that fact gives the US leverage.  But that fact is no longer true.  The 11 countries in the TPP have a larger market than the US.  China has a larger market than the US.

In fact, Canada and Mexico already can fall back on trade agreements they have with other countries, such as Europe.  The United States does not have that luxury.  The US decision by both Trump and the Democrats to go protectionist is further isolating the US in the trade area and is having and will have major negative economic ramifications on the US economy.  The chickens will come home to roost.

Maybe instead of ripping up trade agreements and making US producers less competitive it is time for the United States to find a way to make its companies more competitive in the US and international markets as they exist now rather than erect protectionist barriers to international competition.  Maybe the US should turn to an existing program, which has saved companies injured by imports, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program.

Commerce has made antidumping and countervailing duty investigations more political, but the EC wants to change China’s nonmarket economy status to allow a case by case determination.

But there is no sympathy for Bombardier in the Boeing fight at the Commerce Department in Civil Aircraft Preliminary determinations as Bombardier refused to cooperate with the Commerce Department’s antidumping investigation leading to a decision of all facts available.  So there will be no negotiated agreement in that case.  Bombardier has decided to jointly produce the plans with Airbus at its Mobile, Alabama plant, but it is questionable whether that will really work.

The US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) reached an affirmative injury determination in the Solar Section 201 case and now it moves to remedy phase.

USTR has also initiated a section 301 case against forced technology transfers in deals with China, but not many companies showed up for the USTR hearing. This may reflect the point made by my partner, Dan Harris, in his August 30, 2017 article “China US Trade Wars and the IP Elephant in the Room” that many US companies make the mistake of simply handing over their IP rights to Chinese joint venture companies with no protection. The US government cannot protect US companies from stupid mistakes.

Meanwhile, the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases remain on hold.

In a decision near and dear to my heart, USTR is charging ahead with a Wine case against BC and Canada at the WTO and now EC, Australia, Argentina and other countries are interested.    Canada and BC’s protectionist position on Wine play right into Trump’s argument that NAFTA is not a free trade agreement.

China has filed an antidumping and countervailing duty case against the United States.  More Antidumping and Countervailing Duty and 337 cases have been filed against China and the trade issue could well become the most important issue in upcoming elections.

If Trump makes unwise protectionist decisions, the US economy will be hurt, jobs will be lost and he will lose in the next election.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE AT A CROSSROADS AND IT’S NOT JUST CHINA

Prior to his election, with Trump complaining during the election about China so many times, many voters would have believed that Trump’s primary target in the trade area would be China.

But nine months after his inauguration, it is becoming clearer that Trump’s real target is trade in general.  We are at a trade crossroads, and the Trump Administration with substantial support from the Democrats apparently has decided to move down a very protectionist road.

Trump and his Administration firmly believe that the United States has gotten a raw deal in all the trade deals it has entered into.  In effect, Trump sees trade as economic warfare and the United States is losing the war.  When economic competition from imports causes problems for US companies, it must be unfair trade caused by unfair trade deals.

Although Trump will mouth free trade, when Trump pulled out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, it was the first Free Trade Agreement that the United States had ever refused to join.  As described below under the Costs article, this action has put US exporters, including farmers, at a distinct cost disadvantage in World markets and caused enormous economic damage to Trump’s own constituents, workers and farmers.  Many experts believe that there is a better than 50% chance that Trump will pull out of NAFTA.  See articles below from Wall Street Journal and John Brinkley at Forbes about the costs of pulling out of NAFTA.

But killing the TPP and potentially killing NAFTA gores the agriculture ox.  This is the one fly in the ointment, flaw in Trump’s entire economic strategy.  If the Trump trade policy hurts farmers, Trump could lose the rural states: Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, to name a few and that could lead to Trump’s loss in the next Presidential election.  In contrast to arguments made by Trump supporters, rural states are not just manufacturing, they are farmers, agriculture, and one half of all US produced agricultural prorducts is exported.

In addition to agriculture, high tech companies will also be hit as they are perfect retaliation targets and all the side agreements on digital and IP protection in the TPP Agreement have died and will die.

Trump supporters attack not only the trade deals, but the WTO itself because ceding power in a trade deal or to the WTO is giving away the sovereignty of the US people.  The WTO’s job, however, is to provide a forum for negotiations and adjudication of trade disputes between different sovereign countries.  The United States simply cannot dictate its trade policy to other sovereign countries.  It must negotiate trade agreements.  If that be globalism, then so be it.

The real issue is what is the US interest in trade negotiations.  The trade deals that the Trump supporters attack were negotiated by the US government and then approved by Congress.  Are all treaties that create multi-government organizations as a forum for negotiations and adjudication of international disputes to be attacked because they result in giving away US sovereignty?  If so, the World returns to 1914, World War 1, and the Guns of August.  The United States has to negotiate with other sovereign countries.  And in negotiation with other sovereign countries, the United States does not always get everything it wants to get.  That is the essence of negotiations.

As stated before, the simplistic Trump approach to trade is that the United States is the largest market in the World and countries must kowtow to get into the US market.  But that is no longer true.  The remaining countries in the TPP represent a larger market than the US.  That is why during the push for Trade Promotion Authority in the House of Representatives, House Speaker Paul Ryan stated that 75% of all consumers are outside the United States.

The Trump supporters also look at economic competition as economic warfare and, therefore, the United States must win each trade deal.  But as stated below, President Reagan himself believed that economic competition is good for the United States because it is the essence of free markets.

WOULD PRESIDENT REAGAN HAVE SUPPORTED TRUMP’S ECONOMIC PROTECTIONIST NATIONALISM?—I THINK NOT

One of the basic arguments of the Trump supporters in the Trade area is that Trump’s trade policy is simply an extension of Reagan’s trade policy and, therefore, President Ronald Reagan would have supported the protectionist economic nationalism of Donald Trump.  In effect, these supporters argue all trade deals in the past, including NAFTA and China’s entry into the WTO, were raw deals that hurt the US working man.  These supporters argue that the trade deals are the reason for the loss of millions of US manufacturing jobs and even a major reason for the US budget deficit.  Therefore, President Reagan would have opposed all of these trade deals.

But I too was in the US government during the Reagan Administration, admittedly not a political appointee, but as a line attorney at the US International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department.  I do not remember the Reagan trade policy in the same way as being overly protectionist.  I remember a President, who was the most Free Trade President of my generation, who firmly believed in the power of the free market and economic competition.  Although President Reagan took tough trade actions as needed, he also knew that in the long run protectionism would not work because the US companies themselves would only become weaker.  Reagan’s real trade policy is indicated by his actual words and actions, not summary statements by conservative pundits.

Reagan also understood that when dealing with trade, we are dealing with the interests not only of the United States, but the interests of other countries.  Although the US should always represent its own interests first, it cannot dictate the outcome to other countries, because it does not have the power to do so.  The EC, China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Australia are sovereign countries too, and they have a say in international trade negotiations.

On October 14, 2017, at the Values Summit in Washington DC, Fox Contributor Laura Ingraham stated that Reagan was an economic populist and pointed to the 45% tariff issued by President Reagan in the Harley Davidson Motorcycles case and the large duties of 100% against Japanese electronics, such as semiconductors.  She then argued that President Trump’s stance on trade was simply a continuation of the Reagan trade policy.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qofqnUHPGnc.

During the speech, Ingraham stated that every Free Trade Agreement must be either rewritten or repealed and that Trump like Reagan understands the working class and the need to protect US industry and jobs.  She pointed to present USTR Robert Lighthizer, the former Deputy USTR under Reagan, as an example of Trump’s sterling trade policy.

But I too worked in the Reagan Administration and later under Robert Lighthizer.  I simply do not remember it the way Ingraham and Robert Lighthizer, the current USTR, remember it.  In the Harley Davidson Motorcycles case, for example, which happened when I was in the General Counsel’s office at the US International Trade Commission, Harley brought a case under Section 201, the Escape Clause, allowing Harley to get short term temporary protection from imports.  After winning the case and after Reagan issued a temporary tariff on imports of motorcycle subassemblies from Japan (Japanese companies had manufacturing facilities in the US too), Harley after only two years asked the Reagan Administration to lift the temporary tariff because it had adjusted to import competition.

Contrast that tariff relief with the tariff relief provided to Mr. Lighthizer’s client in the Steel Industry—30 plus years of protection from imports from many, many antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders issued under US AD and CVD laws.  That is not temporary tariff relief; that is permanent tariff relief.  Despite that protection for decades, the US steel industry has declined with Bethlehem Steel going out of business, just as President Ronald Reagan himself predicted.  Trade protection only slows the decline of industries; it does not cure the disease.

Ms. Ingraham’s speech parallels the statements she recently made in her book “Billionaire at the Barricades”, which articulates very well the thinking and many of the arguments from the Trump Administration and his supporters against trade and trade agreements in general.  In the book, Ms. Ingraham states, “Except for Reagan, all modern presidents of both parties campaigned as populists but governed as globalists.”  And that Conservative Populists “are against huge trade deals and international organizations like the World Trade Organization because they take power out of the hands of voters and give it to a far-away and often hostile global elite.”  Page 43.

Ingraham also attacks all trade deals, especially NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Canada, and China’s entry into the WTO, along with the WTO itself.  With regards to NAFTA, Ingraham states:

“but Perot and millions of Americans—the kind who don’t worship at the Wall Street Journal’s altar of globalism and internationalism for profit’s sake—knew it was a raw deal for workers and bad for America. The biggest “tell” that NAFTA was going to be a boon for elites and a bust for everyone else was the fact that George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton (as well as their Donor Class” pals) all supported the monstrosity.”

Billionaires at the Barricades at 313 (footnotes omitted).

According to Ingraham, Clinton promised that NAFTA would:

“create the world’s largest trade zone and create 200,000 jobs in this country by 1995 alone . .  .Clinton not only lied, he made a “pledge” to the American working class who opposed NAFTA that they would receive “gains.”

They received pink slips instead.

The populists’ NAFTA predictions proved painfully prescient. Between 1993 and 2013, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada went from $17 billion to $177.2 billion.  . .

The effects on American workers have been even more catastrophic. EPI data concluded that in just 10 years, NAFTA was responsible for displacing 851,700 American jobs. To put that in context, that’s more people than live in Columbus, Ohio. “All of the net jobs displaced were due to growing trade deficits with Mexico”.  .. .The destruction of nearly one million jobs and the implosion of American manufacturing—that’s Bill Clinton’s NAFTA legacy.”

Billionaires at the Barricades at 385 to 389.

But Ingram forgets to mention that since NAFTA was enacted, total trade among these three countries has increased from $290 billion in 1993 to $1.1 Trillion in 2016 and that trade was not solely imports, but also US exports to those countries.  According to the US Chamber of Commerce, six million US jobs are dependent on US trade with Mexico.

Ingraham then goes on to attack the decision to let China into the WTO:

“If NAFTA had unleashed a flood of dangerous economic currents crashing into the American working class, his [Clinton’s] decision to pave the path for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) by giving it Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR, now known as Most Favored Nation) status swelled into an outsourcing tidal wave. Millions of American manufacturing jobs were washed out to sea – the South China Sea, that is. . .  .

It is “one of the most important foreign policy developments” if you want to understand the destruction of American manufacturing. It is also “one of the most important foreign policy developments” for understanding how millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs were vaporized in record speed, even as China grew at a steroidal rate of muscular economic growth.

Let’s start with the basics. The World Trade Organization was officially created during Bill Clinton’s presidency in January 1995, but it had existed in other forms since 1948. . . .

“Seventeen years hence, it is difficult to overstate the economic destruction wrought by China’s entry into the WTO and Congress and President Clinton’s decision to grant the Chinese permanent” “Most Favored Nation status. A 2016 analysis published in the Annual Review of Economics concluded that between 1999 and 2011, America lost between 2 and 2.4 million jobs.  Others, like the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, put the American jobs loss figures even higher at 3.2 million jobs, when calculated between the years 2001 and 2013.50

The brutal economic reality was a cruel reversal of Clinton’s promises: all the gains were on the Chinese side, all “the losses and devastation were America’s. American manufacturing jobs were eviscerated. From 2001 to 2011, U.S. manufacturing jobs plunged from 17.1 million to 11.8 million.51 That’s a loss of 5.3 million manufacturing jobs, a figure that’s nearly the population of the entire state of Minnesota.

The narrowing of the trade deficit between the United States and China never materialized either. To the contrary, it exploded. In 2000, the annual trade in goods deficit with China stood at a towering $84 billion. After Clinton ushered China to the front of the line, the trade deficit more than quadrupled to a jaw-dropping $367 billion by 2015.  The year before America let China join the WTO (1999), the United States accounted for 25.78 percent of world GDP. By 2014, that figure had dropped to 22.43—the lowest it has been in government records going back to 1969, according to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1999, China’s annual GDP was $1.094 trillion. In 2015, it was more than $11 trillion. In 1999, the U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion (the good ol’ days!). Today, after the big government globalist policies of the last several presidents, U.S. national debt stands at a mind-bending $20 trillion.”

Id. at 415, 417, 427-431 (footnotes omitted).

Let me make one point very clear.  The China WTO Agreement is not a Free Trade Agreement.  Before China entered the WTO, it was already exporting substantial exports to the US.  I know because I represented Chinese companies and US importers in many antidumping cases long before China entered the WTO.  What China’s entrance into the WTO allowed the US to do was to gain leverage with China by putting Chinese trade practices into a forum, the WTO, which gave the US the ability to call some of China’s trade practices into account and discipline them.  The United States has brought many cases against China at the WTO and won many and caused China to change its trade practices, but it should be noted that China has brought cases against the US at the WTO, especially in the antidumping and countervailing duty area, and won many too.

As Charlene Barshefsky, the USTR, who negotiated the US China WTO Agreement, recently stated to the Wall Street Journal in answer to the question whether China’s entry into the WTO accounted for its enormous economic growth:

”No, I don’t think he’s right. If you go back to the mid-1990s, you saw a China that was already growing at about 8%, 8.5% a year, with the world’s largest standing army, a nuclear power, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, a fifth of the world’s population, a reformist premier, Zhu Rongji, and willing to orient toward the West.

In the course of doing the WTO negotiation, China opened its market. The U.S. didn’t alter its trade regime, nor did any other country alter  its trade regime. As in any WTO negotiation, it is the acceding country that needs to reform its economy.

The key point is that, in the context of a country as large as China entering, were there protections built into the agreement to prevent, for example, unexpected surges of imports? And indeed, there were—a mechanism almost never used by the very industries Steve Bannon is pointing to, although it would’ve been entirely protective of their interests.”

To see what Ms. Barshefsky believes is the real China trade problem see the video at https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-impact-of-china-joining-the-wto-1495504981.

During that interview, Barshefsky pointed to the real China problem.  After 2006 China has shifted to a more protectionist trade policy pushing US and other foreign companies and foreign imports out of China.  The Trump trade policy rightly so could demand more reciprocity from China and demand that China drop its barriers to US imports and investment.

On the other hand, killing all trade with China is not the answer.  Although Ms. Ingraham points to the deficits, China has become the largest importer of US products.  On August 21st, in an editorial entitled “Yes, China Steals U.S. Intellectual Property, But That Doesn’t Mean Trade With China Is A Bad Thing” Investors Business Daily states:

“But didn’t the flood of Chinese factory-made goods to the U.S. decimate American manufacturing during this period? That’s a myth. As the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monthly manufacturing index shows, from 2000 to 2006 American factory output rose a healthy 11.5%. It wasn’t decimated by the surge in Chinese exports to the U.S. It only crashed when the financial crisis hit.  . . .

We hope a negotiated solution can be found. At the same time, we might want to think seriously about it before we back a giant U.S.-China trade war that could make all of us, Americans and Chinese, much worse off.”

In addition, when Ms. Ingraham quotes economic data from left leaning groups, she should keep in mind that these groups are very big supporters of labor unions, which provide the backbone of the Democratic Party.  Labor unions traditionally have been very, very protectionist, anti-free market and economic competition, very anti-Republican and very pro- Democratic party.  That is why Senator Chuck Schumer, who Ingraham does not like, supports the Trump protectionist trade policy, but Schumer believes that Trump is not being protectionist enough.   Chuck Schumer’s views are not the views of President Ronald Reagan.

But Ms. Ingraham also states that:

“Trump’s critics would do well to examine the election data on working-class rural Americans—a group who overwhelmingly went for Trump’s message of economic nationalism. Rural voters accounted for nearly one out of five votes in 2016 and were a pivotal part of Trump’s successful Rust Belt strategy. NBC News exit polls revealed that Trump beat Clinton 57 to 38 percent among Michigan’s rural voters (Romney carried the same group but by only seven percentage points). Among Pennsylvania rural voters, Trump destroyed Clinton 71 percent to 26 percent . . ..”

Id. at 1163-1164.

But Ms. Ingraham herself should also watch out because many of those rural voters are farmers and agriculture is dependent on exports.  Those rural voters could turn against Trump and the Republican party and that is why Republican Senators and Congressmen from rural states are so concerned about Trump’s trade policy.  Farmers want trade agreements, even if Trump and his manufacturing supporters do not.  That is why after listening to the complaints of Republican Senators and Congressmen from agricultural states along with complaints of US Ambassador to China and former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, Trump told Lighthizer in the NAFTA negotiations to do no harm.

In her book, Laura Ingraham points to Reagan’s history, but misses an important point Reagan lived through the Great Depression and he firmly believed that the protectionist policies in the 1930 Smoot Hawley tariff act, which “protected” the US by increasing tariffs on almost every import, made a depression into the Great Depression.  How do I know?  Because President Ronald Reagan said so.

On June 28, 1986, President Reagan from his ranch in Santa Barbara gave the attache speech, BETTER COPY REAGAN IT SPEECH, on International Trade.  This speech is in effect a point by point rebuttal that Reagan was an economic nationalist.  So I would say to Ms. Ingraham to paraphrase Robert Dole, do not distort Ronald Reagan’s record.  I have quoted the entire speech to show that it came directly from President Reagan and is not a characterization.  As Reagan himself stated in the speech:

My fellow Americans:

This coming week we’ll celebrate the Fourth of July and the birthday of the Statue of Liberty, dedicated one century ago this year. Nancy and I will be in New York Harbor for the event, watching fireworks light the sky over the grand old lady who welcomes so many millions of immigrants to our shores. But I’ve often thought that Lady Liberty also represents another symbol of our openness to the rest of the world. With the ships plying the waters of New York Harbor beneath her, she reminds us of the enormous extent of our trade with other nations of the world.

Now, I know that if I were to ask most of you how you like to spend your Saturdays in the summertime, sitting down for a nice, long discussion of international trade wouldn’t be at the top of the list. But believe me, none of us can or should be bored with this issue. Our nation’s economic health, your well-being and that of your family’s really is at stake.

That’s because international trade is one of those issues that politicians find an unending source of temptation. Like a 5-cent cigar or a chicken in every pot, demanding high tariffs or import restrictions is a familiar bit of flim flammery in American politics. But cliches and demagoguery aside, the truth is these trade restrictions badly hurt economic growth.

 You see, trade barriers and protectionism only put off the inevitable. Sooner or later, economic reality intrudes, and industries protected by the Government face a new and unexpected form of competition. It may be a better product, a more efficient manufacturing technique, or a new foreign or domestic competitor.

By this time, of course, the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition. And that, my friends, is when the factories shut down and the unemployment lines start. We had an excellent example of this in our own history during the Great Depression. Most of you are too young to remember this, but not long after the stock market crash of 1929, the Congress passed something called the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Many economists believe it was one of the worst blows ever to our economy. By crippling free and fair trade with other nations, it internationalized the Depression. It also helped shut off America’s export market, eliminating many jobs here at home and driving the Depression even deeper.

Well, since World War II, the nations of the world showed they learned at least part of their lesson. They organized the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, to promote free trade. It hasn’t all been easy going, however. Sometimes foreign governments adopt unfair tariffs or quotas and subsidize their own industries or take other actions that give firms an unfair competitive edge over our own businesses. On those occasions, it’s been very important for the United States to respond effectively, and our administration hasn’t hesitated to act quickly and decisively.

And in September, with more GATT talks coining up once again, it’s going to be very important for the United States to make clear our commitment that unfair foreign competition cannot be allowed to put American workers in businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But I think you all know the inherent danger here. A foreign government raises an unfair barrier; the United States Government is forced to respond. Then the foreign government retaliates; then we respond, and so on. The pattern is exactly the one you see in those pie fights in the old Hollywood comedies: Everything and everybody just gets messier and messier. The difference here is that it’s not funny. It’s tragic. Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.

And that’s why I wanted to talk with you today about some legislation that the Congress now has before it that is a throwback to the old protectionist days. It greatly cuts down my flexibility as President to bargain with and pressure foreign governments into reducing trade barriers. While this legislation is still pending before the Senate, it has already passed the House of Representatives. So, the danger is approaching. Should this bill become law, foreign governments would respond, and soon a vicious cycle of trade barriers would be jeopardizing our hard-won economic prosperity. Yes, the politicians are back at it in Washington. And should this unacceptable legislation continue to move through the Congress, I’ll need your help in sending them a message. So, please consider our talk today an early warning signal on free and fair trade, a jobs and growth alert. And stand by, I may need your help in resisting protectionist barriers that would hinder economic growth and cost America jobs.

Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.

Emphasis added.

I too was in the US government during the Reagan Administration, admittedly not a political appointee, but as a line attorney at the US International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department.  I too saw the Reagan trade policy and I do not remember it the way Ingraham and Robert Lighthizer, the current USTR, remember it.  I saw President Ronald Reagan appoint the most free trade Commissioners in its history to the US International Trade Commission—Susan Liebeler and Anne Brunsdale — and they certainly were not economic nationalists.  These free trade ITC Commissioners used to frustrate Robert Lighthizer in cases brought by the US Steel industry because they refused to go affirmative in certain cases and put antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place.

Let me say at the outset, I am not a Libertarian.  I have no problem with trade policy that hammers countries to open markets.  I have no problem with a domestic policy of low taxes and less regulation.  We need to make our companies, farmers and workers more competitive by giving them back the money they have earned.

I also believe that making America great again and putting America’s interests first is a correct policy position.  I am not a globalist, but firmly believe that we first must know what America’s interest is.

But as indicated below, in the post on Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, I firmly believe, like Ronald Reagan, who personally approved of the program, that an answer to the trade crisis is not more protectionism, but finding ways to make US companies more competitive.

Like Ronald Reagan, who was a free trader, I do not believe in putting up protectionist trade barriers, which are not temporary and can stay in place for 30 plus years, such as antidumping and countervailing duty orders against steel that wipe out imports and make downstream companies less competitive, is in the interest of the United States.

As President Reagan himself stated, “the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition,” and competition is what makes and will make America great again.

Like Ronald Reagan I do not believe that protection in the long run saves the industries it is trying to protect.  Robert Lighthizer for decades at Skadden, Arps represented US Steel in the Steel Trade Wars.  My former boss, Mike Stein, represented Bethlehem Steel for decades in the Steel Wars along with Lighthizer, but where is Bethlehem Steel today after 40 years of protection from steel imports—green fields.  Green fields when the steel industry has been protected to some degree for decades from steel imports.

Why?  Despite the protection from steel imports, Bethlehem Steel management and union did not take the protection and adjust to import competition so as to make their production facilities more competitive.  In the 90s, when given protection in a Section 201 case from imports, US Steel bought Marathon Oil.  All the trade protection the US can provide will not save the companies if they want to give their workers exorbitant pensions and their management large bonuses and reduce their own competitiveness in the World market.

Antidumping orders against steel imports have led to a higher US steel price than the World market price.  Steel, however, is a raw material input and the antidumping orders against Steel have led to US antidumping orders brought by injured US industries against imports of ironing tables, folding metal tables and chairs, wind towers, stainless steel sinks, boltless steel shelving, steel nails and a myriad of other products that use US steel as a raw material input.  The disease of the steel industry has spread to the downstream steel using industries.

During the speech Laura Ingraham asked what is the problem with trade protectionism?  One major problem is that trade is a two-way street and what the United States does to one country that country can do back to the United States.  The United States cannot dictate trade policy to the other countries in the World because they are sovereign too.  Also the entire world is moving to an open market, when the US appears to be moving backward to a protectionist US market.  This puts US companies and farmers at a distinct cost disadvantage because it means US exports cannot compete on a level playing field, by Trump’s choice

Lighthizer’s and Trump’s answer to trade problems is simply to put up one more brick and build the protectionist wall higher against imports.  If Ms. Ingraham wants a history lesson, I suggest she look at two countries—recently Japan and less recently China, who followed that same strategy.  In the 1980’s when I was at the ITC and Commerce, the big trade target was Japan.  Having worked in Japan I knew that it had numerous non-tariff trade barriers, which blocked many US exports.  Then in the early 1990s Japan’s economy imploded and it entered into the lost decades in large part because of its own trade policy, which explains why Prime Minister Abe wants the TPP.

China also did exactly what Laura Ingraham is proposing.  China closed down and its economy took a nose dive and went back to the Dark Ages.   It took Deng Xiaoping and later Zhu Rongyi to open up China.  China grew not because of the United States, but because it opened its economy up as it was in China’s economic interest to do so.  Many US companies have joint ventures in China.  When GM was having economic problems in the Obama Administration, the one part of the company it was trying to save was its China operations because the GM Buick was the number one selling car in China.  If the US shuts down, it too like China will go back to the dark ages.

Essentially, Trump appears to be adopting the mercantilist trade policies that he has condemned.  With its focus on trade deficits in manufacturing, Trump’s trade policy appears to be that the only trade deals we want are those where the US has a trade surplus.  That is not the way the World works.

THE TRADE WEAKNESS IN DONALD TRUMP’S ECONOMIC POLICY—THE COSTS OF NOT DOING THE TRADE DEALS

As stated in my last blog post, President Trump dropped the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, has made noises about dropping the US Korea agreement and is on the verge of killing the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) with Mexico and Canada.

During the time when the TPP was being discussed in Congress, its passage was in trouble because many Senators and Congressmen believe the US did not get enough.  Senator Orin Hatch wanted more on biologics and other Senators and Congressmen wanted a a better deal.

But the big problem at the Trump Presidential and Congressional level with regards to these trade agreements was and is the failure to calculate the cost of not doing these trade agreements or of terminating them.  Keep in mind the only party that is more protectionist than Donald Trump is the Democrats.  Also with Steve Bannon’s attacks on “establishment” Republicans, free traders in the Republican party are becoming few and far between.

The Bannon and Trump approach reveal fatal misunderstandings.  Steve Bannon and Donald Trump have not figured out one important point: Not only do companies compete against each other and States compete against each other, but the United States and other countries compete against each other.  The US decision to go the Protectionist route means it has given up competing and has created an open road for the economic competitors of US, including EC, China, Mexico, Canada, Australia and other countries, who are all moving in to replace US exports in those markets.  Trump’s and Bannon’s policy combined with the Democrat’s protectionist policies mean the US will lose the economic war because of the US failure to compete in the international economic marketplace.

The arrogance of the Steve Bannon and the Trump trade policy is based on the principle that the United States is the largest market in the World, and this gives the US leverage and, therefore, countries must kowtow and bend their head to get into the US market.  Although that principle may have been true twenty years ago, it is simply no longer true.

The Trans Pacific Partnership, for example, combines the markets of 12 countries, now 11 with the US exit, into one “huge” trading block.  Since Mexico, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are part of that block, the TPP market is a much larger market than the US alone.

Also in many ways, with 1.37 billion people China has a larger market than the US.  In 2006, at a speech in Beijing, the US Commercial Attaché stated that 75% of all Chinese, including rural Chinese, have a color television set.  Now that is close to 95% of 1.37 billion.  That is a larger market than the US with its 323 million.

But it is the costs of terminating the TPP deal, which are becoming much more clear.

As stated in my last newsletter, the ox that will be gored by Trump’s trade policy is agriculture and that is just what is happening.  Mexico and Canada are also in a stronger trade position than the US because they already have free trade agreements with a number of other countries, including the EC, and that gives them a substantial competitive advantage getting into those markets.  This fact gives Canada and Mexico leverage in the NAFTA negotiations even though Trump, Lighthizer and Ross simply do not understand the dynamics of the deal.

In that blog post, I quoted extensively from the attache August 7, 2017 article entitled “Trump’s Trade Pullout Roils Rural America”, Trump’s Trade Pullout Roils Rural America – POLITICO Magazine.  To summarize some of the points in that Politico article:

for the already struggling agricultural sector, the sprawling 12- nation TPP, covering 40 percent of the world’s economy, was a lifeline. It was a chance to erase punishing tariffs that restricted the United States—the onetime “breadbasket of the world”—from selling its meats, grains and dairy products to massive importers of foodstuffs such as Japan and Vietnam.

The decision to pull out of the trade deal has become a double hit on places like Eagle Grove. The promised bump of $10 billion in agricultural output over 15 years, based on estimates by the U.S. International Trade Commission, won’t materialize. But Trump’s decision to withdraw from the pact also cleared the way for rival exporters such as Australia, New Zealand and the European Union to negotiate even lower tariffs with importing nations, creating potentially greater competitive advantages over U.S. exports.

A POLITICO analysis found that the 11 other TPP countries are now involved in a whopping 27 separate trade negotiations with each other, other major trading powers in the region like China and massive blocs like the EU. Those efforts range from exploratory conversations to deals already signed and awaiting ratification. Seven of the most significant deals for U.S. farmers were either launched or concluded in the five months since the United States withdrew from the TPP.. . .

In other words, the entire World is moving in the direction of President Ronald Reagan to a more open free trading market, which would have benefitted US companies greatly.  The US is following Trump’s trade policy and moving backward to a more closed protectionist market.

The article went on to state the numerous free trade agreements being negotiated by the other countries in the TPP and now those Agreements are putting US farmers at a distinct disadvantage.  EC pork farmers, which already exports as much pork to Japan as the United States does, have an advantage of up to $2 per pound over U.S. exporters. European wine producers, who sold more than $1 billion to Japan between 2014 and 2016, have a 15 percent tariff advantage over U.S. exporters.

When Donald Trump pulled out of the TPP, Japan turned around and offered the same deal to the EC, which the United States had spent two excruciating years extracting from Japanese trade officials.  The United States is now left out.

Four Latin-American countries—Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia, known as the Pacific Alliance are opening negotiations with New Zealand, Australia and Singapore.

Australia is selling beef at a lower price than the US to Japan.  Without the TPP, Australian ranchers eventually will enjoy a 19 percent tariff advantage over U.S. competitors.

With the TPP, economic forecasts already show projected gains for countries involved. Canada, according to one estimate, could permanently gain an annual market share of $412 million in beef and $111 million in pork sales to Japan by 2035, because lower tariffs would enable it to eclipse America’s position in the market.

Over the first five months of 2017, U.S. exports to Japan of chilled pork, which is preferable to frozen meat, are up 2 percent over the previous year. But exports of chilled pork from Canada, a prime competitor, are up 19 percent. Likewise, in frozen pork, U.S. exports are up 28 percent. But exports from the EU, the leading competitor, are up 44 percent.

Now there are more indicators that Canada, Mexico and Japan are turning away from US imports because of the Trump protectionist positions.

COSTS OF PULLNG OUT OF NAFTA AND TPP

CANADA

In an October 16, 2017 article in the Globe and Mail, “Canada must prepare for life after NAFTA” former Canadian trade negotiator Gordon Ritchie stated:

“The Canadian government (as well as the provinces, business and labour) is now forced to contemplate life without a free-trade agreement.  While this is far from a preferred choice, it would not be the end of the world. In the absence of a bilateral agreement, the most-favored-nation rules of the World Trade Organization would apply and offer many of the same protections. Tariffs would be restored, but at a much lower level than before the free-trade agreement, averaging roughly 3.5 per cent on shipments to the United States. Unquestionably, existing economic linkages would be put under stress but most would survive. This is clearly not the option the Canadian government would prefer but it could be better than what is currently on offer from the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, the impact on U.S. businesses would be just as severe if not more so. In an unprecedented statement, the U.S. chamber of commerce, the broadest and perhaps most influential business lobby, came out strongly against dismantling NAFTA, which it earlier estimated underpinned about 12 million American jobs.”

MEXICO

On October 16, 2017 in an article entitled “Mexico Braces for the Possible Collapse of Nafta”, the New York Time reported:

“Mexico is steeling itself for the increasing possibility that the United States will pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, envisioning how the Mexican economy would adapt without the deal that has guided relations between the neighbors for a quarter-century. .  .

President Enrique Peña Nieto recently traveled to China to discuss trade, among other issues; Mexico is a member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord.

Already new suppliers are emerging. In December, Argentina is expected to deliver 30,000 tons of wheat, its first sale ever to Mexico. Crisp Chilean apples have begun to appear on Mexico’s supermarket shelves, next to piles of apples from Washington State. . . .

Still, the question is what a post-Nafta economy would look like. The Mexican government’s view is that the United States market would remain largely open.

Without Nafta, American duties on Mexican goods would revert to levels set by the World Trade Organization.

The figures vary, although the average is estimated to be about 3 percent for manufactured products. Cars assembled in Mexico, for example, would pay a duty of 2.5 percent.

“Do we like those duties? No. Can we live with them? Yes,” said Luis de la Calle, a former trade negotiator for Mexico. “The integration of Mexico, the United States and Canada will continue regardless of the governments. . . .

If tariffs rise, one possible effect could be that companies move more production from the United States to Mexico to reduce the number of parts requiring duty payments.

The other risk is that companies move production to Asia, buying parts there instead of in North America, and paying a single duty when the finished product enters the United States.

Ford Motor Company set the example this year. In January, it scrapped plans to build a factory in Mexico to produce the Focus, a small passenger car, a decision that won praise from Mr. Trump. But in June, the company announced that it would build a new Focus factory in China instead. . . .”

JAPAN

Despite Japanese noises of a bilateral trade agreement with the US after meetings with Vice President Pence, on October 15, 2017 in the attached article entitled “Japan exasperated by Trump’s trade policies”, Japan exasperated by Trump’s trade policies – POLITICO, Politico reported:

“As U.S. farmers suffer under high tariffs, Japanese officials are in no rush to cut a new trade deal with the United States.

TOKYO — Japanese officials are expressing growing frustration with the Trump administration’s economic policies, vowing to continue striking trade deals with other countries that undercut U.S. agricultural exports rather than seek a new trade agreement with the United States.

The frustration comes both from President Donald Trump’s harsh rhetoric on trade and from his pullout from the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Japan still hopes can provide a bulwark against China’s growing influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the failure of the TPP is taking a sharp toll on rural America. In August, the volume of U.S. sales of pork to Japan dropped by 9 percent year over year, a serious blow to farmers who had been preparing for a big increase in sales because of lower tariffs in the TPP.

Instead, other countries that export meats, grains and fruits have seized on their advantage over American growers and producers in the wake of the U.S. pullout from the TPP. And a new Reuters poll shows Trump’s favorability in rural America — once a great stronghold — dropped from 55 percent last winter to 47 percent in September. The poll also showed a plunge in support for Trump’s trade agenda among rural voters. . . .

in interviews with POLITICO, more than half a dozen senior Japanese officials said they were uneasy with a so-called bilateral — two-nation — deal to replace the TPP, arguing that the goal of the multinational agreement was to create a wide international playing field. They said they are dismayed by Trump’s seeming inability to understand the importance of a multinational pact to establish U.S. leadership in the region and set the trade rules for nations on both sides of the Pacific Ocean as a counterweight to China’s rising influence.

“Our prime minister has made it quite clear that we respect the U.S. decision. … That is our official position, but I think withdrawal from TPP is very wrong,” said one senior official. “Honestly, it has diminished many of things that the U.S. has achieved in the region.”

In response, Japan has continued negotiating with American trade competitors, striking a political deal on a landmark free-trade agreement with the European Union in July while continuing to work toward closing a deal with the 11 remaining members of the TPP. In interviews, the senior Japanese officials made clear their ultimate goal is to persuade the United States to rejoin the TPP.

“In the conduct of our affairs with the United States, we need to have leverage,” said one former senior Japanese Cabinet official. “In order for us to convince the U.S., we need to have our own leverage, and our own leverage needs to be free-trade agreements [with U.S. competitors].”

There are some signs the Japanese strategy is working. Republicans in Congress, many of whom were TPP supporters, are expressing impatience with the administration and a conviction that U.S. agricultural industries are suffering because of tensions unleashed by the TPP pullout.

“We cannot allow much more time to lapse in creating opportunities to have other agreements, and especially when you look at Japan,” said Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington state, chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, as his panel wrapped up a hearing last week on trade opportunities in the Asia Pacific region.

Trump himself has shown no sign of second- guessing his pullout from the TPP, which he described in an interview with Forbes magazine this month as “a great honor.”

“I consider that a great accomplishment, stopping that. And there are many people that agree with me,” he said. “I like bilateral deals.” .  . . .

Perdue’s comments came amid growing frustration in the farm belt. U.S. producers expect to continue losing market share in meat exports to other countries, even as domestic production reaches an all-time high, until something is done to address high import tariffs on the other side of the Pacific. Japan remains the top market for U.S. beef, and exports are up 22 percent from a year ago, but the impact of a recent hike in tariffs on frozen beef from 38.5 percent to 50 percent — a move that would have been avoidable if the TPP had been in force — will soon be felt, the U.S. Meat Export Federation predicts. The volume of pork exports of pork to Japan, the leading market for the U.S. in terms of value, dropped by 9 percent in August year over year. . . .

But Japan is in no rush to do so, according to the interviews with senior Japanese officials, who suggested that their country’s frustrations with the Trump administration are vast. . . .

For the ever-powerful career officials who sit in the unadorned buildings lining the leafy streets of Tokyo’s government district, there is one concern about the U.S. president that overrides all others: Trump’s determination to measure the effectiveness of trade deals in terms of which side sells more to the other.

Indeed, there are many people in the United States who share the view that free trade grows the global pie, with competition serving to promote efficiency and let countries take advantage of their own assets — such as the vast farming sector in the center of the United States, which has no parallel in Japan. . . .

Trump’s view, backed up by “American first” rhetoric, presumes that countries are inherently competitors, and that there are clear winners and losers.

“We want to avoid the relationship turning into a zero-sum game,” said a senior Japanese official.

“Each country has its own policy objectives, but Japan does not see trade deficits or surplus as the only driving force for trade negotiations,” said another senior government official. “A rules-based system is very important.”

Thus, Japanese officials are watching closely as the Trump administration renegotiates the North American Free Trade Agreement through ongoing talks with Canada and Mexico. To support its America- first agenda, the administration is threatening to blow up the 23-year-old trade deal and unravel complex supply chains that have grown over the life of the pact.

“They’re watching NAFTA and, frankly, in East Asia, they’re saying if the United States is so stupid as to screw up its agreements with its continental powers in Canada and Mexico, what can we in East Asia expect from these guys?” said Robert Zoellick, who served as President George W. Bush’s chief trade negotiator and later as World Bank president. “That’s a realistic question.” . . .

The failure of the TPP is a subject of contention between the two men — because Japan not only risked its economic future in hopes of a multinational trade deal but also pinned much of its national security hopes on the deal.

The need to counter the growing clout of China is an all-consuming priority in Tokyo, and Japanese officials felt that with the TPP they were on the verge of a genuine breakthrough, tying the United States, Canada, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile and other large nations on both sides of the Pacific into an economic alliance greater than anything China could muster. . . .

Seeking to fill the void left by the TPP, China has accelerated the pursuit of its own mega-deal with other Asian nations, called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP.

The United States leaving TPP “created a vacuum in the region, that’s for sure,” the official said. “It’s why RCEP is gaining momentum. That is why the government is asking the U.S. to come back to the TPP. We keep continuing to say so.” . . .

“The Japanese government has no mind of going back to the table for a bilateral negotiation,” said another senior official. “TPP was risky for Abe; a bilateral will require an even bigger leap.”

AGRICULTURE

On September 11, 2017 in article in Bloomberg entitled, “Four Ways to Rebuild Consensus on Agricultural Trade, The U.S. is losing ground fast to global rivals in Asia”, two former US Senators Max Baucus and Richard Lugar stated that they had formed a new group, Farmers for Free Trade stating:

“The financial health of American farmers depends on trade. In what remains the “breadbasket of the world,” U.S. farmers export half of all major commodities they grow, contributing to a projected trade surplus of $20 billion this year alone and supporting millions of direct and indirect jobs. At a time when American farm incomes have been rapidly declining, trade is what’s helping to keep farmers, ranchers and many rural communities afloat.

Not so long ago, we served in Washington D.C. when these realities were well understood. It was a time when bipartisan support for opening new markets to our farmers was assumed and expected. As globalization took hold, we understood that trade agreements were our only tool to ensure that American wheat, soy or beef could out-compete other countries’ products vying for the same markets. It was a consensus that delivered for millions of American farmers. Today, that consensus has faded.

American agricultural trade is facing risks not seen in a generation. Public attitudes toward trade agreements have shifted as protectionist sentiment has grown. Threats of tariffs on U.S. trading partners invite the specter of retaliation. Meanwhile, our competitors plot to assume the mantle of global supplier the U.S. has long occupied.

We need to rebuild consensus on agriculture trade. It must be one that incorporates the position of American farmers; that reflects the needs of rural communities; that is echoed by state and local leaders, and that seeks to heal the deep fissures on trade in Washington D.C.

We believe that consensus can be built around four important steps.

First, we need to get off the sidelines and get back in the business of negotiating trade agreements. The U.S. currently does not have a single ongoing trade negotiation that gives our farmers access to the rapidly growing Asian market. Our absence in Asia means that China is quickly moving into the void with its own trade deals that outflank U.S. agricultural producers. One of those China-led deals, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, involves 15 other Asia-Pacific countries with growing middle classes, many of whom are clamoring for the agricultural bounty the U.S. once supplied.

Meanwhile, agriculture powerhouses like Canada, New Zealand and Australia are cutting bilateral deals that provide preferential treatment for their commodities.

Take the example of beef. According to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as of this week, the U.S. has now lost out to Australia on more than $165 million in beef sales to Japan. That happened because Australia cut a trade deal with Japan in 2015, and we recently walked away from one.

These sharp competitive disadvantages are becoming the norm, and while it’s difficult to calculate all the untapped gains the U.S. has lost, the numbers are clear on how we reverse the trend. Since 2003, U.S. agricultural exports to countries we do have trade agreements with increased more than 136 percent.

Second, we need to remove the threat of retaliation against U.S. agriculture. Our trading partners are not novices when it comes to whom and what they retaliate against when the U.S. runs afoul of our international commitments. U.S. farmers are always target number one.

That is because our trading partners know it is the economic engine for so many states, and because the pain inflicted is immediate and acute.

For example, the last time Mexico retaliated against the U.S., their targets included everything from corn, to apples, to almonds and grapes. The Department of Agriculture estimated that those measures cost U.S. growers close to $1 billion in lost sales.

We know there are onerous trade practices that must be addressed through diplomacy and other mechanisms for setting disputes. But threatening our closest trading partners with blanket tariffs, border taxes or aggressive enforcement actions risks a trade war that would have no winners.

Third, we need to modernize NAFTA in a way doesn’t erode the enormous gains it has delivered for American farmers and ranchers. That means working to eliminate any remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers, simplifying packaging and labeling requirements, and improving agriculture opportunities through e-commerce platforms.

But it also means doing no harm to a pact that — according to the Farm Bureau — has resulted in an annual jump of agriculture exports from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $38 billion last year.

The Trump administration has a real opportunity to expand on those gains. They should do it quickly and thoughtfully so we can turn to the task of keeping pace with our competitors.

Finally, to rebuild consensus on trade, we need to organize and educate. We know there are officials in the administration and in Congress who understand the value of agricultural trade. Yet, recent trade debates have too often become a microcosm of our broader partisan politics.

To support this effort, we’re launching a bipartisan, not-for-profit organization called Farmers for Free Trade, to build a coalition of farmers, mayors and community leaders in congressional districts across the country. This isn’t only about the over 1 million U.S. jobs supported by agriculture trade, but also the secondary and tertiary jobs it creates in rural communities: from growers, harvesters, processors, and packagers to grain elevator operators, railroad workers, truck drivers and port operators.

Rebuilding consensus on trade begins in the heartland and capitalizes on the great strength of American farmers and ranchers. If we can do that, America wins.”

U.S. ANTI-TRADE STANCE AIDS EU

Meanwhile who benefits from the US decision to turn toward protectionism, other countries and the EU.  Jyrki Katainen, the European Commission’s vice president for jobs, growth, investment and competitiveness recently stated:

“We are willing to negotiate with third countries all the time – it’s part of our economic strategy. And now we have seen that many countries have been concerned about rising protectionism and entities which undermine the multilateral system, so they have been contacting us.”

The Wall Street Journal article below outlines the negative impact of terminating NAFTA on the US automobile industry.

US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Instead of listening to the protectionist steel industry and the unions, maybe it is time for the Trump Administration to listen to the winners in the Trade World.  On October 10, 2017, in Mexico City, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue spoke out against the Trump administration’s approach to negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he said has been riddled with “unnecessary and unacceptable” poison pill proposals from the U.S. side.  As Donohue stated:

“All of these proposals are unnecessary and unacceptable.  They have been met with strong opposition from the business and agricultural communities, congressional trade leaders, the Canadian and Mexican governments, and even other U.S. agencies. Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve reached a critical moment, and the Chamber has had no choice but ring the alarm bells.

“[NAFTA withdrawal] would abruptly slam the door on future negotiations because those governments have made it very clear they won’t negotiate with a gun to their head.  The United States could then reasonably expect trade retaliation … higher tariffs … broken supply chains … and potentially less cooperation on other priorities like anti-terrorism and anti-narcotics efforts.”

Donohue specifically criticized the foolish reliance on the need for the agreement to reduce the U.S. trade deficit:

“The business community, along with any economist worth his or her salt, has repeatedly explained that the trade balance is not only the wrong way to measure who’s ‘winning’ on trade, it’s the wrong focus, and is impossible to achieve without crippling the economy.”

NAFTA NEGOTIATIONS HAVE STALLED

On August 16th, United States, Canada and Mexico sat down together for the first round of talks to formally reopen NAFTA.  On July 17th, the USTR released its attached “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”, USTR NAFTA RENGOTIATION OBJECTIVES:

On October 18th, Politico reported that the NAFTA negotiations are at a standstill as Canada and Mexico have rejected the strident US proposals and potentially insurmountable disagreements on areas ranging from auto rules of origin to dairy market access and a sunset provision. The next round is to start on November 17th in Mexico.

At the closing press conference, the Canadian and Mexican trade ministers attacked the United States for making impractical demands and an overall unwillingness to compromise.

US Robert Lighthizer responded:

“Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners. As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and a reduction in these huge trade deficits.

We have seen no indication that our partners are willing to accept any change that will result in a rebalacing and a reduction in these huge trade deficits.  Now I understand that after many years of one-sided benefits, their companies have become reliant on special preferences and not just comparative advantage. Countries are reluctant to give up unfair advantages.”

In a press briefing in his private conference room, Lighthizer later stated that his primary goal is to reduce the trade deficit and:

“take away what I consider to be in many cases artificial incentives to encourage investment overseas that are not market based. If we get that right, we’ll have an agreement that the president will be enthused about and at that point if the president is enthused, I think the Congress will be enthused.”

Lighthizer has also argued that NAFTA is just frosting on the cake for major corporations:

“I think it’s possible to take a little of the sugar away and have them say, ‘Yeah we’re still doing pretty well.  I understand that everybody that’s making money likes the rules the way that they are. That’s how it works and they can make a little less money or make more money in a different way and we can get the trade deficit down and we can also have what I consider at least in the investment realm to be a market-based investment decision. I think if we do that business will be fine, and if we do that labor will come along and say this is a step in the right direction and it’s worth changing the paradigm in doing that.”

On October 16, 2017, in an article entitled Trump’s NAFTA Threat”, the Wall Street Journal made the opposing argument.

“Donald Trump is threatening again to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to his ultimatums.

If this is a negotiating tactic of making extreme demands only to settle for much less and claim victory, maybe it will work. Otherwise Mr. Trump is playing a game of chicken he is playing a game of chicken that he can’t win

Mr. Trump’s obsession with undoing Nafta threatens the economy he has so far managed rather well. The roaring stock market, rising GDP and tight job market are signs that deregulation and the promise of tax reform are restoring business and consumer confidence. Blowing up Nafta would blowup all that too. It could be the worst economic mistake by a U.S. President since Richard Nixon trashed Bretton-Woods and imposed wage and price controls.

U.S. demands in the Nafta renegotiations­ which returned to Washington last week-are growing more bizarre. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer now wants to add a sunset clause, which would automatically kill it in five years unless all three governments agree to keep it. In other words, the U.S. proposes to increase economic uncertainty and raise the incentive for businesses to deploy capital to more reliable investment climates.

The U.S. also wants to change Nafta’s “rules of origin” for autos. Cars now made in North America can cross all three borders duty-free if 62.5% of their content is Nafta-made. Mr. Lighthizer wants to raise that to 85% and add a sub­ clause requiring 50% be made in the U.S.

Mr. Lighthizer needs to get out more. Nafta’s current rules-of-origin for autos are already the highest of any trade agreement in the world, says John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Raising them would give car makers an incentive to source components from Asia and pay America’s low 2.5% most -favored-nation tariff. A higher-content rule would hurt Mexico, but it won’t bring jobs to the U.S

It’s hard to overstate the damage that ending Nafta would inflict on the U.S. auto industry. Under Nafta, companies tap the comparative advantages of all three markets and have created an intricate web of supply chains to maximize returns. As Charles Uthus at the American Automotive Policy Council said last week, Nafta “brings scale, it brings competitiveness, it brings efficiencies [and] synergies between all three countries, and it brings duty-free trade.” Its demise would be “basically a $10 billion tax on the auto industry in America.”

Last week the Boston Consulting Group also released a study sponsored by the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association that found ending Nafta could mean the loss of 50,000 American jobs in the auto-parts industry as Mexico and Canada revert to pre­ Nafta tariffs.

Mexico has elections next year and no party that bows to unreasonable demands by Mr. Trump can win. The Mexican political class appears willing to call his bluff, which is making American business very nervous. More than 300 state and local chambers of commerce signed an Oct. 10 letter to Mr. Trump imploring him to “first ‘do no harm’ in the Nafta negotiations.”

It noted that 14 million American jobs rely on North American daily trade of more than $3.3 billion. “The U.S. last year recorded a trade surplus _o f $11.9 billion with its NAFTA partners when manufactured goods and services are combined,” the letter said. “Among the biggest beneficiaries of this commerce are America’s small and medium-sized businesses, 125,000 of which sell their goods and services to Mexico and Canada.”

Ending Nafta would be even more painful for U.S. agriculture, whose exports to Canada and Mexico have quadrupled under Nafta to $38 billion in 2016. Reverting to Mexico’s pre-Nafta tariff schedule, duties would rise to 75% on American chicken and high-fructose corn syrup; 45% on turkey, potatoes and various dairy products; and 15% on wheat. Mexico doesn’t have to buy American, and last week it made its first wheat purchase from Argentina-30,000 tons for December delivery.

Canada and Mexico know that ending Nafta will hurt them, but reverting to pre-Nafta tariff levels could hurt the U.S. more. Mr. Trump can hurt our neighbors if he wants, but the biggest victims will be Mr. Trump’s voters.”

On October 16, 2017, in an article entitled “Trump Trying To Destroy NAFTA with Pin Pricks Instead Of A Sledgehammer” John Brinkley at Forbes outlined the US demands in the NAFTA negotiations and why they are being rejected:

“It appears increasingly likely that NAFTA is headed for the trash heap. People involved in the re-negotiation of the 23-year-old trade pact are pessimistic about its chances for survival, because the Trump administration seems bent on causing its death by 1,000 cuts.

An inexplicable aspect of this is that there is no constituency in the United States for NAFTA’s termination.

Not even the most fervent NAFTA-haters — e.g., the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, and Democratic House members from Rust Belt states — have demanded the death of NAFTA. Businesses large and small, farmers and ranchers, mayors of most American cities and most members of Congress want NAFTA to stay in force. No one of note has said NAFTA has to go. So, whose interests is President Trump trying to protect?

It’s clear that what he would like to do is simply withdraw from the agreement, which he can easily do by providing Canada and Mexico six months’ notice in writing. But instead, his negotiators have tabled several proposals – poison pills would be a more apt description – that they know the Canadians and Mexicans won’t accept. This will allow Trump to blame them for NAFTA’s demise.

“Issues are being put on the table that are practically absurd,” former Mexican   Jaime Serra told Reuters during the fourth round of talks, which ended Sunday. “I don’t know if these are poison pills, or whether it’s a negotiating position or whether they really believe they’re putting forward sensible things.”

Here are four of them:

A sunset provision that would automatically terminate NAFTA after five years unless all three countries vote to keep it in force.

Deletion of NAFTA Chapter 19, which allows parties to defend themselves against dumping and illegal subsidies by one another.

A so-called opt-in provision to NAFTA’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter.

A change to automotive rules of origin that would make it more difficult for Canada and Mexico to export cars to the United States.

Let’s look briefly at each of these.

A five-year sunset clause would add so much uncertainty to NAFTA’s future that businesses in all three countries would be reluctant to plan and invest with regard to cross-border trade. It would also trigger a renegotiation of NAFTA every five years.

Scrapping Chapter 19 would end 23 years of fairness and equality in the way the three NAFTA parties pursue anti-dumping and illegal subsidy cases. Conservative opponents of Chapter 19 say it impinges on U.S. sovereignty by requiring the government to adhere to a supranational system. That is an argument based on principle. It has no practical merit.

ISDS allows a private company operating in a foreign country to challenge an action by that country’s government that hurts the company. Allowing one country to opt in or out of ISDS would be like allowing a driver who is pulled over for speeding to opt out of having to obey the law against speeding – sorry, officer, I have my own speed limit and it’s higher than yours.

NAFTA requires that 62.5% of the content of NAFTA-built cars and light trucks originate in the U.S. if those vehicles are to be exported duty-free to the U.S. The Trump administration wants to raise that to 80%. This is a purely protectionist measure that would raise the price of cars sold in the United States, including those made here.

The governments of Mexico and Canada vehemently oppose these proposals and others the administration has presented. But Trump has said, no problem, if the NAFTA renegotiations don’t work out, he’s willing to negotiate separate bilateral free trade agreements with the two countries.

It’s apparent that what he really wants is to get rid of Mexico. He has said most illegal Mexican immigrants were rapists and murderers, vowed to build a wall along the Mexican border, threatened to invade the country to rid it of some unspecified “bad hombres,” and threatened to impose a 20% border tax.

And we’re to believe that he wants to sit down with the Mexican government and negotiate a free trade agreement in good faith?

Yeah, right.”

TRUMP THREATS ARE NOT WORKING WITH THE US SOUTH KOREA TRADE AGREEMENT

Meanwhile, South Korean Trade Minister Kim Hyun-chong recently indicated that Seoul is willing to let President Donald Trump kill the pact, rather than bow to unreasonable U.S. demands for concessions to bring bilateral trade more into balance.

Kim also stated that cutting trade ties with South Korea will only push the country, as a matter of necessity, economically closer to China, the source said.

US ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES BECOME MORE POLITICAL

Recently there has been a distinct difference in the antidumping and countervailing duty area.  Friends have told me that internally at Commerce all countervailing duty and antidumping duty determinations go to the Secretary’s office of his personal review.  That was not true when I was at the Commerce Department during the Reagan Administration.

Countervailing duty and antidumping determinations are legal proceedings that are subject to Court review.  The Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can overturn as not based on substantial evidence on the record if there is not a factual underpinning for the Commerce Department decisions.

If politics become a large part of the case, that is a reason for the Court to overturn Commerce decisions as arbitrary and capricious and not based on substantial evidence on the record.

Every time Commerce issues a determination in an antidumping and countervailing duty case, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross makes a personal statement.  When the Countervailing Duty preliminary determination of 212% in the Bombardier Civil Aircraft case was issued, Secretary Ross stated:

“The U.S. values its relationships with Canada, but even our closest allies must play by the rules.  The subsidization of goods by foreign governments is something that the Trump Administration takes very seriously, and we will continue to evaluate and verify the accuracy of this preliminary determination.”

In past newsletters, I have argued that Commerce is a hanging judge in AD and CVD determinations finding dumping and subsidization in close to 100 percent of the cases.  But in contrast to a China case, where Commerce uses fake numbers, in a market economy case against Canada, for example, Commerce is to use actual domestic prices and costs to determine dumping and actual government payments to determine subsidization in the case and actual commercial values in that country to value them.  Thus, in counseling foreign companies in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, if they are in market economy countries, I tell them that they can use computer programs to run their numbers and make sure that they are not dumping.  Also companies can usually figure out whether they have taken subsidies from the Government.

As indicated in the Article about the Bombardier/Civil Aircraft case below, however, although the AD and CVD rates were very high at 219% and 79%, Commerce did give reasoned decisions as to how it calculated those high rates.

NO SYMPATHY FOR BOMBARDIER IN BOEING FIGHT.

Just before the countervailing duty preliminary determination in the Civil Aircraft from Canada case, I was interviewed by BBC radio and by various investment companies asking me for my views on the case.  During those interviews, I emphasized that the US countervailing duty and antidumping cases against Canada were legal proceedings and that the Commerce Department’s preliminary determinations were normal operating procedure pursuant to the US antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) law.  The Commerce Department must follow the statutory requirements of the AD and CVD law, and these preliminary determinations were not political decisions.  They were legal decisions made pursuant to the law and the statutory deadlines in those laws.

With all the political arguments from both the Canadian and UK Governments in the wind, during those interviews, however, I also suggested the case could result in a negotiated suspension government to government agreement, much like happened in the Canadian Lumber case.  After the CVD preliminary determination, USTR Lighthizer also mentioned the possibility of a government to government negotiated deal in the Bombardier case.

But then Commerce issued a preliminary CVD rate of 219.63%.  Immediately the Canadian government complained about the unfairness of the decision, and the UK government threatened a trade war with the US because Bombardier has a production plant in Northern Ireland.

Commerce issued the very high CVD rate as indicated in the attached Commerce Department’s Issue and Decision Memo, 2017.09.26 Aircraft Prelim I&D Memo, because of the massive equity infusion of $1 billion by the Quebec Government directly into Bombardier, making it in effect a state-owned company, much like the Chinese state-owned companies.

The entire purpose of the US CVD law and CVD laws in general is that private companies should not have to compete in commercial markets against the Government and that is just what has happened.

Although the argument is made that Boeing is financed by its military sale of airplanes to the US government, Boeing itself is a publicly traded company on the New York stock exchange and certainly has not received $1 billion in a direct equity infusion into the company by a Government to finance its production operations.

But then Bombardier seriously damaged its own chances for a negotiated government to government suspension agreement because Commerce issued an antidumping preliminary determination of 79.82% antidumping rate based on All Facts Available (“AFA”) because Bombardier refused to provide sales information regarding its contracts with Delta and Air Canada and cost information.

Essentially an AFA rate is a penalty for a respondent refusing to cooperate in the Commerce Department’s investigation.  The Canadian Government would have reached an identical decision in the Antidumping Case if a a respondent refused to provide requested information in its questionnaire response.  The EC takes the same position. If a respondent refuses to cooperate in EC antidumping and countervailing duty cases, the EC will use all facts available.

I firmly believe that because of the decision not to cooperate with Commerce, the Trump Administration will refuse to do a suspension agreement in this case.  Commerce will not reward bad behavior in AD cases.  A company cannot refuse to cooperate with Commerce and give them the information they need to make a decision and then expect Commerce to give it a political deal.

Also the UK threat of a trade war indicates an ignorance of how AD and CVD law works, which is understandable because all AD and CVD cases in the EC are handled in Brussels.  As stated above, these preliminary determinations were legal determinations under the US AD and CVD law, which are based on the WTO Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Agreements and agreed to by all countries in the WTO, including Canada, the EC and through the EC, the UK.

Bombardier argued that it could not provide the sales information because the airplanes had not been exported to the US.  As indicated in the attached AFA memo, ANTIDUMPING AFA BOMBARDIER, the US Antidumping Law, which is based on the WTO Antidumping Agreement, covers “sales” and in the absence of sales offers for sale.  As the AFA Memo states:

Additionally, section 772 of the Act defines export price and constructed export price as the price at which merchandise under consideration is first sold or agreed to be sold. Moreover, 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act states that normal value is the price at which:

the foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price or constructed export price.

In addition, as previously mentioned, under 19 CFR 351.102(b)(43), the term “sale” includes a contract to sell. Furthermore, a Ways and Means Committee report describes the reason for amending the countervailing duty law, along the lines of what already existed in the antidumping duty law, to make clear that the Department could initiate countervailing duty cases and render determinations in situations where actual importation had not yet occurred but a sale for importation had been completed or was imminent. The House Report explained that “{a}ntidumping law has, since its inception, applied not only to imports, but to sales or likely sales. This report additionally explained that the amendment (including the phrase “or sold (or likely to be sold) for importation” in section 701(a) of the Act) was “particularly important in cases involving large capital equipment, where loss of a single sale can cause immediate economic harm and where it may be impossible to offer meaningful relief if the investigation is not initiated until after importation takes place.” This logic described in the House Report is relevant in this antidumping duty investigation as well. For these reasons, the Department appropriately requested information related to Bombardier’s purchase contracts for merchandise under investigation in the United States and the home market.

According to Commerce, Bombardier only submitted arguments in response to sections B through D of the questionnaire.  It did not provide the facts to support those arguments.  Under US AD law, however, Commerce Department decisions and respondent’s arguments have to be based on the facts on the Administrative Record.  When there are no facts, Commerce will use All Facts Available.

Through intermediaries, I have been told that Bombardier refused to release that information to Commerce because of fear it would be released to Boeing.  If that is true, it reveals the failure of Bombardier’s outside lawyers to discuss how Commerce Department Administrative Protective Orders work in AD and CVD cases.  Under US AD and CVD law, only outside counsel, not Boeing’s inside counsel, are granted access to Bombardier information and if those outside lawyers reveal that information to Boeing, they can be disbarred.  Trade counsel in the US take very seriously the APO requirements under the US AD and CVD Law.  In addition, Bombardier’s outside counsel has had access to Boeing’s confidential information under Administrative Protective at the US International Trade Commission so there is simply no sympathy for Bombardier’s arguments.

Finally, the latest news is that Bombardier is asking Airbus to take a majority share in its production of C Series Aircraft and Airbus will shift the production to Mobile, Alabama to get out of the case.  Boeing has argued that Boeing’s move will not have an effect on the case because any orders issued will cover parts.

But that is not quite correct.  The jurisdiction in AD and CVD cases is in rem over the things, products, being imported into the US.  So the critical issue is how did Boeing describe the products to be covered by the case and that are in the Scope of the Merchandise Section in the Federal Register notice issued by the Commerce Department.

The Scope of the Merchandise Section in the Federal Register notice states that the AD and CVD orders will cover imports of:

“aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined below. . . .

The scope includes all aircraft covered by the description above, regardless of whether they enter the United States fully or partially assembled, and regardless of whether, at the time of entry into the United States, they are approved for use by the FAA.”

The scope does not include “parts thereof” language so the real question is whether Customs will consider any parts imported into the United States to be “partially assembled” civil aircraft.

The key point is that the desperate measure to joint venture with Airbus, however, means Bombardier has given up on a government to government Suspension Agreement to settle the case.  I suspect Bombardier will have major problems going forward.

SECTION 201 SOLAR CELLS CASE

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case.

The ITC had to determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.”

The ITC reached an affirmative injury determination in the case on September 22, 2017, and now it has entered a remedy phase on which remedy to recommend to the President.

The Commission will issue its report to the President on November 13, 2017 and the President within 60 days must decide whether or not to impose import relief, which can be in the form of increased tariffs, quotas or an orderly marketing agreements.

Although the ITC remedy phase is important, the real remedy will be determined by President Donald Trump with the assistance of the USTR after November 13th.

On October 3, 2017, the ITC held a hearing in the remedy phase.  The proposed remedies from the parties are:

The petitioners, Suniva and SolarWorld Americas, in their public briefs, proposed two remedies: a tariff plus a price floor for solar cells, or a tariff plus a quota. The two companies agree that the commission should choose one.

The Solar Energy Industries Association, the users coalition, along with solar producer SunPower, argued that a tariff will result in the loss of 62,800 jobs in 2018 and 80,000 jobs in later years. Tariffs will simply increase the price of panels, which will kill solar projects. SEIA in its brief also argued that if tariffs are imposed, the big winner will be Arizona-based thin-film manufacturer First Solar, which does much of its manufacturing in Malaysia.

At the hearing, Suniva and SolarWorld requested a 32-cent-per-watt tariff on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells.  Suniva continued to push for a price floor on solar panels of 74 cents per watt, while SolarWorld wants a quota on imported cells and panels to cap import supply; both support each other’s idea in the alternative.  In its brief, Suniva stated:

“The crisis caused by foreign market overcapacity now facing the U.S. CSPV cell and module industry is so extreme, the financial losses so great, that, to be effective, any remedy … must be bold, extensive and multifaceted.  [A] strong and effective remedy is required to stop the industry’s bleeding, and then provide breathing space for this American-invented manufacturing technology to grow and thrive.”

But SEIA, which maintains that such trade barriers will devastate the entire U.S. solar industry by raising prices and crippling demand, says the two manufacturers are failing for internal and not external reasons and have asked for more help than the government can grant. Since the ITC must recommend a remedy by mid-November with Trump then to decide within 60 days, SEIA offers these alternatives: technical assistance and job training assistance from government agencies, and an import licensing fee to fund manufacturing growth.

The interesting point is that Suniva and Solar World failed to submit an adjustment plan to the ITC to show, in direct contrast to Harley Davidson, how they will adjust to import competition if they are given relief.

SEIA argued in its brief:

“The commission should rely on its trade policy expertise to create and recommend constructive advice instead of resorting to trade restraints.  Denying the existence of the tens of thousands of jobs that are at stake, denying the reality and importance of grid parity, and denying the domestic industry’s internal problems in favor of scapegoating imports will not help the industry or serve the national interest.”

TRUMP AND CHINA

But what about developments regarding trade with China, as indicated below new trade cases are being filed against China in the antidumping and countervailing duty area and for IP violations under Section 337.

During her speech mentioned above, Laura Ingraham argues that there is no remedy if imports come into the US that infringe US intellectual property rights.  That simply is not true.

Under Section 337, 19 USC 1337, Petitioners holding valid IP rights can filed a Section 337 case at the US ITC and after a year long proceeding, the ITC will issue an order excluding the infringing imports at the border.

In addition, if the imports infringe US trademarks or copyrights, Petitioner can go directly to Customs, which will exclude the infringing exports at the border.

In addition, if Chinese exports infringe US intellectual property rights, such as trademarks and copyrights, a US company can go directly to Chinese Customs and stop the export of infringing exports.

But with China’s decision to help on North Korea, I suspect that during Trump’s visit to China in November deals will be reached.  But as Charlene Barshefsky has indicated in her speech to the Wall Street Journal above, the real problem is China’s decision to close down areas to US investment and put up barriers to US imports.

In light of the US position in the NAFTA talks, we can expect the US to demand reciprocity.  Trump and Congress may well take the position that we will close off the US market to the Chinese investment in the same areas where China blocks US investment in.  The US should also consider closing off Chinese imports into sectors where the US cannot export into.  That is reciprocity.

There are many fights to come.

SECTION 301 CASE AGAINST CHINA ON FORCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS MOVES FORWARD

In the attached August 18th Federal Register notice based on an August 14th Presidential Memorandum, 301 INITIATION NOTICE, President Trump pulled the trigger on the Section 301 Intellection property case against China.  The Section 301 investigation could take a year and probably will lead to negotiations with the Chinese government on technology transfer.  If the negotiations fail, the US could take unilateral action, such as increasing tariffs, or pursue a case through the World Trade Organization.  Unilateral actions under Section 301, however, also risk a WTO case against the United States in Geneva.

The notice states that the USTR will specifically investigate the following specific types of conduct:

First, the Chinese government reportedly uses a variety of tools, including opaque and discretionary administrative approval processes, joint venture requirements, foreign equity limitations, procurements, and other mechanisms to regulate or intervene in U.S. companies’ operations in China, in order to require or pressure the transfer of technologies and intellectual property to Chinese companies. Moreover, many U.S. companies report facing vague and unwritten rules, as well as local rules that diverge from national ones, which are applied in a selective and non-transparent manner by Chinese government officials to pressure technology transfer.

Second, the Chinese government’s acts, policies and practices reportedly deprive U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations with Chinese companies and undermine U.S. companies’ control over their technology in China. For example, the Regulations on Technology Import and Export Administration mandate particular terms for indemnities and ownership of technology improvements for imported technology, and other measures also impose non-market terms in licensing and technology contracts.

Third, the Chinese government reportedly directs and/or unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and/or acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and generate large-scale technology transfer in industries deemed important by Chinese government industrial plans.

Fourth, the investigation will consider whether the Chinese government is conducting or supporting unauthorized intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks or cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, and whether this conduct harms U.S. companies or provides competitive advantages to Chinese companies or commercial sectors.

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) held a hearing on October 10th at the International Trade Commission.  During the October 10th hearing, only two US companies appeared to argue that their IP was stolen by Chinese government actions.  Juergen Stein, CEO of SolarWorld Americas stated that his company was a victim of Chinese “state-sponsored hacking and theft” while it was pursuing his AD and CVD cases against China.  Stein further stated that this “greatly weakened SolarWorld’s first-mover status, and again left SolarWorld vulnerable to China’s relentless effort to take over the U.S. solar industry through the sale of solar cells and panels below the cost of production,”

Just one other company, American Superconductor Corp., testified that it had been badly hurt by Chinese theft of its intellectual property.  The company accused a Chinese state-owned enterprise, Sinovel Wind Group, of stealing its intellectual property. AMSC has lost over $1.6 billion in company value and 70 percent of its workforce over the past six years as a result, AMSC President Daniel Patrick McGahn said.

“We believe that over 8,000 wind turbines – most owned by large Chinese utility state-owned enterprises – currently are operating on stolen AMSC IP I personally believe such actions should have consequences. The negative impact of Sinovel’s IP theft on the financial health of AMSC has been dramatic.”

A third company, ABRO Industries, said it had learned to work within the Chinese intellectual property protection system to address problems when they arise. William Mansfield, director of intellectual property at ABRO, also urged the Trump administration to refrain from rash action, stating, “The time for gunboat diplomacy is long since past.”

Acting Assistant USTR for China Terry McCartin, commenting on the dearth of business witnesses, said some companies had expressed concern “about retaliation or other harm to their businesses in China if they were to speak out in this proceeding.”

But as indicated in an article by Dan Harris, the problem may be that US companies on their own gave away their IP because of bad business decisions.  The US government cannot protect US companies from the consequences of bad business decisions.  See August 30, 2017 article by Dan Harris entitled “China-US Trade Wars and the IP Elephant in the Room”, on his China law blog at http://www.chinalawblog.com/2017/08/china-us-trade-wars-and-the-ip-elephant-in-the-room.html.

CHINA NME STATUS

On the question of China’s nonmarket economy status in AD and CVD cases, in light to the expiration of the 15-year deadline in the China-WTO Agreement on December 16, 2016 and a Chinese case in the WTO, the EU on October 3rd reached agreement with the European Council and Parliament to overhaul its antidumping procedures.  Pursuant to the Agreement, the EU will decide the issue on a case-by-case basis, leaving it up to the EU Government to determine whether a Chinese industry has demonstrated enough independent from the Chinese government.

In the announcement, the EU stated:

“The new legislation introduces a new methodology for calculating dumping margins for imports from third countries in case of significant market distortions, or a pervasive state’s influence on the economy.  The rules are formulated in a country- neutral way and in full compliance with the EU’s WTO obligations.”

EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström further stated:

“Having a new methodology in place for calculating dumping on imports from countries which have significant distortions in their economies is essential to address the realities of today’s international trading environment. The commission has repeatedly stressed the importance of free but fair trade and the agreement today endorses that view.”

WINE FIGHT AGAINST BRITISH COLUMBIA AND CANADA

In the attached complaint filed by the United States against Canada on Wine, WTO WINE COMPLAINT, a case which is near and dear to my heart, on October 2, 2017 the Trump administration revived an Obama-era World Trade Organization case against Canadian rules that have allegedly kept U.S. wine off grocery store shelves in British Columbia, according to a WTO document circulated on Monday.

According to the US complaint:

“The BC wine measures provide advantages to BC wine through the granting of exclusive access to a retail channel of selling wine on grocery store shelves.  The BC measures appear to discriminate on their face against imported wine by allowing only BC wine to be sold on regular grocery store shelves while imported wine may be sold in grocery stores only through a so-called store within a store.”

According to prior statements from the government and the industry backing the case, many retailers in Canada have not taken the necessary steps to set up their “store within a store” to sell foreign wine, likely because of the high costs associated with controlled access and separate cash registers.

According to the complaint:

“These measures appear to be inconsistent with Canada’s obligations … because they are laws, regulations or requirements affecting the internal sale, offering for sale, purchase or distribution of wine and fail to accord products imported into Canada treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of Canadian origin.”

In the following months, Argentina, Australia, the European Union and New Zealand all asked to join the case, according to the World Trade Organization website.

USTR asserts the provincial regulations discriminate against imported wine because they only allow wine from British Columbia to be sold on regular grocery store shelves. In contrast, imported wine may only be sold in the province’s grocery stores through a so-called store within a store.

“British Columbia’s discriminatory regulations continue to be a serious problem for U.S. winemakers,” USTR spokeswoman Amelia Breinig said. “USTR is requesting new consultations to ensure that we can reach a resolution that provides U.S. wine exporters fair and equal access in British Columbia.”

In fact, BC Wine regulations are probably the most protectionist in the World, worse than China requiring the equivalent of an 80% tariff to sell imported wine.  BC protectionist measures on wine simply feed right into the Trump argument on NAFTA that it is not a free trade agreement.

SECTION 232 STEEL AND ALUMINUM CASES REMAIN STALLED

The Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases appear to have stalled for the time being.  No news on the Section 232 front raises the question what can be done for US Steel and Aluminum companies injured by imports without distorting the US market and expanding the problems.  Across the board tariffs on steel imports would create enormous collateral damage on the many US producers that use steel as a raw material input to produce downstream steel products.  Such a remedy would probably result in the loss of 100s of thousands of US job.

That is the problem with purely protectionist decisions.  They distort the US market and simply transfer the problems of the steel industry to other downstream industries.

But does that mean the US government should simply let the US Steel industry and other manufacturing industries die?  The election of Donald Trump indicates that politically that simply is not a viable option.

Although Joseph Schumpeter in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Demcracy coined the term “creative destructionism”, which conservatives and libertarians love to quote, they do not acknowledge the real premise of Schumpeter’s book that capitalism by itself could not long survive.  Schumpeter himself observed the collateral damage created by pure capitalism.

So what can be done for the steel and other manufacturing industries?  Answer work with the companies on an individual basis to help them adjust to import competition and compete in the markets as they exist today.  Moreover, there is already a government program, which can serve as a model to provide such a service—the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies Program.

What is the TAA for Companies secret sauce?  Making US companies competitive again.  Only by making US manufacturing companies competitive again will the trade problems really be solved.  US industry needs stop wallowing in international trade victimhood and to cure its own ills first before always blaming the foreigners.  That is exactly what TAA for Companies does—helps US companies cure their own ills first by making them competitive again.

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES – A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TRADE REMEDY WHICH ACTUALLY WORKS

As stated above, there is another more productive way to solve the Steel crisis and fix the trade problem and help US companies, including Steel and other companies, adjust to import competition.  This program has a true track record of saving US companies injured by imports.

This was a problem personally approved by President Ronald Reagan.  The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports.  Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports on an individual basis to make them more competitive.  The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

But as stated in the video below, for companies to succeed they must first give up the mentality of international trade victimhood.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure.  Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.  To retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job is $50,000.  To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works.  In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, 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.

But TAA for Companies has been cut to the bone.  On August 22, 2017, in the attached press release, US Commerce Department Announces $133 Million to Boost Competitiveness of US Ma, the U.S. Commerce Department announced $13.3 Million to Boost Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturers.

Are such paltry sums really going to help solve the manufacturing crisis in the Steel and other industries?  Of course not!!

But when the program was originally set up, the budget was much larger at $50 to $100 million.  If the program was funded to its full potential, yes steel companies and other companies could be saved.

To those libertarian conservatives that reject such a program as interference in the market, my response is that this program was personally approved by your icon, President Ronald Reagan.  He understood that there was a price for free trade and avoiding protectionism and that is helping those companies injured by import competition.  But teaching companies how to be competitive is a much bigger bang for the buck than simply retraining workers.  And yes companies can learn and be competitive again in the US and other markets.

NEW TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

PTFE RESIN

On September 28, 2017, the Chemours Company FC LLC filed AD and CVD cases against imports of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Resin from China and India.

FORGED STEEL FITTINGS

On October 5, 2017, the Bonney Forge Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union filed AD and CVD cases against imports of Forged Steel Fittings from China Italy and Taiwan.

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

CHINESE ANTIDUMPING CASES AGAINST US AND JAPAN

HYDRIOC ACID FROM THE US and JAPAN

On October 16, 2917, China Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) published the attached initiation notice of antidumping investigation against Hydriodic Acid from the USA and Japan, Initiation Notice_Hydriodic Acid_EN.  The alleged dumping margin on the US imports is 36.09% and Japanese imports is 41.18%

The Target companies in the US are: USA: Iofina Chemical, Inc.; IOCHEM Corporation and Ajay North America, LLC

The Target Companies in Japan are: SE Chemicals Corporation, NIPPOH CHEMICALS CO., LTD. and TOHO Earthtech, Inc.

CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS

Attached are newsletters from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office about Chinese trade law.  Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.37 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.38 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.39 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.40

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NEW 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA

REUSABLE DIAPERS

On September 19, 2017, Cotton Babies, Inc filed a section 337 case against imports of Certain Reusable Diapers, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same.  The respondent companies named in the complaint are:

Alvababy.com, China; Shenzhen Adsel Trading Co., Ltd.d/b/a Alva, China; and Huizhou Huapin Garment Co., Ltd., China.

AMORPHOUS METALS

On September 19, 2017, Metglas, Inc. and Hitachi Metal, Ltd. filed a section 337 case against imports of amorphous metals and products containing same.  The named respondents in the case are:

Advance Technology & Materials, China; AT&M International Trading Co., Ltd., China; CISRI International Trading Co., Ltd., China; Beijing ZLJG Amorphous Technology Co., Ltd., China; Qingdao Yunlu Energy Technology Co., Ltd., China; Dr. Hideki Nakamura, Japan; and Mr. Nobrou Hanai. Japan.

LED LIGHTING

On September 21, 2017, Philips Lighting North America Corp. and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. filed a section 337 case against imports of LED Lighting Devices and LED Power Supplies.  The named respondents in the case are:

Feit Electric Company, Inc., Pico Rivera, California;  Feit  Electronic  Company,  Inc., (China),  China;  Lowe’s  Companies,  Inc.,  Mooresville,  North  Carolina; L G Sourcing,  Inc., North  Wilkesboro,  North Carolina; MSi Lighting, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida; RAB Lighting Inc., Northvale, New Jersey; Satco Products, Inc., Brentwood, New York;  Topaz  Lighting Corp.,   Holtsville, New York; Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co., Port Washington, New York; and WAC Lighting (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. , China.

REUSABLE RAZORS
On September 27, 2017, The Gillette Company LLC filed a section 337 case against imports of Certain Shaving Cartridges, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same.  The named respondents in the case are:

Edgewell Personal Care Company, Chesterfield, Missouri; Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, Shelton, Connecticut; Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, Shelton, Connecticut; Schick Manufacturing, Inc., Shelton, Connecticut; and Schick (Guangzhou) Co., Limited, China.

BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

On September 28, 2017, YETI Coolers, LLC filed a section 337 case against imports of Insulated Beverage Containers, Components, Labels, and Packaging Materials.  The named respondents are:

Alibaba (China) Technology Co., Ltd., Hong Kong; Alibaba Group Holding Limited, c/o Alibaba Group Services Limited, Hong Kong; Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited, Hong Kong; Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited, Hong Kong; Bonanza.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington; ContextLogic, Inc. d/b/a Wish, San Francisco, California; Dunhuang Group, China; Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd., Hong Kong; Huizhou Dashu Trading Co., Ltd., China; Huagong Trading Co., Ltd., China; Tan Er Pa Technology Co., Ltd., Hong Kong; Shenzhen Great Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., China; and SZ Flowerfairy Technology Ltd., China.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the Trump Trade Crisis, NAFTA, FTAs, , including the impact on agriculture, the impact on downstream industries, the Section 232 cases, the 201 case against Solar Cells, 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.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR – SECTION 232 CASES SLOW DOWN, CHINA TRADE PROBLEMS INCREASE, TAA FOR COMPANIES, SECTION 201 SOLAR, BAT DIES, NAFTA NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES, NEW AD 337 CASES

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR UPDATE AUGUST 7, 2017

Dear Friends,

Recently there have been two developments of note in US China trade relations.

NORTH KOREA AND NO SECTION 301 CASE AGAINST CHINA FOR THE TIME BEING

As mentioned in my last blog post, the North Korea crisis is affecting the US China Trade Relationship.  The decision of China to back the UN Security Council resolution on sanctions against North Korea has caused the Trump Administration to pull back and not move forward with a Section 301 case against China.

As Politico reported today:

NORTH KOREA SANCTIONS WAYLAY CHINA TRADE PROBE: To be honest, there were conflicting signals from administration officials early last week on the timing of an announcement that Trump would ask U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to investigate Chinese policies that compel foreign compel transfer technology and other intellectual property to do business there. Some said the announcement would come Thursday or Friday; others said it was not imminent.

It now appears that the “not imminent” camp was right. The reason was the State Department’s fear of upsetting its successful push for Chinese cooperation on new UN sanctions against North Korea. The new Security Council resolution, which passed 15-0 on Saturday, targets North Korea’s largest source of external revenue by imposing a total ban on the country’s exports of coal, in addition to iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood.

The resolution imposes “over one billion dollars in cost to N.K.,” Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to a State Department estimate of how much Pyongyang would lose in hard currency in terms of export earnings.

As for the IP probe for China, sources said it could still happen, but there were conflicting signals on how soon. One administration official suggested there might not be an announcement this week because Lighthizer is out of the country.

Emphasis added.

When China helps the US on North Korea, Trump is going to lay back and not attack China over trade issues.  As mentioned before, Trump is the first President to overtly link trade deals with foreign policy issues.  He has made it very clear to China help us on North Korea and China will get a better trade deal.  So far that seems to be Trump’s goal with China.

President Trump is learning that trade is complicated.

SECTION 201 SOLAR CELLS CASE

Many companies have been calling me about the Section 201 Solar Cells case.  In that case, the US International Trade Commission {“ITC”) just issued its attached public prehearing report, 2017.08.01 ITC Solar 201 Prehearing Report PUB.  The hearing is scheduled for August 15th and the Commission’s injury determination is to be sent to the President on September 22nd.

The Staff Report shows that imports are up, value of imports are down, but US producers’ production and capacity have increased during the period of investigation 2012-2016.  Moreover, US producers’ profits and sales have increased in the period.

This is a very mixed staff report with no clear trends and could lead to a negative ITC injury determination on September 22nd.  The August 15th hearing will be very interesting.

If you have any questions about these cases, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR JULY 31, 2017

Dear Friends,

With the passage of the Trump Executive Order telling agencies, including the Department of Defense (“DOD”), to further study the problem, Trump’s trade war in the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases has run into reality—the impact on US downstream producers.  With a Greek Chorus of Senators and Congressmen telling the Administration to go slow, the dire warnings by downstream US users of these raw materials, and the threats of retaliation from many foreign countries, President Trump punted and decided to further study the situation.  As indicated below, in their comments numerous steel users were telling Commerce not only that Steel Tariffs would seriously damage their companies causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, but also that the Steel tariffs themselves could damage US national security by cutting DOD suppliers from very important supply lines for raw materials.

Apparently, President Trump and the Trump Administration listened.  It is easy for Candidate Trump to talk protectionism, but President Trump is now learning it is much more complicated.

Now is the time for an Emperor has no clothes moment.  The problems of the Steel industry go back decades long before Wilbur Ross arrived because of the decision to give big bonuses to management and large pensions to the Steel unions, which the companies simply can no longer fund.  These payments led to the failure to modernize and update steel production facilities and also produce specialized types of steel. That failure to produce many specialized types of steel at cost efficient prices has led to screams by US downstream steel producers with millions of jobs at stake.

But with Commerce saying there is no time deadline for the Section 232 Steel report and the Steel Unions crying doomsday and the loss of thousands of jobs, what is the solution?? As explained below, TAA for Companies, not trade protection, is the solution.  An alternative solution is needed for the Steel crisis that will not harm national security and injure more US industries.  TAA for Companies makes US companies more competitive without affecting the market in any way.

Meanwhile,  there is now talk of significant US trade sanctions against China because of North Korea.  Commerce also continues to find China a non-market economy country, and the US China Economic Talks fell apart over steel and aluminum, but also, in part, North Korea.

There are also dire warnings about the impact of the Section 201 Solar Case on US solar projects and the loss of thousands of jobs.  But the Border Adjustment tax is now officially dead, and USTR has released NAFTA negotiating objectives and the negotiations themselves are scheduled to start up on August 16 with one real issue being the impact on US agricultural exports.

New antidumping and countervailing duty cases have been filed against Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings and a Section 337 case against Ribbon Cables.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR—TRUMP PUNTS ON THE SECTION 232 STEEEL AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY CASES

Although President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross thought they had found a panacea, cure all, for US trade problems, using Section 232 National Security cases to put large tariffs and/or quotas on Steel, Aluminum and other raw material products, something happened on the way to the Trump trade heaven—reality.  Even though Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross promised to send completed Section 232 reports to the President by the end of June and President Trump promised that July would be the month of trade, nothing has happened to date, except for a Trump Executive Order stating that the Department of Defense and other agencies are to further study the manufacturing base needed to support US national security.

The first problem is an Emperor has no clothes moment—the problems of the Steel Industry go back decades.  The Steel industry’s problems boil down to large bonuses to management n the 1970s and 1980s and the large pensions given to Steel unions, which are in place today.  Those bonuses and pensions prevented the Steel industry from modernizing their production facilities and also specializing into specific types of steel.  Downstream steel users, such as the automotive industry, are moving away from commodity products as raw material steel inputs, and to specialized steel made to order of the downstream user.  All industry has become specialized and the US Steel Industry has not modernized so it can no longer produce certain types of steel or produce certain types of steel cost efficiently and that seriously damages downstream steel users that also manufacture in the United States.

That leads to the second big problem the steel industry has only 141,000 jobs while the jobs in the Steel Users industry are in the millions.  This is probably the reason that the Department of Defense (“DOD”) woke up.  Steel users probably told DOD you want your tank parts?

This is the time for the US Government and Congress to look at another alternative.  Tariffs and quotas simply will not save the Steel Industry, but Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies just might.  It is time for the US government to back a proven alternative that has saved 1,000s of US manufacturing companies in the past.  A program that both President Obama and President Trump want to write off, but actually has a proven track record of saving US trade injured manufacturing companies without any impact on US market or imports.

In fact, as indicated below, directly contrary to statements of Secretary Ross, many US companies that are receiving trade adjustment assistance are steel users and cannot be competitive with imports because US steel price are higher than world market prices.

What is the TAA for Companies secret sauce?  Making US companies competitive again.  Only by making US manufacturing companies competitive again will the trade problems really be solved.  US industry needs to cure its own ills first before always blaming the foreigners and that is exactly what TAA for Companies does—helps US companies cure their own ills first by making them competitive again.

SECTION 232 STEEL CASE

As stated in the last blog post, in response to pressure from President Trump, Commerce Secretary Ross has self-initiated National Security cases under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. 1862, against imports of steel and aluminum, which go directly into downstream US production.  The danger of these cases is that there is no check on Presidential power if the Commerce Department finds that steel or aluminum “is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall so advise the President”.  The Secretary shall also advise the President on potential remedies.

On April 20, 2017, President Trump and the Commerce Department in the attached press announcement and fact sheet along with a Federal Register notice, COMMERCE FED REG SECTION 232 NOTICE Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Steel on U.S Presidential Memorandum Prioritizes Commerce Steel Investigation _ Department of Commerce, announced the self-initiation of a Section 232 National Security case against imports of steel from every country.  See video of Trump signing the Executive Order with Secretary Ross and Steel Producers at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiVfNOl-_Ho.

Commerce held a hearing on May 24th in this case.  The video of the hearing can be found at https://www.commerce.gov/file/public-hearing-section-232-investigation-steel-imports-national-security.

In the past Secretary Ross has stated that the Section 232 case is meant to fill the gaps created by the patchwork of antidumping and countervailing duties on foreign steel, which he said have provided only limited relief to the U.S. industry.

If the Secretary reports affirmatively, the President has 90 days to determine whether it concurs with the Secretary’s determination and “determine the nature and duration of the action that, in the judgment of the President, must be taken to adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.”

Once the President makes his affirmative determination, he will report his decision to Congress, but it is questionable whether Congress can disapprove the decision.   The statute also does not provide for any appeal to the Court of International Trade.  Commerce also is very protectionist and in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.  The only check in trade cases is the injury determination by the independent US International Trade Commission, but there is no such determination under Section 232.

On July 26th Politico reported that the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases had stopped:

TRUMP HITS THE BRAKES ON 232 REVIEWS: The Trump administration is unlikely to make any decisions regarding whether to limit imports of steel and aluminum for national security reasons any time soon, after the president himself told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that “we don’t want to do it at this moment.”

The administration had already missed its initial deadline of wrapping up the pair of Section 232 reports by the end of June, and Trump indicated Tuesday that was in part because of various regulations regarding any decisions.  . . .

 Back of the queue: Trump was confident that his administration would eventually be “addressing the steel dumping,” which he called “a very unfair situation.” He did not, however, indicate the action would be imminent: He started by saying it would come “very” soon, but then backed off and said it would be “fairly soon.”

It will also likely come after other high-profile items on his policy agenda are completed. “We’re waiting ’til we get everything finished up between healthcare and taxes and maybe even infrastructure,”

The initial report on the Trump decision was a July 25th article in the Wall Street Journal in which Trump stated that with regards to the Section 232 Steel case, “we don’t want to do it at this moment” because of the complexity of the issue.  Trump further stated:

“You can’t just walk in and say I’m doing to do this.  You have to do statutory studies … It doesn’t go that quickly.”

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump started to say he would make a move “very” soon but stopped himself and instead said “fairly soon.”

Trump also stated that the steel issue is “a very unfair situation”, and that any final decision would not be made until work is done on other major initiatives.  As Trump stated:

“We’re waiting till we get everything finished up between healthcare and taxes and maybe even infrastructure.”

On July 26, 2017, it was reported that a Commerce Department spokesman refused to suggest a revised date for its determination on whether to impose new national security trade restrictions on steel imports saying only that the President’s comments “speak for themselves.”

On July 27th, before House Ways and Means, Commerce Secretary Ross indicated sympathy with comments from users where certain steel and aluminum products were not produced domestically, but had no sympathy with the argument that steel prices could be so high as to hurt downstream producers stating that is the nature of dumping and what eventually happens when “we let imports run amok.”

After the briefing, Congressional representatives stated that tariffs and/or quotas will be delayed for a while longer.  The Representatives indicated that during the meeting Ross had read the President’s statement from the Wall Street Journal that “we don’t want to do it at this moment” and that the Administration would most likely take action “fairly soon.”

On July 26th it was also reported that that the United Steelworkers union (“USW”) had stated that Trump decision to delay a Section 232 determination on steel imports could have “devastating” consequences on the US Steel industry and the jobs in that industry as foreign trading partners rush to export steel to the U.S. under a long-delayed threat of tariffs.  As USW President Leo Gerard stated:

“Since the President announced an investigation in April, attacks on the U.S. steel sector have skyrocketed, with imports up 18 percent.  Trading partners have targeted the U.S. market for fear that the United States will finally stand up for its producers and workers and protect our national security.”

Gerard acknowledged that trading relationships in the steel sector are “complex.”, but went on to state:

“But enough time, attention and investigation have passed to know what needs to be done.  Steel, the foundation of our national security, is crumbling under the onslaught of foreign imports. Much of that is illegally traded.”

Meanwhile, even before the July 25th statement, on July 5th Kevin Brady, Chairman of House Ways and Means, urged the President to take it slow.  Brady stated:

“Our advice to the President has been pretty public: Take your time, get it right.  We want to make sure that however the White House frames their ultimate action, that it doesn’t punish our allies who are trading fairly. And we want to make sure it doesn’t give a green light to those trading unfairly to do more of it. And it’s important, too, that whatever that ultimate decision is that it actually works for America and doesn’t backfire.”

Brady acknowledged that overcapacity in the global steel market was causing problems for domestic producers. But he called for a “balanced” solution that takes into account other interests as well.

On July 7th it was reported that the Department of Defense intended to drill down on the Steel Report and was “tapping the brakes on any potential effort by President Donald Trump to hit steel imports with tariffs of up to 25 percent.”

On July 21st President Trump issued an Executive Order ordering a thorough review of the national defense industrial base and the government to gather information about whether U.S. companies can meet the commercial demand for national security goods including steel, aluminum, circuit boards and flat-panel displays.

Under the terms of the executive order, an interagency group will present a report to the White House within 270 days that identifies goods that are essential for national security and analyzes the ability of the defense industrial base to produce those goods.

The attached Executive Order, Presidential Executive Order on Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing a, specifically stated in part:

Presidential Executive Order on Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States . . .

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. A healthy manufacturing and defense industrial base and resilient supply chains are essential to the economic strength and national security of the United States. The ability of the United States to maintain readiness, and to surge in response to an emergency, directly relates to the capacity, capabilities, and resiliency of our manufacturing and defense industrial base and supply chains. Modern supply chains, however, are often long and the ability of the United States to manufacture or obtain goods critical to national security could be hampered by an inability to obtain various essential components, which themselves may not be directly related to national security. Thus, the United States must maintain a manufacturing and defense industrial base and supply chains capable of manufacturing or supplying those items.

The loss of more than 60,000 American factories, key companies, and almost 5 million manufacturing jobs since 2000 threatens to undermine the capacity and capabilities of United States manufacturers to meet national defense requirements and raises concerns about the health of the manufacturing and defense industrial base. The loss of additional companies, factories, or elements of supply chains could impair domestic capacity to create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore capabilities essential for national security.

As the manufacturing capacity and defense industrial base of the United States have been weakened by the loss of factories and manufacturing jobs, so too have workforce skills important to national defense. This creates a need for strategic and swift action in creating education and workforce development programs and policies that support job growth in manufacturing and the defense industrial base.

Strategic support for a vibrant domestic manufacturing sector, a vibrant defense industrial base, and resilient supply chains is therefore a significant national priority. A comprehensive evaluation of the defense industrial base and supply chains, with input from multiple executive departments and agencies (agencies), will provide a necessary assessment of our current strengths and weaknesses.

Sec. 2. Assessment of the Manufacturing Capacity, Defense Industrial Base, and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States. Within 270 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, Energy, and Homeland Security, and in consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior and Health and Human Services, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of National Intelligence, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the heads of such other agencies as the Secretary of Defense deems appropriate, shall provide to the President an unclassified report, with a classified annex as needed, that builds on current assessment and evaluation activities, and:

  • identifies the military and civilian material, raw materials, and other goods that are essential to national security;
  • identifies the manufacturing capabilities essential to producing the goods identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, including emerging capabilities;
  • identifies the defense, intelligence, homeland, economic, natural, geopolitical, or other contingencies that may disrupt, strain, compromise, or eliminate the supply chains of goods identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section (including as a result of the elimination of, or failure to develop domestically, the capabilities identified pursuant to subsection (b) of this section) and that are sufficiently likely to arise so as to require reasonable preparation for their occurrence;
  • assesses the resiliency and capacity of the manufacturing and defense industrial base and supply chains of the United States to support national security needs upon the occurrence of the contingencies identified pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, including an assessment of: . . .
    • exclusive or dominant supply of the goods (or components thereof) identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section by or through nations that are or are likely to become unfriendly or unstable; and the availability of substitutes for or alternative sources for the goods identified pursuant to subsection (a) of this section;
  • identifies the causes of any aspect of the defense industrial base or national-security- related supply chains assessed as deficient pursuant to subsection (d) of this section; and
  • recommends such legislative, regulatory, and policy changes and other actions by the President or the heads of agencies as they deem appropriate based upon a reasoned assessment that the benefits outweigh the costs (broadly defined to include any economic, strategic, and national security benefits or costs) over the short, medium, and long run to:
    • avoid, or prepare for, any contingencies identified pursuant to subsection (c) of this section;
    • ameliorate any aspect of the defense industrial base or national-security-related supply chains assessed as deficient pursuant to subsection (d) of this section; and
    • strengthen the United States manufacturing capacity and defense industrial base and increase the resiliency of supply chains critical to national . . . .

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE, July 21, 2017

Emphasis added.

EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES —STEEL INDUSTRY PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO MODERNIZE DESPITE 40 YEARS OF PROTECTION FROM STEEL IMPORTS

After graduating from law school, in the late 1970s I went to work for a law firm in Washington DC and one of our clients was Bethlehem Steel Shipbuilding.  In the Spring of 1979, at a firm party, one of the heads of the company told me all I want to do is stop in the imports.  After joining the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in October 1980 I watched Bethlehem Steel file case after case against steel imports.  In 1985 while at the ITC, I asked the head of Bethlehem Steel’s Sparrow’s Point Factory how important the Continuous Castor was to Bethlehem Steel.  He replied, “We’ve bet the company on the continuous castor”.  Bethlehem Steel bet too late. The Korean steel producers already had the continuous castors.

Later, my former boss, the former ITC General Counsel, represented Bethlehem Steel for decades bringing trade cases against steel imports.  The US steel industry has had 40 years of protection from steel imports and yet it continues to decline.  Bethlehem Steel after 40 years of protection from steel imports is now green fields.

On July 14, 2017, former ITC Commissioner Dan Pearson of the Cato Institute summarized some of these problems in a Market Watch article entitled “Trump would further damage U.S. manufacturing if he restricts steel imports” stating:

“In a recent hearing on the investigation, Secretary Ross made clear that highly protectionist measures are under consideration. What Ross didn’t address is whether additional steel import restrictions would harm the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately, they certainly would. Our country may be only weeks away from presidential action that would further damage the competitiveness of the broad manufacturing  sector.

Five points are particularly relevant:

First, it’s not clear there is any legitimate national security justification for invoking Section 232. There is no doubt that much U.S. military equipment requires steel. The key question is how best to obtain specific types of steel needed for various national-security applications.

Most steel used by the military comes from domestic suppliers, such as United States Steel Corp. . ., AK Steel Holding Corp.  . . and Nucor Corp. . . . or from countries with which the United States has amicable relations. Keeping the U.S. market open to steel imports would assure that the military will have access to both foreign and domestic steel products needed to maintain national security. If the Pentagon wishes to ensure domestic sources for some products, it could establish long-term contracts with U.S. mills—no import controls are required.

Second, potential Section 232 restrictions must be viewed in the context of the existing U.S. steel marketplace. Roughly 200 antidumping or countervailing duty measures already are in place on steel products, making steel one of the country’s most protected sectors. As a result, U.S. prices for many steel products are significantly higher than world prices, greatly disadvantaging American manufacturers that require steel as an input.

Third, any additional import restrictions would do far more harm to steel-using manufacturers than any benefit that could accrue to steel mills. That is simply due to the raw numbers. Steel mills employ just 140,000 workers. Manufacturers that use steel as an input employ 6.5 million, 46 times more.

Steel mills account for a rather narrow slice of the overall U.S. economy: $36 billion in 2015, equaling only 0.2% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). By contrast, the economic value added by firms that use steel as an input was $1.04 trillion – 29 times more – or 5.8% of  GDP.

Any government action to drive steel prices even higher by further restricting imports will hurt steel- consuming manufacturers. Their costs will rise, thus reducing their competitiveness relative to companies in other countries. Carrier, the company that in December said it wouldn’t shift 800 jobs from Indianapolis to Mexico after all, is hardly the only firm that could reduce its steel costs by shifting production overseas.

Fourth, other nations likely would retaliate. When a foreign power acts arbitrarily to curtail its imports, negatively affected exporting countries aren’t amused. Since the United States is only a minor exporter of steel, retaliation likely would be focused on innocent, export-competitive sectors. The United States is the world’s largest exporter of military equipment, so those firms may be targeted.

The United States also is the world’s largest agricultural exporter; farm and food products would be vulnerable across the board.

Fifth, a country that imposes import restrictions always reduces its own economic welfare. This is true even if other countries don’t retaliate. Economists have understood since the work of David Ricardo that it is unwise to try to be self-sufficient when others are able to provide products at lower costs.

Import restrictions lead to inefficient resource use, lowering national economic welfare in the process. In other words, consumers are hurt more than protected industries are helped.

The Section 232 process may be intended to inflict pain on foreign nations by curtailing their exports. We can’t be sure whether U.S. import restrictions will hurt other countries, but we can be certain that restrictions will hurt America. Limiting steel imports creates a genuine threat to economic growth and prosperity. It is very difficult to build a stronger national defense when the economy is getting weaker.

But shouldn’t something be done to help steel mills and their workers as they deal with import competition? The Department of Commerce should think seriously about proposing enhanced economic adjustment assistance. It would be good public policy to encourage this historically protected industry to restructure and adapt to free trade in steel. . . .

My former boss, who later represented Bethlehem Steel for decades in trade cases, in the early 2000s told me that the problem with steel is that the employment in the entire US steel industry is less than one high tech company.

CONCERNS OF DOWNSTREAM STEEL INDUSTRIES

On May 31, 2017, public comments were filed at the Commerce Department on the Section 232 Steel case.  My last newsletter contained numerous comments from large associations representing steel users, including the American Automotive Policy Council (“AAPC”) and the truck and engine manufacturers association warning about the devastating impact high steel tariffs would have on the automotive and truck industry.  Not only would restraints on Steel imports damage downstream industries, but they would also damage the national security of the United States.  Many suppliers to the US DOD are dependent on imported steel made to certain specifications to make the downstream products to DOD specifications.  In many cases, US steel producers no longer produce steel to the specifications required by the DOD and many downstream users, such as the US automotive industry.

Thus the AAPC stated;

Although sympathetic to the challenges the steel industry faces, we are concerned that if, as a result of this Section 232 investigation, the President were to increase tariffs on foreign steel or impose other import restrictions, the auto industry and the U.S. workers that the industry employs would be adversely affected and that this unintended negative impact would exceed the benefit provided to the steel industry from this Executive action.

Steel is a critical input into the manufacture of automotive products. The price of steel in the United States is already significantly higher than in the markets where our competitors build the majority of their cars and trucks.  This puts U.S. automakers at a competitive disadvantage.

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers warned not only about the devastating impact on their industry, but went on to warn that steel tariffs would have a negative impact on US national security stating that US equipment manufacturers:

must source steel from international producers because the steel’s formula matches a specific spec required to ensure a piece of equipment’s proper function and performance that is not otherwise available in the United States. Inhibiting access to foreign steel will force manufacturers to procure steel from a domestic supplier that may not match required specifications, thus degrading the quality and performance of the equipment and risking operational safety concerns.  In cases where a particular type of steel is available from domestic suppliers, a sudden surge in demand will likely lead to extended procurement timeframes and delays in the manufacturing process.

Since equipment manufacturers provide parts and equipment to the Department of Defense, in fact, high tariffs on imported steel could, in effect, damage the national security of the United States.

The Forging Industry Association representing the US forging industry also stated:

As noted above, the steel forging industry supplies many products essential to national security, including numerous tank and automotive forgings for combat vehicles, small caliber weapons forgings, ordnance forgings, and forgings used in building airplanes, helicopters, ships and submarines. . . .

US steel forgers rely almost exclusively on domestically-produced SBQ steel. . . . The “globally competitive prices” are critically important – if the price for domestic SBQ steel is higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world due to tariffs or trade restrictions, then we begin to see less imports of raw material and more imports of downstream products. . . .

In effect, when current trade laws are used to remedy injury in one subsector of the economy, such as steel, they often shift the injury to another tier within the manufacturing sector.

The Industrial Fastener Institute representing the US Fastener industry warned that:

Fastener manufacturing is a major consumer of metals, including steel. Since fasteners can be made anywhere in the world, the U.S. industry is dependent on access to adequate supplies of globally priced raw materials such as steel to remain globally competitive. . .  .

However, even with a healthy domestic industry, history has shown that fastener manufacturers must sometimes import raw material because the particular types of steel needed are not available in the quantities, quality or form required. (Fasteners are made out of round form, not sheet, flat or bar products.) By some accounts, the U.S. steel industry is able to produce only about 70 percent of the total steel consumed in the U.S. . . .

The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was even more explicit about the potential negative impact of this case on US national security:

Our industry is closely associated with the U.S. defense industry.  . . . Adjustments to steel imports that prevent our members from obtaining the type of steel they need in a timely manner or increases to production costs would jeopardize our ability to manufacture in the United States and to provide these critical products to the U.S. defense industry. . . .

MEMA member companies need specialized steel that either is not available at all in the U.S. or is not available in sufficient quantities. Certain foreign steel producers worked closely with MEMA member companies to develop the specialized steel and this type of collaboration benefits the U.S. by improving products. Continued access to these types of steel are critical to our industry. Attached to these comments is a non-exhaustive list of steel products that must be excluded from any import adjustments (see Appendix I). Several of our member companies are submitting exclusion requests directly as well. . . .

Motor vehicle component and systems manufacturers are the largest employers of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and many of these companies import steel of all types, including specialized steel products, to manufacture goods in the U.S. that are then sold to the U.S. defense industry, U.S. government and consumers. Disrupting American manufacturing operations or increasing costs through adjustments to steel imports would not benefit the national security of the United States. Such adjustments to steel imports would, in fact, detrimentally impact U.S. employment, compromising our economic and national security.

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”) stated in its comments:

Some electrical steels are imported into the U.S. because they are not available from domestic or North American suppliers. Loss of access to these materials would cause grave harm to NEMA manufacturers, who would no longer be able to manufacture and supply DOE-compliant products, and their customers – which include U.S. electric utilities as well as tens of thousands of industrial, commercial, and defense/national security facilities – but would have no effect on domestic or North American steel manufacturers, since they do not manufacture/produce or offer for sale those materials today.

Like the chorus in a Greek tragedy, US manufacturers that rely on steel as a key raw material input cried their warning that not only would imposing restrictions on steel imports injure downstream steel manufacturers, but also US national security itself. President Trump now appears to be listening.

ALUMINUM

The other Section 232 case that is behind steel is Aluminum.  On April 27, 2017, President Trump and the US Commerce Department self-initiated a Section 232 National Security case against imports of aluminum from all countries.  Attached are documents related to the Case, Aluminum Presidential Memo Summary ALUMINUM FED REG PUB Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Aluminum on US National S.  The hearing was on June 22, 2017 and the video of that hearing can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Bnwi3DWHg.

But in a letter to Commerce, 44 Senators and Representatives argued that the ongoing investigation under Section 232 could include aluminum imports that have little to do with national security but is used to make things like food and beverage cans.  The Congressional representatives and Senators stated that specific type of rolled can aluminum sheet and primary aluminum “could yield import restrictions or tariffs on these products – a result that would not increase their availability in the U.S. but would necessarily impose additional costs to American end-users and American consumers.”

The National Foreign Trade Council said in comments filed on behalf its 200 member companies in sectors including energy, capital goods, transportation, consumer goods, technology, health care products, services, e- commerce and retailing “We believe that imposition of high tariffs or restrictive quotas on aluminum products is not an appropriate response” to concerns that excess capacity in China has led to the closings of many aluminum smelters in the United States.  The NFTC went on to state:

“Many of the industries that rely on aluminum as an input are themselves suppliers for our nation’s defense- related needs, building the ships, aircraft, machinery, high technology weapons and other goods that a modern military demands.”

In contrast to the Commerce lack of data in the Section 232 Steel case, however, in the Aluminum case, in June 2017 the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has just issued the attached fact finding report on the US aluminum industry, ITC ALUMINUM PUBLICATION, which is based on questionnaires sent to US producers.

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES – A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TRADE REMEDY WHICH ACTUALLY WORKS

As indicated in previous blog posts, I feel very strongly about the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program because with very low funding it has a true track record of saving US companies injured by imports.

Donald Trump’s proposed budget, however, would 0, zero, out the trade adjustment assistance for companies program.  Although Secretary Wilbur Ross has made it very clear he wants to increase exports to reach the 3% plus growth rate, putting protectionist walls up to limit imports of steel, aluminum and many other products invites retaliation.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports.  Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports to make them more competitive.  The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

In fact, many of the companies receiving trade adjustment assistance are steel users or downstream US manufacturing companies, which have been injured by US trade actions.  They are the collateral damage caused by US trade actions.

A cursory analysis comparing companies in the TAA for Firms program to trade actions (AD, CVD, etc.) in 2015 revealed a strong correlation between those companies and trade actions. TAA for Firms works with small, medium sized, mostly manufacturing companies that encounter business declines linked to import competition.  ITC maintains a list of current AD/CVD cases, which, when combined with other known trade actions, yielded 116 unique product descriptions. Between 2005 and 2015 1,654 companies entered TAAF – publicly available information provides a brief description of these companies’ products. For the TAAF companies, 70% of the product descriptions match with trade actions. Steel actions alone match with 31% of the TAAF companies.

On the one hand, this is not surprising, trade actions occur in industries with concerning levels of trade, therefore, one would expect trade impacted companies in those industries. This only supports the assertion that TAAF is being applied where it should be expected.

On the other hand, the variety of companies in the TAAF program is surprising to anyone who looks closely – they certainly do not fall into predictable categories. The variety of products and level of specialization among manufacturing companies is astounding.  The TAAF companies are not the subjects of the trade actions, but the downstream buyers of those products. That one category of product, steel, would match so often, strongly stands out. An often heard anecdote from the TAAF program, quotes the business owner who says his cost of raw materials exceeds the cost of the finished imported product. It was only after performing this analysis that recollection confirmed that the anecdote was most often repeated related to companies using steel as a raw material.

It should be emphasized that this was a cursory analysis.  TAAF firms are thought to be a fraction of those experiencing trade impact. The level of analysis consisted only in rough comparisons of rough descriptions. Perhaps more surprising is that with over 45 years of TAAF program operation and what has become a vast national debate about manufacturing and jobs, no thorough analysis of trade impact exists. We do know there is a lot of it in a lot of different products and industries. And we strongly suspect that the experience of TAAF confirms the damaging downstream impact of trade actions. The good news is that TAAF companies tend to recover and grow.  Some consistent outcomes of the program are longevity of companies, sales increases that exceed the economy and industry levels,  strong productivity growth, and job growth that at least recovers lost jobs and one can infer, preserves many more.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure.  Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Right now the total cost to the US Taxpayer for this nationwide program is $12.5 million dollars—truthfully peanuts in the Federal budget.  Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.  In his budget, Trump increases TAA for Workers, but kills TAA for Companies.  Yet to retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job is $5,000.  To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works.  In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, 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.

But as also stated in my last blog post, in this environment with so many injured companies, funding for TAA for Firms/Companies has to be increased so it can do its job.   Moreover, with the threats of a massive trade war in the air, which will injure all US companies and destroy US jobs, the US government needs to look at an alternative—TAA for Firms/Companies is that alternative.

TRUMP AND CHINA

US CHINA’S NORTH KOREA PROBLEM MAY MEAN ROCKY TRADE PROBLEMS

Recently, at a speech to Chinese government officials, when asked what the major trade issues are between China and the US, I mentioned North Korea.  During the election campaign, Donald Trump often pointed to China as a source of the many trade problems for US companies.

At the Mar -A -Lago meeting with Xi Jinping, however, Donald Trump appeared to step back and explicitly linked Chinese help with North Korea to a better trade deal between the two countries.  This is the first time a US Administration has directly linked a foreign policy objective with a trade relationship.

But now Trump is frustrated because he believes China is not helping enough with North Korea and wants to develop a “cogent China strategy”. On July 31st, based on conversations with administration officials,Politico reported that the Trump Administration is considering “a handful of economic measures to punish China, with a final decision coming as soon as this week . .  . ..  The article goes on to state:

Trump’s aides met over the weekend to discuss options, including trade restrictions or economic sanctions, and they will continue those conversations today. It remains too early, however, to say what the president might decide, the officials said. . . .

The decision may come as the president grows increasingly frustrated with Beijing over its handling of the North Korea missile situation, including Friday’s latest intercontinental ballistic missile test. “I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!” Trump said on Twitter over the weekend.

On the trade front, Trump has also long complained about what he sees as unfair trade practices by Beijing, and he has been encouraged particularly by some of the harder-line aides in his administration – like chief strategist Steve Bannon and Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro – to crack down on China.
To read more about this issue, please see the attached July 31st article from Politico, Trump plan on China may come as soon as this week – POLITICO.

CHINA STILL A NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY IN CVD CASES

On July 25th, since the argument was made that China is a market economy country in the Aluminum Foil case, Commerce released the attached memo, DOC CHINA BANKING NONMARKET, starting that the interest rates set by Chinese banks are not set by market forces and thus no Chinese bank interest rates can be used in CVD cases.  This memo indicates that Commerce is not going to treat China as a market economy country in antidumping and countervailing duty cases any time soon.

STEEL AND ALUMINUM PROBLEMS STOP US CHINA TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

On July 19th, optimism was reported at the start of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue.  Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang stated “The giant ship of China-U.S. economic and trade relations is sailing on the right course.”

But on July 20th the optimistic tone changed as the disagreement over excess Chinese steel and aluminum production capacity along with North Korea problems stopped the conference in its tracks.  China refused to agree to specific cuts in steel and aluminum production capacity and the United States was unwilling to move onto other concerns.

Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang stated:

“Let me stress here that dialogue and negotiation are different from each other.  The core objective of negotiation is to have visible and tangible results, but the primary task of dialogue is to increase mutual understanding, mutual trust and consensus.

“Dialogue cannot immediately address all differences, but confrontation will immediately damage the interests of both.

“President Trump said, ‘Coming together is a beginning, keeping together is progress and working together is a success.  China is ready to work together with the U.S. and make sure this CED will build on existing achievements and achieve win-win results.”

NAFTA NEGOTIATIONS

The United States, Canada and Mexico will sit down together for the first round of talks to formally reopen NAFTA on Aug. 16 in Washington.

On July 17th, the USTR released its attached “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”, USTR NAFTA RENGOTIATION OBJECTIVES.

SOLAR 201 ESCAPE CLAUSE CASE

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case.  If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, within 60 days the President must decide whether or not to impose import relief, which can be in the form of increased tariffs, quotas or an orderly marketing agreements.

At the ITC, Section 201 cases are a two stage process.  The ITC must first determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.”  The ITC has determined that the investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” and will make its injury determination within 128 days after the petition was filed, or by September 22, 2017. The Commission will submit to the President the report required under section 202(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 2252(f)(1)) within 180 days after the date on which the petition was filed, or by November 13, 2017.

Notices of appearance at the ITC were due on June 22nd at the ITC.  During the injury phase of the investigation, the ITC will hold an injury hearing on August 15, 2017.  Prehearing briefs are due at the ITC on August 8, 2017.  Posthearing briefs will be due at the ITC on August 22nd.

If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, it will go into a remedy phase and the hearing in that phase will be on October 3, 2017.

On June 26, 2017, Green Tech Media in the attached article, Suniva and SolarWorld Trade Dispute Could Halt Two-Thirds of US Solar Installat, along with a report estimated that if the ITC reaches an affirmative determination and if Trump adopts the solar import trade tariffs Suniva and SolarWorld Americas are seeking, such an action could wipe out as much as 65.5 percent of solar projects that are expected to be built in the U.S. from 2018 through 2022.

The GTM article further states:

Suniva’s and SolarWorld’s new trade dispute would strike a devastating blow to the U.S. solar market, erasing two-thirds of installations expected to come on-line over the next five years.

If the petition is successful, shockwaves will be felt across all segments of U.S. solar. Utility-scale solar is most at risk, with more than 20 gigawatts already at risk of cancellation if module prices fall back to 2012 levels.

The report determined that such a trade action would “cause unprecedented demand destruction”, and went on to state:

If Suniva’s and SolarWorld’s proposal is approved by the U.S. International Trade Commission and President Trump, there will be a new minimum price on imported crystalline silicon solar modules and a new tariff on imported cells. Put together, the U.S. could miss out on more than 47 gigawatts of solar installations. That’s more than what the U.S. solar market has brought on-line to date.

On July 24th, Reuters reported:

Installations in the United States last year hit a record. Jobs are mushrooming too. The domestic industry now employs more than 260,000 people, according to The Solar Foundation, most of them construction workers hammering panels on rooftops and erecting utility-scale solar plants in the nation’s blistering deserts.

But signs of a chill are already visible as the industry waits to see how President Donald Trump responds to a recent trade complaint lodged by a Georgia manufacturer named Suniva. The company has asked the administration effectively to double the price of imported solar panels so that U.S. factories can compete. About 95% of cells and panels sold in the U.S. last year were made abroad, with most coming from China, Malaysia and the Philippines, according to SPV

That has the solar industry bracing for the worst. Panic buying has sent spot prices for solar panels up as much as 20 percent in recent weeks as installers rush to lock up supplies ahead of potential tariffs.

Skittish U.S. energy customers are putting some solar projects on hold. Manufacturers are eyeing other markets to develop. And some investors are running for cover. Funding for large U.S. solar deals fell to $1.4 billion in the second quarter, down from $3.2 billion in the first quarter and $1.7 billion a year earlier, primarily due to concerns about the trade case, according to research firm Mercom Capital Group.

Developers of solar farms that provide utilities and big companies with energy are particularly vulnerable; panels account for as much as half of the cost of their projects.

A steep rise in panel prices “could be huge and disastrous for large-scale solar,” said Tom Werner, chief executive of San Jose-based SunPower Corp . . ., a top U.S. solar company that is majority owned by France’s Total  . . … “Developers are alarmed and planning.”

BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES (“BAT”) ARE FINALLY DEAD

On July 27th it was reported that White House and congressional leaders agreed to drop the BAT as they move to comprehensive tax reform. The proposal, which would have placed a tax on all imports, had been a very important part of House Republicans’ tax reform blueprint as a way to pay for a corporate tax cut. House Speaker Paul Ryan, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn said in a statement.

“While we have debated the pro-growth benefits of border adjustability, we appreciate that there are many unknowns associated with it and have decided to set this policy aside in order to advance tax reform,

[W]e are now confident that, without transitioning to a new domestic consumption-based tax system, there is a viable approach for ensuring a level playing field between American and foreign companies and workers, while protecting American jobs and the U.S. tax base.”

NEW TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

CAST IRON SOIL PIPE FITTINGS FROM CHINA

On July 13, 2017, the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute filed an antidumping and countervailing duty case against Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from China.

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS

Attached are newsletters from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office about Chinese trade law, Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.27 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.28 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.29

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NEW 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA

RIBBON CABLES

On June 30, 2017, 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company filed a Section 337 case against Shielded Electrical Ribbon Cables.  The proposed respondents are Amphenol Corporation, Wallingford, Connecticut; Amphenol Interconnect Products Corporation, Endicott, New York; Amphenol Cables on Demand Corporation, Endicott, New York; Amphenol Assemble Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd., China; Amphenol (Xiamen) High Speed Cable Co., Ltd., China; and Amphenol East Asia Limited (Taiwan), China.

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, the impact on downstream industries, the Section 232 cases, North Korea US China trade problems, the 201 case against Solar Cells, border adjustment 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.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–TRUMP REAGAN TRADE DIFFERENCE SECTION 232 STEEL USERS 201 SOLAR NEW TRADE CASES BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES NAFTA

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR JUNE 16, 2017

Dear Friends,

Trump’s trade war on downstream industries continues with exhibit number 1 being the Section 232 Steel case.  As indicated below, numerous comments were filed May 31st by downstream steel users saying that tariffs on steel imports will devastate their business and cost millions of jobs.

But the question is whether anyone is listening.  Commerce is rushing to turn out the Section 232 report by the end of June.  But it has received numerous comments, but many of those comments are only a few pages long.  The hearing itself limited testimony from each company to 10 minutes each.

When the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) conducts a injury investigation in steel cases, it sends out numerous multiple page questionnaires to US Steel Producers, US importers, foreign producers and even US purchasers.  In addition to those questionnaire responses, it will often have prehearing and posthearing briefs that are many pages long.  In the recent Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing case, for example, we filed a brief that was over 200 pages long.

Now all Commerce Secretary Ross will have is the arguments of the US Steel industry and no in depth data regarding what the impact of these trade restraints will have on downstream users.

Moreover, there is a rush to judgement in the Section 232 cases.  In the ongoing Solar Cells section 201 case, which is comparable to the Section 232 case, the ITC will take 6 months to make its injury determination, 2 months to make a remedy determination.  The ITC will hold two hearings, send out numerous questionnaires and large briefs will be filed.  Not in the Section 232 case, which is only 2 months long.

Although the Section 232 Steel report is due at the end of June, President Trump is stating that the Aluminum Section 232 Steel report should come out at the end of June when the hearing is on June 22nd and comments are not due to June 30.  This is truly a rush to judgement without due regard to the impact on downstream users.

As indicated below, on trade President Trump and President Ronald Reagan are diametric opposites, and Reagan understood that protecting one industry hurts other industries.

Meanwhile, new antidumping and countervailing duty cases have been filed against Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber and Citric Acid and ITC and Commerce deadlines are very, very strict.  Also Commerce has ruled Aluminum Pallets are in the Aluminum Extrusions case.

The Section 201 case against imports of solar cells from every country continues.  Border Adjustment taxes are still an issue and NAFTA negotiations will start up, but Trump has told Lighthizer to do no harm to agriculture, which is going to be difficult to pull off.

Again, maybe this is why Trade Adjustment Assistance to Companies is so important.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR

Trump’s trade war continues as downstream steel user industries finally wake up to the damage they could face.  In the Section 232 case, on May 31st, numerous downstream industries from automobiles, equipment manufacturers, forging industry, industrial fasteners, motor and equipment manufacturers, electrical machinery manufacturers, transformers, heavy trucks, and other companies that use steel products filed short public comments stating cutting off their steel raw materials would devastate their companies.

But Trump himself cannot wait to impose tariffs.  On June 8, 2017, Politico reported that:

President Donald Trump appears to be champing at the bit to impose steel import restrictions under a national security probe being conducted by the Commerce Department. In a speech Wednesday in Cincinnati, Trump indicated major action was coming quickly and that it could affect countries besides China, which is often blamed for creating a global steel glut.

“Wait until you see what I’m going to do for steel and for your steel companies,” Trump said. “We’re going to stop the dumping, and stop all of these wonderful other countries from coming in and killing our companies and our workers. You’ll be seeing that very soon. The steel folks are going to be very happy.”

But big US steel consumers, like machinery, auto, energy, including oil and natural gas, are not going to be happy and are extremely worried that Trump’s trade action will damage their US industries and cause companies to close costing millions of jobs.  In Trump’s desire to move quickly to protect the steel industry, he could well damage many other US industries in the process.  This has happened before and likely will happen again.

As the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents more than 200 companies, stated in its public 232 comments filed at the Commerce Department on May 31, 2017:

In considering whether to impose restrictions on steel imports for national security reasons, it is important to keep in mind two important facts about those industries that rely on steel as a key input to their production. First, steel-consuming companies producing goods in the U.S. account for a vastly greater share of total manufacturing output and employment than does the domestic steel industry itself. The U.S.- based auto and auto parts industry employs over 800,000 production workers, more than four times as many as are employed by U.S. steel producers. The construction industry, which accounts for a majority of all steel consumption, employs nearly 8 million production workers. Many other steel-consuming sectors have larger employment than the steel sector.

Secondly, many steel-consuming companies are also major suppliers for our nation’s defense-related needs, building the ships, aircraft, machinery, high technology weapons and other goods that a modern military demands. Therefore, these downstream industries are critical to the U.S. industrial capacity and the nation’s security is weakened if the production capacity of these industries is curtailed.  Because of these two factors – employment effects and national security needs – it is of utmost importance to weigh carefully the potential effects of higher steel tariffs or restrictive quotas on these steel-consuming sectors.

On June 14th Politico reported that Congress is now getting concerned about the impact of the Section 232 case and that Trump administration officials will hold staff-level briefings with the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees on June 16th to lay out the context and process for an investigation into the national security threats of steel imports

Apparently, Commerce Department officials are still debating what products should be covered and from where.  One question is whether semi- finished steel, imported and fabricated into various products, should be exempt.

The big question still at issue — what is the magnitude of the national security concern? Disagreement among top White House officials could be partly to blame for slowing the report. Some in the Trump administration see the threat extending all the way to steel used in infrastructure projects while others see it limited strictly to steel used in the defense-industrial base.

Another question is whether to give a pass to steel imports from Canada and Mexico under certain circumstances.  There’s also statutory authority for treating Canada as a defense partner, which could eliminate any consideration of imports from north of the border as a threat to national security.

Politico reports that the Commerce Department is expected to present three options to the President:

  • A 25 percent tariff that would apply to any steel imports that fall in the scope of the investigation. The tariff would also apply to all existing anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders.
  • A tariff-rate quota that would hit imports with a tariff once they exceed a certain volume. There is also discussion of an alternative that would apply tariffs if imports dip below a certain price, but there is concern that Commerce or USTR may not have the resources to set up a sophisticated system to monitor prices across a range of steel
  • A straight quota that would apply strict limits on imports of certain types of steel products from certain countries.

Politico also indicated another concern whether Commerce and USTR have the manpower to effectively implement and administer any of these trade actions? Sources said that concern is one element driving the debate over what specific trade action to take.

Chairman Kevin Brady of House Ways and Means also expressed his concern with the Section 232 case at The Wall Street Journal’s annual CFO conference, stating:

“Any administration has to be careful in its assessment and its implementation of those provisions.  Done incorrectly, it can send a very protectionist signal to other countries to do the same. It is a tool that has to be wielded very carefully.”

Chairman Brady should be concerned because of the strong possibility of retaliation.  As the US Wheat Associates stated in their May 31st comments to the Commerce Department:

Wheat is often viewed as an import sensitive industry in many countries that are export destinations for U.S. farmers. Before taking action under Section 232, the Department of Commerce should consider the fallout if other countries follow suit and impose restrictions on U.S. wheat or other products as a result of their own national security concerns, whether real or imagined.

U.S. Wheat Associates is extremely concerned about the potential ramifications of import protections based on national security arguments. Under the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XXI, national security can be a legitimate reason to restrict trade, but this has been rarely cited for very good reason: Article XXI is the Pandora’s Box of the GATT. If it is opened for our import sensitive industries, the results could be devastating.

Outside of a few obvious, generally uncontested areas, such as trade in weapons and nuclear material, most trade in goods are not considered national security issues because the implications are enormous. Steel and aluminum are undoubtedly import sensitive products. But the Department of Commerce should think very carefully about the potential consequences of declaring steel and aluminum imports to be national security concerns.

The U.S. wheat industry is highly dependent on exports, with roughly half of U.S. wheat production exported each year on average. .  . However, anytime a trade restriction is put in place, there is the potential for it to be applied to U.S. exports in response, particularly if trade restrictions are imposed outside the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system. . . .

U.S. farmers also rely on international commitments made by countries in the WTO and other trade agreements to keep markets open. However, not every country abides by those rules, and a radical shift by the United States in its respect for trade commitments could give effective ammunition to those who seek to stop or slow food imports under the guise of national security. . . .

As indicated further below, when it comes to trade, people need to understand that Donald Trump and Ronald Regan are 180 degrees, diametrically opposite.  Reagan was a true free trade, but President Trump is a protectionist.  Although his protectionist rhetoric is probably a very good reason for his election victory, especially as it relates to trade agreements, such as TPP and NAFTA, the problem with protectionism is the collateral damage to other US industries.  When one wants to protect raw material industries very quickly with not enough time to consider the full impact of a protectionist action, the collateral damage on other US industries can truly be devastating.  The protectionist cure can be much worse than the trade disease.  Not only in Steel, but also aluminum.

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR ON DOWNSTREAM INDUSTRIES—SECTION 232 STEEL CASE

The real impact of the Trump Steel War on downstream industries is illustrated in spades by the public comments in the Section 232 Steel case by steel consuming industries.  As stated in the last blog post, in response to pressure from President Trump, Commerce Secretary Ross has self-initiated National Security cases under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. 1862, against imports of steel and aluminum, which go directly into downstream US production.  The danger of these cases is that there is no check on Presidential power if the Commerce Department finds that steel or aluminum “is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall so advise the President”.  The Secretary shall also advise the President on potential remedies.

If the Secretary reports affirmatively, the President has 90 days to determine whether it concurs with the Secretary’s determination and “determine the nature and duration of the action that, in the judgment of the President, must be taken to adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.”

Once the President makes his affirmative determination, he will report his decision to Congress, but it is questionable whether Congress can disapprove the decision.   The statute also does not provide for any appeal to the Court of International Trade.  Commerce also is very protectionist and in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.  The only check is the injury determination by the independent US International Trade Commission.  There is no such determination under Section 232.

STEEL

On April 20, 2017, President Trump and the Commerce Department in the attached press announcement and fact sheet along with a Federal Register notice, Presidential Memorandum Prioritizes Commerce Steel Investigation _ Department of Commerce Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Steel on U.S COMMERCE FED REG SECTION 232 NOTICE, announced the self-initiation of a Section 232 National Security case against imports of steel from every country.  See video of Trump signing the Executive Order with Secretary Ross and Steel Producers at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiVfNOl-_Ho.

Commerce held a hearing on May 24th in this case.  The video of the hearing can be found at https://www.commerce.gov/file/public-hearing-section-232-investigation-steel-imports-national-security.

Although Section 232 investigations usually take 6 months, at the hearing, Ross stated that a written report would go to the President by the end of June in less than two months.  At the start of the hearing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said something has to be done to help the Steel producers.  In the past Secretary Ross has stated that the Section 232 case is meant to fill the gaps created by the patchwork of antidumping and countervailing duties on foreign steel, which he said have provided only limited relief to the U.S. industry.

On May 31, 2017, public comments were filed at the Commerce Department on the Section 232 Steel case.  These are some of the comments by the Downstream Steel Users.

AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE POLICY COUNCIL (AAPC)

The AAPC represents the common public policy interests of its member companies – FCA US, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Company, and states the following in its May 31st comments:

Although sympathetic to the challenges the steel industry faces, we are concerned that if, as a result of this Section 232 investigation, the President were to increase tariffs on foreign steel or impose other import restrictions, the auto industry and the U.S. workers that the industry employs would be adversely affected and that this unintended negative impact would exceed the benefit provided to the steel industry from this Executive action.

Steel is a critical input into the manufacture of automotive products. The price of steel in the United States is already significantly higher than in the markets where our competitors build the majority of their cars and trucks.  This puts U.S. automakers at a competitive disadvantage.

Inevitably, the imposition of across the board higher tariffs or other restrictions on imports of steel into the United States would only widen the existing price gap by increasing the price of U.S. steel and thus the cost of U.S.-built vehicles. Additionally, outside of the United States, the price of steel will fall further, giving foreign automakers an additional cost advantage over the U.S. auto industry.

As a result of such a Section 232 remedy, sales of domestically-built cars and trucks would fall, auto exports would shrink, and American auto sector jobs would be lost. In the end, this contraction could actually reduce the amount of U.S. steel consumed by U.S. automakers, jeopardizing the very industry the remedy was intended to assist. . . .

The U.S. automotive industry makes significant contributions to the U.S. economy, with FCA US, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Company representing the majority of the following 2016 economic contributions.

  • Directly employing/supporting more than 7.3 million American jobs- including manufacturers of auto parts, steel, glass, plastics, rubber and semi-conductors;
  • Exporting $137 billion in vehicles and parts, more than any other U.S. industry sector;
  • Manufacturing 12.2 million cars & trucks;
  • Representing 8% of the manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP on a value added basis;
  • Investing $8 billion in U.S. plants/equipment, and nearly $20 billion in R&D; and
  • Selling a record 17.5 million cars and light

 The AAPC concludes:

While we strongly support the Administration’s focus on ensuring that our trading partners live up to their commitments and abide by their trade-related obligations, actions taken as a result of this Section 232 investigation to restrict imports of steel, in order to support the U.S. steel industry, could have unintended negative consequences for the domestic automotive industry and the millions of American workers it directly and indirectly employs.

Any such restrictions that this Administration might implement would lead to an increase in the price of U.S. steel and depress the price of steel in foreign markets. This would lead to lower sales of domestically-built cars and trucks in the highly competitive U.S. auto market, a decrease in U.S. auto exports, and a loss of the jobs that those economic activities support. In the end, that would be a net-negative for the U.S. economy, and potentially the U.S. steel industry – the very sector such restrictions were designed to assist.

ASSOCIATION OF EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS (“AEM”)

AEM Represents 950 member companies that manufacture equipment and provide services for the construction, agriculture, utilities and mining sectors worldwide.  These manufacturers represent 1.3 million Americans, contribute $159 billion to the U.S. economy and raise over $25 billion in federal and state taxes each year.  As AEM states in its comments:

Manufacturing equipment in America frequently requires the sourcing of steel products  from around the world. While manufacturers in the United States often procure steel from domestic suppliers, they at times must source steel from international producers because the steel’s formula matches a specific spec required to ensure a piece of equipment’s proper function and performance that is not otherwise available in the United States. Inhibiting access to foreign steel will force manufacturers to procure steel from a domestic supplier that may not match required specifications, thus degrading the quality and performance of the equipment and risking operational safety concerns.  In cases where a particular type of steel is available from domestic suppliers, a sudden surge in demand will likely lead to extended procurement timeframes and delays in the manufacturing process.

Restricting the import of foreign steel will also ultimately have a very negative impact on the manufacturing competitiveness of the United States as domestic steel prices rise, and global steel prices fall when steel originally destined for the US enters global markets. With nearly 30 percent of equipment manufactured in the U.S. designated for export, U.S. manufactured exports will become uncompetitive in many global markets if manufacturers are forced to pay higher prices for necessary steel inputs. In addition, restricting raw material imports hurts American jobs by driving up the costs of value-added manufacturing in the U.S.  Furthermore, imported manufactured equipment will become much more competitive in the U.S. market as foreign manufacturers are able to produce and sell equipment at a much lower price by leveraging global steel markets.

CATO INSTITUTE—FORMER ITC COMMISSIONER DAN PEARSON

Former ITC Commissioner Dan Pearson presently at the Cato Institute made the following points:

First, the 232 investigation must be understood in the context of the existing U.S. steel marketplace. Roughly 200 antidumping or countervailing duty measures already are in place on steel products from a variety of countries. Steel currently is one of the most protected sectors in the U.S. economy.  . . .

Third, any further import restrictions would do far more harm to steel-using manufacturers than any benefit that could be provided to steel mills. That is simply due to the raw numbers. Steel mills employ just 140,000 workers.  Downstream manufacturers that use steel as an input employ 6.5 million, 46 times more. Steel mills account for a fairly small slice of the overall U.S. economy.  The $36 billion in economic value added by steel mills in 2015 equals only 0.2 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By contrast, the economic value added by firms that use steel as an input was $1.04 trillion – 29 times more – or 5.8 percent of GDP.

Any government action to drive up steel prices by restricting imports will hurt steel-consuming manufacturers by artificially increasing their steel costs and reducing their competitiveness relative to companies overseas. It’s clear that the broad public would be harmed by additional steel import restrictions. A decline in U.S. economic welfare is not something the administration ought to pursue. It’s very difficult to have a stronger national defense when the economy is getting weaker.

FORGING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

The Forging Industry Association (FIA) is the Association representing the US forging industry.  The Comments state:

In 2016, custom forgings accounted for nearly $10.5 billion of sales in North America. An additional $3-5 billion in catalog and captive sales would bring the industry total for 2016 to the $13.5 – 15.5 billion range. The North American forging industry is comprised of nearly 500 forging operations in 38 states, Canada and Mexico, with the largest US presence of forging operations located in Ohio (79), Pennsylvania  (63), Illinois (54), Michigan (54), California (38), Texas (41), New York (16), Indiana (18), Wisconsin (17), Kentucky (13), Massachusetts (10), and South Carolina (9). . . .These operations provide more than 36,000 well-paid jobs and benefits.

As noted above, the steel forging industry supplies many products essential to national security, including numerous tank and automotive forgings for combat vehicles, small caliber weapons forgings, ordnance forgings, and forgings used in building airplanes, helicopters, ships and submarines. . . .

US steel forgers rely almost exclusively on domestically-produced SBQ steel. SBQ is specialty steel long products made to customer specifications suited for forging into the final product. Because it is heavy, bulky and expensive to ship long distances, the forging industry depends upon a healthy, competitive domestic SBQ steel industry to provide necessary raw material at globally competitive prices for steel forging here in the U.S. The “globally competitive prices” are critically important – if the price for domestic SBQ steel is higher in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world due to tariffs or trade restrictions, then we begin to see less imports of raw material and more imports of downstream products.

The US steel forging industry relies heavily on 6 domestic SBQ steel producers with mills in multiple locations. SBQ steel imports accounted for 15% of the consumption in 2016, and domestic consumption was 4 million tons of SBQ steel, while SBQ imports totaled only 600,000 tons.  This import volume has remained relatively flat over the past few years. . . . Generally speaking, we do not believe the SBQ steel industry has been adversely affected by steel imports. The domestic SBQ steel market is currently running close to capacity, and producers recently announced substantial price increases.

While SBQ raw material import penetration has been relatively insignificant, the import of steel forgings has grown significantly and at an ever increasing rate, threatening the health and viability of the domestic steel forging industry.   . . .

In effect, when current trade laws are used to remedy injury in one subsector of the economy, such as steel, they often shift the injury to another tier within the manufacturing sector.

INDUSTRIAL FASTENER INSTITUTE (“IFI”)

The IFI represents approximately 85% of fastener production capacity in North America, and there are few, if any, products used in the pursuit of national security that do not contain fasteners.

In its comments, the IFI stated:

In 2015, the U.S. fastener industry accounted for $13.4 billion (of a $69.6 billion global market), and is projected to grow +2.6% per year to roughly $15 billion by 2020. In the U.S., the fastener industry employs approximately 42,000 people at about 850 different manufacturing facilities.  . . ..

The fastener industry is critical to all segments of our manufacturing industrial base, including the defense industry.  .

Fastener manufacturing is a major consumer of metals, including steel. Since fasteners can be made anywhere in the world, the U.S. industry is dependent on access to adequate supplies of globally priced raw materials such as steel to remain globally competitive. . .  .

However, even with a healthy domestic industry, history has shown that fastener manufacturers must sometimes import raw material because the particular types of steel needed are not available in the quantities, quality or form required. (Fasteners are made out of round form, not sheet, flat or bar products.) By some accounts, the U.S. steel industry is able to produce only about 70 percent of the total steel consumed in the U.S. . . .

No one disputes that unfair trade exists, and that trade remedy laws can be a useful tool to combat it when it occurs. However, while the trade remedy laws can provide some protection for domestic metals producers, they are a double-edged sword for downstream users such as fastener manufacturers, who may be negatively impacted by higher raw material costs and may not be able to fully utilize the trade remedy laws themselves. In particular, downstream users of products subject to trade remedies have no standing under U.S. law to participate in the process that may lead to the imposition of duties on those products.  In addition, these downstream users are likely to be smaller companies who do not have the financial resources to pursue trade cases, which can cost millions of dollars to fully prosecute.

The fastener industry has experienced this scenario many times, where efforts to protect a basic raw material segment of the economy create unintended consequences throughout the rest of the economy. The most recent example occurred in 2002, when President Bush, at the urging of the U.S. steel industry concerned about a surge of imports, imposed 30% tariffs on nearly all imported steel under a Global Safeguard action. The impact on steel consuming industries was immediate and devastating. The evidence of harm to the broad economy grew quickly, leading President Bush to terminate the Global Safeguard order after only eighteen months instead of the full three years, but by then 1.3 million manufacturing jobs in steel consuming and related industries had been lost.

The fastener industry not only understands the need to ensure that the U.S. has the necessary industrial capacity to provide for our national defense needs, we are a vital part of that very capacity. To be frank, steel is a commodity until somebody makes it into a part/end item. We are concerned that the proposed 232 investigation will not give proper consideration to the importance of downstream industries to that industrial capacity.

MOTOR & EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (MEMA)

MEMA represents 1,000 vehicle suppliers that manufacture and remanufacture components and systems for use in passenger cars and heavy trucks providing original equipment (OE) to new vehicles as well as aftermarket parts to service, maintain and repair over 260 million vehicles on the road today. In its comments, the MEMA stated:

the total employment impact of the motor vehicle parts manufacturing industry is 4.26 million jobs. Nearly $435 billion in economic contribution to the U.S. GDP is generated by the motor vehicle parts manufacturers and its supported activity. In total, motor vehicle parts suppliers contribute more than 77 percent of the value in today’s vehicles. .

Free and fair trade is imperative for a strong domestic supplier industry. Disruption to supply chains or increases in production costs will not contribute to the national security of the United States.

Our industry is closely associated with the U.S. defense industry.  . . . Adjustments to steel imports that prevent our members from obtaining the type of steel they need in a timely manner or increases to production costs would jeopardize our ability to manufacture in the United States and to provide these critical products to the U.S. defense industry.

Adjustments to steel imports will adversely impact MEMA member companies by disrupting U.S. manufacturing operations and increasing costs. Suppliers expect adjustments to steel imports to cause job losses due to a decrease in production if steel is not available in a timely manner or the costs of production increase. Adjustments to steel imports would also be likely to decrease overall U.S. production because production of the downstream products using steel subject to such adjustments would move abroad.

Member companies would have to compete with those finished goods imports, which likely would take market share from MEMA member companies. Finally, other countries may retaliate against the U.S. for imposing such restrictions by imposing their own restrictions, which could detrimentally impact exports of MEMA member companies.

MEMA member companies need specialized steel that either is not available at all in the U.S. or is not available in sufficient quantities. Certain foreign steel producers worked closely with MEMA member companies to develop the specialized steel and this type of collaboration benefits the U.S. by improving products. Continued access to these types of steel are critical to our industry. Attached to these comments is a non-exhaustive list of steel products that must be excluded from any import adjustments (see Appendix I). Several of our member companies are submitting exclusion requests directly as well. . . .

Motor vehicle component and systems manufacturers are the largest employers of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and many of these companies import steel of all types, including specialized steel products, to manufacture goods in the U.S. that are then sold to the U.S. defense industry, U.S. government and consumers. Disrupting American manufacturing operations or increasing costs through adjustments to steel imports would not benefit the national security of the United States. Such adjustments to steel imports would, in fact, detrimentally impact U.S. employment, compromising our economic and national security.

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (NEMA)

NEMA represents nearly 350 electrical and medical imaging manufacturers and stated in its comments:

Our combined industries account for more than 400,000 American jobs and more than 7,000 facilities across the U.S. Domestic production exceeds $117 billion per year and exports top $50 billion.

Many NEMA member companies import specific types of steel from abroad for their U.S. manufacturing operations. Accordingly, NEMA urges the Administration to refrain from recommending or pursuing measures to adjust imports of fairly-traded electrical steel.

Power and distribution transformers are essential components of the U.S. electrical grid. Grain oriented electrical steel (GOES) can be the most expensive material used in the manufacture of transformers as the steel core is a very large percentage of the overall cost of a transformer, more than 50% in some cases. GOES is also the most important material in terms of quality and performance of a transformer. . .  .

Some electrical steels are imported into the U.S. because they are not available from domestic or North American suppliers. Loss of access to these materials would cause grave harm to NEMA manufacturers, who would no longer be able to manufacture and supply DOE-compliant products, and their customers – which include U.S. electric utilities as well as tens of thousands of industrial, commercial, and defense/national security facilities – but would have no effect on domestic or North American steel manufacturers, since they do not manufacture/produce or offer for sale those materials today.

The significant anti-dumping and countervailing duties in place have effectively eliminated supply from the seven largest NOES-producing countries. There is only one North American producer of NOES, who is effectively petitioning the government to become a protected monopoly.

If access to NOES were to be restricted further based on this Section 232 investigation, U.S. production of finished goods would face even greater pressure to move outside the United States.

U.S. motor manufacturers should not be forced by government policy to purchase from only a single U.S. monopoly supplier.

U.S. electrical manufacturers compete in a global market. Measures to restrict or block access by U.S. finished-product manufacturing operations to fairly-traded essential materials will harm domestic manufacturing and high-paying manufacturing jobs, and national and economic security. It would be patently unacceptable and un-American for the U.S. government to prevent U.S. manufacturers to mitigate supply chain risks through the use of a diversity of suppliers of fairly-traded materials.

Similarly, suggestions that the federal government should place restrictions, on national security grounds, on the importation of fairly-traded components and finished goods could not be more misguided. If products are entering the U.S. at less than fair value and causing injury to a domestic industry producing like products, then U.S. trade remedy laws are in place to address such situations. Steel manufacturers/producers do not have standing to call for restrictions on fairly-traded imports of products that they do not manufacture; therefore motors, transformers and steel cores (regardless of size) should not be part of this Section 232 discussion.

Many commentators, including US Auto Parts companies, requested exclusion of their specific type of imported steel because the US steel producers could not produce the specific type of steel used to make the downstream products.

BORG WARNER

In its comments, Borg Warner, a large US auto parts company, first listed 18 different specific types of steel and parts produced from that steel and went on to state:

The list above is crucial to our U.S-manufactured products that require types of specialty steel that are not available domestically. The products we make with these specialty materials provide key essential vehicle propulsion technologies for improving fuel-efficiency, emissions, and performance. These technologies are critical in helping automakers meet federal regulations for Corporate Average Fuel (CAFE) standards and achieving better overall environmental conditions.

These technologies take many years to refine and often require specialized materials in its engineering and production. We have worked closely with these specialty steel suppliers to develop our products to ensure quality and affordability for our customers and consumers. Any major changes to our supply chain could hurt our engineering and manufacturing processes, delay production, and or jeopardize our ability to meet the vehicle production demands of the industry. If these steel exclusions are not granted, the cost of these types of products would increase and ultimately be passed onto the consumers in the overall price of the vehicle. Most importantly, a major shift in steel supply could hurt U.S. vehicle sales and therefore negatively impact U.S. automotive manufacturing jobs.

BSH HOME APPLIANCE

In its comments, BSH states that it manufactures appliances sold under the Bosch, Thermador and Gaggenau names at factories in North Carolina and Tennessee, with warehouses, sales offices and show rooms throughout the United States.  BSH further states in its comments:

If the Department decides that some steel is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten or impair the national security, BSH requests that steel used for home appliances—light gauge sheet metal, galvanized pre-painted steel, and light gauge stainless steel—be exempt from that determination. . . .

Steel is one of the main materials used by home appliance manufacturers in the construction of their products. In particular, home appliance manufacturers typically use light gauge sheet metal, galvanized pre-painted steel, and light gauge stainless steel in the construction of their products. These materials are critical to the design, function, and durability of home appliances and, should the Department decide to recommend action, we ask that the steel used for home appliances be exempt.

First, we are concerned that any action to ban or limit the quantity of steel imported into the United States will overly burden U.S. steel capacity. U.S. steel capacity is insufficient to meet the demands of industry, including the home appliance industry. Were steel to become more difficult to source, it would hamper the industry’s ability to deliver products to consumers. In addition, some manufactures use specialty steel that is simply not available in the U.S. and must be sourced internationally.

Second, foreign competition in the steel industry improves the welfare of the home appliance industry, which is a low margin business. Competition between U.S. steel producers and international steel producers results in lower steel prices. Without this competitive pricing, it is likely that the home appliance industry could become less competitive and/or, in some cases, would need to pass price increases onto consumers.

Moreover, an action to impose a ban or limit on the quantity of steel imported into the United States or a tariff on steel imports is a disincentive to manufacture home appliances in the United States. It is likely that, in response to such actions, companies producing products domestically would be at a disadvantage compared to products produced internationally. Thus, limits on imported steel and/or tariffs on imported steel could result in companies deciding to produce home appliances outside of the United States in an effort to avoid higher steel prices or the unavailability of domestic steel. . . .

The Department and the President must ensure that in assisting one industry, they do not negatively impact others.

BUSINESS AND INSTITUTIONAL FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (“BIFMA”)

BIFMA is the trade association for business and institutional furniture producers and is the Association for the commercial furniture industry.  BIFMA stated in its May 31st comments:

It is difficult to imagine how it is in our national security or national economic interests to impose tariffs or quotas that risk thousands of jobs in steel-consuming industries. Disregarding or discounting the economic impact of adjustments on consuming industries could have serious and unintended consequences. We urge the Department to refrain from, or carefully limit, any import adjustment recommendations.

Any adjustment to steel imports is likely to increase steel prices domestically. Adjustments that restrict supply and increase costs domestically will cause significant, negative financial consequences for companies. A sudden increase in material costs would be extremely detrimental for our members and the customers that they supply . . . . We urge the Department to take into consideration the serious ramifications to steel- consuming manufacturers while considering any recommendation it may make to the President.

STEEL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

In its May 31st comments, more than ten steel building and construction companies stated:

Our companies produce building materials, such as prefabricated building sections, roofs, etc. from galvalume and galvanized steel coils.  Our companies are very concerned about the threat to our company’s future if the imports of flat rolled galvalume steel we rely on are restricted by additional tariffs or quotas. Only a few American mills produce galvalume at all; those mills are not interested in selling this at a competitive price to most users. There also are not enough mills producing this product to satisfy demand. Only certain selected customers are able get pricing at competitive levels. Without access to imported galvalume, our ability to compete will be reduced or eliminated.

American national security is not threatened by imports of galvalume. Not only are coated products not used in defense applications; most American mils are profitable, to the extent that they are expanding their coated steel operations, not reducing them.  . .

We urge you to not restrict the steel imports that are vital to our survival.

TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURERS

Several transformer manufacturers stated in their comments:

The proposal made in oral comments that the Department initiate remedies on the import of electrical grade steel, including GOES, deeply troubles the Transformer Manufacturers. This proposal presumes that the importation of GOES or cut steel for use in power transformers is a threat the national security. We propose that protecting the interests of the domestic transformer manufacturers and their employees is more vital to national security than the risk associated with importing GOES, which only accounts for a portion of the total market. One thing is certain of the proposal if adopted as recommended, it will severely damage the domestic transformer marketplace, the underlying companies and their United States employees. . . .

Simply put, at present there is no other domestic alternative to AK Steel as a source of GOES. Granting its requested relief will, in effect, further entrench a domestic de facto monopoly for GOES. While each of the below entities wants to continue to work with AK Steel and maintain positive commercial relationships, the potential economic impact of an unrestricted sole-source domestic provider could be devastating on the domestic transformer manufacturing industry.

TRUCK AND ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

EMA represents the world’s leading manufacturers of heavy- duty commercial vehicles, as well as the world’s leading manufacturers of the internal combustion engines that power the vehicles and equipment used in virtually all applications other than passenger cars and aircraft.  In its comments EMA stated:

members maintain significant manufacturing operations in the United States that employ tens of thousands of workers engaged in the manufacture of, among other things: trucks, buses, heavy-duty pickups and vans, construction and agricultural equipment, mining equipment, law and garden equipment, along with the wide array of internal combustion engines that power those myriad applications, as well as the engines that power locomotives and marine vessels. All of those very significant and vital manufacturing operations – operations that quite literally produce the machinery that powers and moves our domestic economy – use significant amounts of steel. As a result, EMA and its members have a significant stake in the DOC’s pending investigation.  . . .

While all of those concerns are certainly genuine and significant, there is also a significant national interest in ensuring that domestic manufacturers are not forced to purchase steel at prices that are materially higher than those that prevail in foreign manufacturing markets.

Steel is a key commodity in the manufacture of the goods produced by EMA’s members. In addition, those steel-derived goods are sold into world-wide markets, and so necessarily compete with goods manufactured in multiple foreign locations. To the extent that U.S.-based manufacturers are compelled to pay more for necessary steel inputs than their foreign competitors, they will be at a significant and unfair disadvantage from the outset.

Restrictions on the imports of steel could result in increases in the price of steel based on reduced supplies in the U.S. marketplace. That cost increase, as noted above, could cause significant competitive disadvantages for U.S.-based manufacturers that utilize steel as a key commodity in their manufacturing operations. It also could force manufacturers to pass on higher prices for their finished goods to U.S. consumers, thereby compounding the negative impacts of the increased price of steel in the U.S. Accordingly, in addition to the important concerns that are motivating the DOC’s investigation, the DOC should take into account, and give high priority to, the potential impacts on the competitiveness of U.S.-based manufacturers. A proper assessment of those impacts should be a key component of any recommendation that the DOC submits to the President on this matter.

Previous experience with additional tariffs and related restrictions on steel imports is highly instructive. In 2002, the U.S. government imposed tariffs on a broad range of steel imports over a 3-year period. In subsequent studies of the economic impact of those tariffs, it was found that the tariffs had resulted in a number of unintended adverse consequences, including the following: (i) 200,000 Americans lost their jobs due to higher steel prices; (ii) one-quarter of those job losses occurred in the machinery and equipment, and transportation equipment sectors; (iii) every U.S. State experienced employment losses from higher steel costs; and (iv) steel tariffs caused shortages and higher steel prices that put U.S. manufacturers of steel-containing products at a disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors. The same types of unintended adverse consequences could result in this case, depending on the types of “adjustments” to steel imports that the DOC may choose to recommend as an outcome of the pending study. . . .

Like the chorus in a Greek tragedy, US manufacturers that rely on steel as a key raw material input are crying their warning about imposing restrictions on steel imports.  Many more jobs on a factor of 10 could be lost by the restraints than are saved by the restraints.  The real question is whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and President Trump are listening.

ALUMINUM

On April 27, 2017, President Trump and the US Commerce Department self-initiated a Section 232 National Security case against imports of aluminum from all countries.  See the attached documents related to the Case Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Aluminum on US National S ALUMINUM FED REG PUB Aluminum Presidential Memo Summary.  The hearing will be June 22, 2017 at the Commerce Department.

Trump has indicated that he is expecting the Aluminum report by the end of June.  But the hearing will be held on June 22nd with written comments due by June 29th.  That certainly shows a rush to protectionist judgment when aluminum users will have the same concerns as steel users.

DONALD TRUMP AND RONALD REAGAN—DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE IN ONE IMPORTANT AREA—TRADE

It is important to note that there is one area in which President Ronald Reagan and President Donald Trump are diametrically, 180 degrees opposite and that is trade.  None of the news shows that are Pro-Trump and Pro-Republican highlight the trade views of the Gipper, but he was certainly no Donald Trump and Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan when it comes to trade.

At a time like this, it is important to review President Reagan’s June 28, 1986 speech on international trade. President Reagan knew something that President Trump does not work.  Protectionism destroys jobs.  As Reagan stated:

Now, I know that if I were to ask most of you how you like to spend your Saturdays in the summertime, sitting down for a nice, long discussion of international trade wouldn’t be at the top of the list. But believe me, none of us can or should be bored with this issue. Our nation’s economic health, your well-being and that of your family’s really is at stake.

That’s because international trade is one of those issues that politicians find an unending source of temptation. Like a 5-cent cigar or a chicken in every pot, demanding high tariffs or import restrictions is a familiar bit of flimflammery in American politics. But cliches and demagoguery aside, the truth is these trade restrictions badly hurt economic growth.

You see, trade barriers and protectionism only put off the inevitable. Sooner or later, economic reality intrudes, and industries protected by the Government face a new and unexpected form of competition. It may be a better product, a more efficient manufacturing technique, or a new foreign or domestic competitor.

By this time, of course, the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition. And that, my friends, is when the factories shut down and the unemployment lines start. We had an excellent example of this in our own history during the Great Depression. Most of you are too young to remember this, but not long after the stock market crash of 1929, the Congress passed something called the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Many economists believe it was one of the worst blows ever to our economy. By crippling free and fair trade with other nations, it internationalized the Depression. It also helped shut off America’s export market, eliminating many jobs here at home and driving the Depression even deeper. . . .

Sometimes foreign governments adopt unfair tariffs or quotas and subsidize their own industries or take other actions that give firms an unfair competitive edge over our own businesses. On those occasions, it’s been very important for the United States to respond effectively, and our administration hasn’t hesitated to act quickly and decisively.

And in September, with more GATT talks coining up once again, it’s going to be very important for the United States to make clear our commitment that unfair foreign competition cannot be allowed to put American workers in businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But I think you all know the inherent danger here. A foreign government raises an unfair barrier; the United States Government is forced to respond. Then the foreign government retaliates; then we respond, and so on. The pattern is exactly the one you see in those pie fights in the  old Hollywood comedies: Everything and everybody just gets messier and messier. The difference here is that it’s not funny. It’s tragic. Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.

Now I know that others, including USTR Lighthizer himself, argue that Reagan was not really a free trader.  But the trade actions he took, including his appointment of very free traders as ITC Commissioners, show that Reagan deeply understood the dangers of protectionism.  He lived through the Great Depression and the effects of the 1930 Smoot Hawley Tariff Act.  Donald Trump did not live during that time period and the comments of the US Steel users above indicate that President Trump does not understand the dangers of protectionism.

SOLAR 201 ESCAPE CLAUSE CASE

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case.  If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, within 60 days the President must decide whether or not to impose import relief, which can be in the form of increased tariffs, quotas or an orderly marketing agreements.

At the ITC, Section 201 cases are a two stage process.  The ITC must first determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.”  The ITC has determined that the investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” and will make its injury determination within 128 days after the petition was filed, or by September 22, 2017. The Commission will submit to the President the report required under section 202(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 2252(f)(1)) within 180 days after the date on which the petition was filed, or by November 13, 2017.

Notices of appearance at the ITC are due on June 22nd at the ITC.  During the injury phase of the investigation, the ITC will hold an injury hearing on August 15, 2017.  Prehearing briefs are due at the ITC on August 8, 2017.  Posthearing briefs will be due at the ITC on August 22nd.

If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, it will go into a remedy phase and the hearing in that phase will be on October 3, 2017.

COMMERCE AND ITC DEADLINES ARE VERY VERY STRICT

In the ongoing Tool Chests from China antidumping case, Commerce just bounced nine Separate Rates Applications from Chinese companies filed by a US law firm on the due date because of computer problems at Commerce and the law firm.  Most documents are now filed electronically at both the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission in trade cases.  Computer problems and other filing issues are why we are so paranoid about Commerce and ITC deadlines and try to file documents, if possible, before the deadline date.

Computer systems including the Commerce and ITC computer systems, can have problems and one can miss the deadline.  If deadlines are missed, truly there is hell to pay.

ALUMINUM PALLETS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS CASE

In the attached memorandum, PALLETS IN ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS CASE, to prevent circumvention, the Commerce Department has determined to include aluminum pallets in the Aluminum Extrusions case.  In one situation, one Chinese producer/exporter exported 1000s of aluminum pallets into the US in an attempt to evade the antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders on Aluminum Extrusions.

NEW TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

FINE DENIER POLYESTER STAPLE FIBER

On May 31, 2017, DAK Americas LLC, Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, and Auriga Polymers Inc. filed an AD and CVD petition against imports of Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam.  The preliminary determination in the CVD case is due October 28th and the AD Preliminary Determination is due December 27, 2017.

CITRIC ACID AND CITRATE SALTS FROM BELGIUM, COLOMBIA AND THAILAND

On June 2, 2017, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients America LLC filed AD and CVD petitions against imports of Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts (“Citric Acid”) from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand.

AD duties are imposed on subject imports that are found to be sold in the United States at less than “normal value.” CVD duties are imposed on imports that benefit from unfair government subsidies. For AD/CVD duties to be imposed, the U.S. government must determine not only that dumping or subsidization is occurring, but also that the subject imports are causing “material injury” or “threat of material injury” to the domestic industry.

This is the second AD/CVD case filed against Citric Acid. AD/CVD orders were previously imposed on citric acid from Canada and China in 2009.  The cases are targeting Chinese subsidiary companies in Thailand and other countries.

Alleged AD Rates

Belgium: 56.02 – 118.44%

Colombia: 41.18 – 49.46%

Thailand: 4.6 – 67.1%

Petitioner also identified various Thai government subsidy programs under the Thai Investment Promotion Act, along with other export-import loans, grants and export promotion measures.

Estimated Schedule of AD/CVD Investigations

June 2, 2017 – Petition filed

June 22, 2017 – DOC initiates investigations

June 23, 2017 – ITC staff conference

July 17, 2017 – ITC Preliminary Determination

October 30, 2017 – DOC CVD Preliminary Determination (assuming extended deadline)

December 29, 2017 – DOC AD Preliminary Determination (assuming extended deadline)

May 13, 2018 – DOC AD/CVD final determinations (assuming AD, CVD aligned and extended)

June 27, 2018 – ITC Final Determination (extended)

July 4, 2018 – DOC AD/CVD orders issued (extended).

OTHER TRADE CASES

SECTION 201 ESCAPE CLAUSE CASE AGAINST RESIDENTIAL WASHERS

On May 31, 2017, Whirlpool Corp. filed another Section 201 Escape Clause case against imports of Large Residential Washers.  The petition indicates that this is an attempt by Whirlpool to go after the Korean producers, including Samsung.  Whirlpool tried AD and CVD cases against Korea, but that failed because the Korean producers moved to another country.  Now like the Solar Cells 201 case, the US producer is trying to close the holes in the trade protection.

But do note another point, what is the major raw material input for residential washing machines—Steel. When US steel prices are many times higher than the world market price, that puts US steel users at a major competitive disadvantage.

USTR ROBERT LIGHTHIZER CONFIRMED—NAFTA FIGHT

Countries are still gearing up for NAFTA negotiations.  President Trump has told USTR Lighthizer not to do any damage and add to the bottom line.

Attached is an article with my quotes about the Mexico/Sugar suspension agreement to settle the dumping case against Mexico, Wilbur Ross likely will impose Mexico sugar deal over industry objections.  The Suspension Agreement will be finalized on June 30th with some possible tweaks to make the US industry feel better.  In fact, on June 16, 2017, Politico reported that the US sugar industry has given its blessing to the US-Mexico sugar deal making Commerce Secretary Ross’s day.  As Secretary Ross stated:

“I am glad all parties have agreed that the new sugar agreement is fair and addresses the shortcomings of the original deal.  I look forward to seeing the public comments on this deal, but am hopeful that we can successfully implement this new agreement with the support and cooperation of all stakeholders.”

The Sugar deal shows that Wilbur Ross wants to clear up trade issues before the NAFTA negotiations begin in earnest so we can expect a similar deal in the Lumber case.

On June 14, 2017, Robert Samuelson, a well-known economist, in an article in the Washington Post entitled “Trump is Deluded About NAFTA” stated:

The Trump administration is determined to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — which created a single market from Mexico’s southern border to the Yukon — but the main political appeal of this policy rests on a popular myth: that “fair” trade requires the United States to have a surplus or balanced trade with both Mexico and Canada.

We are supposed to feel especially aggrieved that Mexico regularly has a sizable surplus with us, $63.2 billion in goods in 2016, according to Commerce Department figures. This shows, as the president repeatedly has said, that U.S. trade officials negotiated a bad deal for American firms and workers. Trump has promised to do much better.  That will be hard. . . .

In addition, the trade imbalances within NAFTA aren’t as large as they seem. It’s true — as noted — that the United States had a $63.2 billion deficit in goods trade (cars, computers, plastics) with Mexico. But the U.S. surplus on services (travel, transportation, consulting) was $7.6 billion, reducing the overall deficit with Mexico to $55.6 billion. On the same basis, covering goods and services, the United States had a trade surplus of $12.5 billion with Canada in 2016.

So: The total trade deficit with Canada and Mexico was $43.1 billion ($55.6 billion minus $12.5 billion). All trade — exports and imports — between the United States and Canada and Mexico totaled $1.207 trillion in 2016. Our net deficit equaled 3.5 percent of total trade and about two-tenths of 1 percent of U.S. GDP. This hardly seems crushing.

Against that backdrop, the notion that either Canada or Mexico is going to offer the United States vast new markets in their countries — without corresponding U.S. concessions — seems wishful thinking. “The administration appears to perceive Mexico and perhaps Canada as surplus countries,” writes [Fred} Bergsten, “whereas they (more accurately) see themselves as deficit countries,” seeking to increase exports or dampen imports. This is Trump’s delusion.

BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES

Although the Trump Administration says that the Border Adjustment tax (“BAT”) is dead, it continues to raise its head.  On June 7th Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch stated at a global transfer pricing conference in Washington DC that although Congressional Republicans and the White House are generally 80 percent in agreement on key issues for tax reform, he has not ruled out the BAT proposal.

Hatch noted the resistance against the BAT, including from certain industries that are “downright apoplectic” about it, but then went on to state that it will have a difficult time becoming law:

“I don’t think I’m making any news when I say that, given the small margin of error we have in the Senate and the number of senators who oppose the very concept of a [BAT], the proposal will have a difficult time becoming law. That said, I want to see the specifics of the proposal and find out if it works like its proponents say it will. Until then, I’m not going to publicly rule anything out.”

Hatch also said on Wednesday that the tax reform plan should include a conversion to a territorial system, which would see only revenue generated in the U.S. taxed. Under the current system, all revenue earned by U.S. ­incorporated companies, regardless of where it is earned, is taxed.  As Hatch stated

“My position has, I believe, remained clear: A territorial system will put us on par with other industrialized countries and allow our businesses to compete in the global marketplace.”

On June 15, 2017, it was reported that Kevin Brady, Chairman of House Ways and Means, has proposed a five year transition to a BAT to make it more palatable.  As Brady stated:

“My current thinking on border adjustment … is a five-year transition.  We’ll be lifting the ‘Made in America’ tax [on exports] at the same rate.  A very gradual five-year phase-in really resolves a lot of the challenges.”

But many opponents argued that a five year transition did not make the BAT a good idea.

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES – A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TRADE REMEDY WHICH ACTUALLY WORKS

As indicated in previous blog posts, I feel very strongly about the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program because with very low funding it has a true track record of saving US companies.  In fact, in the ongoing Section 201 case on Solar Cells, the statute requires the industry seeking protection to provide a trade adjustment plan to the Commission to explain how the industry intends to adjust if trade relief is provided.  The problem is that the Commission is not the entity with experience on determining whether the Trade Adjustment plans are viable.  The entities with that experience in trade adjustment plans are the various trade adjustment centers throughout the US.

Donald Trump’s proposed budget, however, would 0 out the trade adjustment assistance for companies program.  Although Secretary Wilbur Ross has made it very clear he wants to increase exports to reach the 3% plus growth rate, putting protectionist walls up to limit imports of steel, aluminum and many other products invites retaliation.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports.  Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports to make them more competitive.  The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure.  Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Right now the total cost to the US Taxpayer for this nationwide program is $12.5 million dollars—truthfully peanuts in the Federal budget.  Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.  In his budget, Trump increases TAA for Workers, but kills TAA for Companies.  Yet to retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job is $5,000.  To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works.  In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, 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.

But as also stated in my last blog post, in this environment with so many injured companies, funding for TAA for Firms/Companies has to be increased so it can do its job.   Moreover, with the threats of a massive trade war in the air, which will injure all US companies and destroy US jobs, the US government needs to look at an alternative—TAA for Firms/Companies is that alternative.

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS

Attached are newsletters from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office about Chinese trade law.  Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.22 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.23

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NO NEW 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, the impact on downstream industries, the Section 232 cases, the 201 case against Solar Cells, border adjustment 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.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–TRUMP’S TRADE WAR AGAINST DOWNSTREAM INDUSTRIES, SECTION 232 CASES STEEL AND ALUMINUM, SECTION 201 CASE SOLAR CELLS, BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES, NAFTA AND 337

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR MAY 26, 2017

Dear Friends,

This blog post is coming out very late because I have been very busy with so many trade cases being filed.  In fact, this is the most trade cases I have seen in my lifetime filed in such a short period.  Every day there seems to be another trade case.

For the last two weeks I have been intensely involved in an antidumping and countervailing duty case on mechanical tubing.  We are representing auto parts companies, which have warned the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) if they go affirmative and find injury in the case, in all probability the companies will close their US operations and move offshore.  The US producers bringing the petition want to force auto parts companies to buy their commodity mechanical tubing, which is sold to the oil & gas industry and goes down a hole.  The auto industry needs made to order mechanical tubing as their raw material because of the advanced designs and safety requirements in the United States.

If the United States is going to block raw materials, US downstream industries will have no choice.  They will move offshore to obtain the high quality raw materials they need to not only be competitive but also produce high quality safe auto parts.  In this first article below, one can read directly the public statements of these auto parts producers to the ITC.

Meanwhile, Trump is increasing the trade war.  Throughout the Presidential campaign, Trump threatened to put tariffs on many different products.  With Commerce Department Secretary Wilbur Ross, President Trump has discovered Section 232 National Security cases against Steel and Aluminum.  There are no checks on the President’s power in Section 232 cases.  No check at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Courts or the WTO.  Once the Commerce Department issues a report, then Trump has the power to impose tariffs or other remedies.

If you look at the link to the Commerce Department hearing in the Section 232 Steel case, at the end of the hearing you will hear numerous downstream companies telling Commerce to exclude their products and if they cannot get the imported steel, their companies will close.

Meanwhile, numerous antidumping and countervailing duty cases have been filed against aluminum foil, tool chests, biodiesel, tooling and aircraft just to name a few.  As described below, Trump has found his Trade War, but the real victim in this trade war may be US downstream industries.

In addition to two Section 232 cases, Suniva has filed a Section 201 case against imports of solar cells from every country.  The main targets appear to be third world countries where Chinese companies have moved their production facilities and Canada and Mexico.  The ironic point of this filing is that Solar World, the company that brought the original Solar Cells and Solar products cases against China, has now become insolvent and just today announced that it is supporting the petition.  Companies that were buying solar cells from Solar World all of a sudden cannot get the solar cells they paid for because of the insolvency.

Maybe this is why Trade Adjustment Assistance to Companies is so important.  With TAA, Solar World might have been saved with no damage to the US Polysilicon industry.  But despite the fact that section 201 requires US companies to submit adjustment plans and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers are the real trade adjustment experts, President Trump has zeroed out the Trade Adjustment Centers in his budget.  Apparently all President Trump wants to do is to put up protectionist walls to protect US companies and industries, rather than make them more competitive.  Very short sighted.

On the Trade Policy side, with protectionist walls appear to be going up.  Lighthizer was just confirmed as USTR and immediately plunged into NAFTA negotiations.  USTR Lighthizer has pledged to protect agriculture in the negotiations.

The only good news is that when Trump released his Tax Plan, border adjustment taxes were not part of the proposal.  But in a recent hearing before the House Ways and Means, one could tell Congressmen are split, but Republicans want border adjustment taxes.  On May 23rd, however, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin told House Democrats on Ways and Means that he and President Trump are opposed to the Border Adjustment tax.

One interesting note is that Trump’s proposal to cut corporate taxes to 15% has China scared.  Chinese companies could move to the US to set up production

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR

With the number of trade cases being filed, including the Section 232 cases against Steel and Aluminum, which give President Trump carte blanche authority to issue tariffs and other import restrictions, the President truly is creating a trade war.  Trump’s threat to kill NAFTA scared Canada and Mexico to come to the table.  One of the reasons for Trump’s threat is the Canadian threat not to drop its barriers to US dairy exports.

One Canadian Parliament member threatened President Trump not to get so tough on trade.  The member should understand that such threats play right into the hands of Donald Trump and his argument that NAFTA is not truly a free trade agreement.

But all these threats and trade cases will make it very difficult to conclude trade agreements. In looking at Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s plan to get to 3% GDP increase, one pillar of the plan is increased exports.  Exports, however, will not increase if there is a trade war, and it sure looks like that is going to happen.

From January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017, the GDP was an anemic 0.7%.  Trump has to change that dramatically and deciding to have a trade war with every country is not the way to change the GDP number.

In fact, all these trade cases could be the Achilles heal of Trump’s Economic policy.  Trump’s carrots to encourage domestic industry, including lowering taxes and cutting regulations, are not the issue.  Protectionist walls to try and protect raw material industries, however, will have an opposite effect because of the collateral damage these orders will have on US downstream producers, which use these raw material inputs.  As Ronald Reagan stated, “Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.”  But protectionism is not a partisan issue, as the only one more protectionist than President Trump may be the Democratic party.

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR ON DOWNSTREAM INDUSTRIES—COLD DRAWN MECHANICAL TUBING

To understand the real impact of the Trump Steel War on downstream industries, including the US auto parts and automobile industries, read the quotes below.  The Automobile Industry is going to be hit hard.

On April 19, 2017, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed an antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) petition against imports of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from China, Germany, India, Italy, Korea and Switzerland.

Cold-drawn mechanical tubing can be sold as a commodity product to be used in the oil & gas, mining, agricultural and construction industries.  Certain types of mechanical tubing are also sold as commodity products to the auto industry to produce axles and drive shafts, but there is another segment of the auto parts industry, which produces specialized automotive products.  Because of US safety requirements, the specialized auto products companies need made to order mechanical tubing.  They cannot simply buy mechanical tubing off the shelf.  Petitioners, however, want the auto parts companies to buy their commodity products.

In order to win the antidumping and the countervailing duty case, Petitioners must establish dumping and subsidization at the Commerce Department and injury to the U.S. industry at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  Once the petition was filed, the ITC immediately started up its 45 day preliminary injury investigation.   On May 10, 2017, the ITC held a hearing in Washington DC in the preliminary investigation and then we submitted a post-conference brief.

We represent in the case importers and two US auto parts companies. The importers, including these specialized auto parts companies, are very worried because the Commerce Department preliminary determinations, which will be issued very soon on September 16, 2017 (“CVD)” and November 15, 2017 (“AD”),  are when their liability begins.  With the Trump Administration and the Commerce Department’s war on steel imports, the duties are expected to be very high.  This is especially true with regard to China since Commerce does not use actual Chinese prices and costs to determine dumping.  Like many downstream customers in US AD and CVD cases, the customers are telling the ITC that they may have to close production and move offshore to get access to the higher quality competitive raw steel products.  Our hope is that the ITC will listen to these arguments, but to date the ITC has ignored them.  End users do not have standing in AD and CVD cases at the ITC.

As stated in our ITC postconference brief:

“The Petitioners/US mechanical tubing industry in this case will recover as their commodity markets in the energy, agricultural, mining and machinery markets recover.  But since antidumping and countervailing duty orders stay in place for 5 to 30 years, the impact of this case on the US downstream auto part and automobile industries will last for many years.

If the Commission goes affirmative in this case, we will see many auto parts producers close shop and move to another country where they can buy the high quality mechanical tubing that they need to compete with the loss of thousands of US jobs.  Many of these companies, including voestalpline Rotec Inc., already have operations in Canada, Mexico and through their parent company in numerous other countries and they will move their operations to obtain the high quality raw materials that they need to safely compete in the downstream auto parts market.”

As Andrew Ball, President, of voestalpine Rotec in Lafayette, Indiana stated at the Preliminary Conference:

“Our customers will not allow a change in the supply base, and this material is absolutely not available from these U.S. producers, thus making the decision to move equipment to other countries or procuring the completed components from our other global facilities in Austria, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Poland a likely outcome.

With so much discussion surrounding trade imbalance, it is ironic that because of this case, we as a U.S. manufacturer will be forced to relocate millions of dollars of manufacturing equipment with significant loss of U.S. jobs for specialty high value, highly engineered components because several commodity U.S. producers are determined to ignore market realities.

I can say with a high degree of certainty that none of the petitioners will see one extra pound, not one single foot of material as a result of this action.  I am certain, however, that companies like ours and our customers will accelerate the relocation of domestic manufacturing to other countries, and all this business will flow in NAFTA region as semi-finished components, thus avoiding the dumping duty altogether. . . .

I simply cannot ignore the reality that the automotive industry waits for no one and for nothing.  To highlight this point, in 2013 our facility took a direct hit from an F-3 tornado, obliterating 30 percent of our manufacturing capacity.  Within 48 hours, we had the rest of the facility fully operational and with the help of our international partners and domestic competition, we had the balance of our business sourced and supplying parts to assembly facilities throughout the world within four days. Not one single production line was affected as a result. . . .

That was a natural disaster.  This one is man-made, and I can assure you that in 45 days if this case is not dismissed, these actions will accelerate the market forces already working against our U.S. manufacturing base and will either force our hand or the hand of our customers to move business overseas in many places closer to the customer locations in Mexico, to ensure the continuity of cost, quality and service, resulting in the loss of precious U.S. manufacturing jobs, future investment and all but killing the chances of fixing the trade imbalance.”

As Andrew Ball further stated in the ITC Postconference brief:

“This petition puts at risk our factory, our jobs and the factories and jobs of our US customers and subcontractors. Increases to prices that are already considered high in the global market will result in our customers resourcing our business to other suppliers or will force them to insist that we move equipment to other locations in the world to avoid this unjustified action. I was always raised that before I ask for help it was expected that I had done everything I could to help myself. Why then have none of the petitioners made sales calls to my organization looking to reform or start a partnership ahead of this action? Unfortunately, if you vote affirmative, resource decisions will be taken well ahead of the final DOC determination for risk mitigation purposes. I trust that you will analyze all details in this case and make your determination based on clear “facts and data.”

Another auto parts company stated in the brief:

We have fixed contracts with our vendors and customers, so any increase in piece price will be countered by evaluating the region that we manufacture products in or may require that we look at bringing in the  components from other countries. If your vote is affirmative then we will be making these decisions ahead of  the determination by the DOC in September as the risk is too high to wait.

If these auto parts component companies do not move, their customers, the auto parts producers, which are multi-nationals, will move because auto parts companies cannot buy commodity products when safety issues are a concern.  Product Liability cases can bankrupt an auto parts producer.

In her statement at the Preliminary Conference, Julie Ellis, President of Tube Fabrication of Logansport, Indiana echoed Andrew Ball’s statement:

The impact of this case on downstream manufacturing operations will result in the loss of thousands of jobs, maybe even more jobs than those saved by the case.  If we are unable to provide our customers with tube components at a competitive global price, they will be forced to move production from the United States to other countries.

Most of our customers already have global operations in place and have the ability to divert the production away from the U.S. locations to remain competitive.  The loss of business would not only impact businesses like TFI, but coating facilities, plating operations, heat treating, tool and die shops, machine shops, testing facilities, transportation companies, along with our customers’ U.S. facilities, and further downstream manufacturing.

In other words, in response to this petition, we fear that U.S. automotive companies will simply shift and procure the final parts with the tubes in them from multiple overseas operations.  From our point of view, this case will not result in any more tubes being switched to U.S. producers.  Instead, it will simply be a lose-lose situation.

TFI is representative of many U.S. producers at a comparable level of U.S. production.  The inability of Tube Fabrication and other companies in similar situations to remain competitive will result in a tremendous loss of jobs in the U.S. downstream manufacturing sector.  We will be forced to either move portions of our operations to Mexico, where we currently ship 20 percent of the components that we manufacture in the United States and/or cut USW jobs and benefits.

In her statement attached to the Brief, Julie Ellis states:

This is a rural community with limited manufacturing operations. We are an asset to the local economy, pay our taxes and provide community support. Thru the years we have watched as many of the local manufacturing companies have closed up operations and moved to Mexico and overseas. The inability of Tube Fabrication and other companies in similar situations, to remain competitive, could result in a tremendous loss of jobs in the downstream US manufacturing sector. It could potentially equate to thousands of people being displaced. We must have the ability to procure our raw materials at a competitive global price or we will lose business! As I said in my statement at the hearing, 20% of the components that we manufacture ship to Mexico. Please don’t force us to be the next ones to go!

Petitioners argue that respondents are simply exaggerating the problem and that the issue is simply dumped low import prices.  But in this case, the issue is not just price; it is quality.  As one importer, Salem Steel, stated at the Preliminary Conference, the same scenario played out as a result of the Section 201 Steel case, where many steel products were shut out of the US market:

“This scenario has happened before. One widely quoted study by Dr. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman of Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC showed that as a result of Section 201 investigation brought at the behest of the U.S. steel industry, 200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices in 2002.

More Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices in 2002 than the total number employed by the entire steel industry itself in the U.S.  Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in California, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Florida.”

In the attached Trade Partnership article, STEEL USERS ARTICLE1, Dr. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman state at page 1 and 2 of their article that as a result of the Section 201 trade restrictions on steel:

“200,000 Americans lost their jobs to higher steel prices during 2002. These lost jobs represent approximately $4 billion in lost wages from February to November 2002.

One out of four (50,000) of these job losses occurred in the metal manufacturing, machinery and equipment and transportation equipment and parts sectors.

Job losses escalated steadily over 2002, peaking in November (at 202,000 jobs), and slightly declining to 197,000 jobs in December.

More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself (187,500 Americans were employed by U.S. steel producers in December 2002).

Every U.S. state experienced employment losses from higher steel costs, with the highest losses occurring in California (19,392 jobs lost), Texas (15,826 jobs lost), Ohio (10,553 jobs lost), Michigan (9,829 jobs lost), Illinois (9,621 jobs lost), Pennsylvania (8,400 jobs lost), New York (8,901 jobs lost) and Florida (8,370 jobs lost). Sixteen states lost at least 4,500 steel consuming jobs each over the course of 2002 from higher steel prices. . . .

Steel tariffs caused shortages of imported product and put U.S. manufacturers of steel-containing products at a disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors. In the absence of the tariffs, the damage to steel consuming employment would have been significantly less than it was in 2002.

The analysis shows that American steel consumers have borne heavy costs from higher steel prices caused by shortages, tariffs and trade remedy duties, among other factors. Some customers of steel consumers have moved sourcing offshore as U.S. producers of steel-containing products became less reliable and more expensive. Other customers refused to accept higher prices from their suppliers and forced them to absorb the higher steel costs, which put many in a precarious (or worse) financial condition. The impact on steel-consuming industries has been significant.”

But the remedy in the Section 201 case lasts from three to five years and in the Section 201 Steel case, President Bush lifted the restraints on Steel imports sooner because of the very damaging impact on downstream users.  Antidumping and Countervailing Duty orders stay in place for five to thirty years.

The experience of downstream users in the Mechanical Tubing case reflects the experience of many downstream users in steel cases, such as the recent AD and CVD cases against Carbon Steel Wire Rod.  There are real costs that will be borne by US downstream companies and their employees because of this Mechanical Tubing trade case and any AD and CVD orders that are issued.  The Commission should have learned the same lesson from its AD order on Magnesium from China, which has been in place for more than ten years.  This AD Order protects a one company US industry in Utah, but it has led to the demise of the entire US Magnesium dye casting industry and the movement of many light weight auto parts companies to Canada.  But since downstream industries have no standing in an AD and CVD cases and there is no part of the injury provision to take this collateral damage into account, although downstream industries can testify at the ITC, in fact, they have no voice.

As Andrew Ball of voestalpine Rotec stated at the Preliminary Conference, ”I simply cannot ignore the reality that the automotive industry waits for no one and for nothing.”  With Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders staying in place for 5 to 30 years, if the Commission does not look at market realities, many, many US auto parts companies will close down and move to a third countries.  The real result of this Mechanical Tubing case brought by the Petitioners could well be to hollow out the US auto parts industry and lead to the destruction of the Petitioners’ US customers.

This is the real cost of the Trump trade war—thousands of jobs lost in downstream industries.

SECTION 232 INVESTIGATIONS  — STEEL AND ALUMINUM

In response to pressure from President Trump, Commerce Secretary Ross has self-initiated National Security cases under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. 1862, against imports of steel and aluminum, which go directly into downstream US production.  The danger of these cases is that there is no check on Presidential power if the Commerce Department finds that steel or aluminum “is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall so advise the President”.  The Secretary shall also advise the President on potential remedies.

If the Secretary reports affirmatively, the President has 90 days to determine whether it concurs with the Secretary’s determination and “determine the nature and duration of the action that, in the judgment of the President, must be taken to adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.”

Once the President makes his affirmative determination, he will report his decision to Congress.  According to the Statute, on Petroleum and Petroleum products, the Congress can disapprove the decision, but there is no reference to Steel or Aluminum so it is questionable whether Congress can overrule the President in these cases.   The statute also does not provide for any appeal to the Court of International Trade.  Commerce also is very protectionist and in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, the only check is the injury determination by the independent US International Trade Commission.  There is no such determination under Section 232.

Moreover, in these Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases, it is questionable how much weight Commerce will give to comments or testimony by downstream raw material users.  This is dangerous because tariffs on steel products may cause real harm to the downstream automobile industry, which is important for National Security too.

STEEL

On April 20, 2017, President Trump and the Commerce Department in the attached press announcement and fact sheet along with a Federal Register notice, Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Steel on U.S, Presidential Memorandum Prioritizes Commerce Steel Investigation, COMMERCE FED REG SECTION 232 NOTICE, announced the self-initiation of a Section 232 National Security case against imports of steel from every country.  See video of Trump signing the Executive Order with Secretary Ross and Steel Producers at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiVfNOl-_Ho.

Commerce held a hearing on May 24th in this case.  The video of the hearing can be found at https://www.commerce.gov/file/public-hearing-section-232-investigation-steel-imports-national-security.  Witnesses were given five minutes each to make their concerns known.  Written comments are due at the Commerce Department on May 31st.

At the hearing, Secretary Ross stated that a written report would go to the President by the end of June.

At the end of the hearing, several downstream users asked Commerce to exclude certain steel products from any remedy in the Section 232 case.  Counsel for the Steel Importers warned Commerce about retaliation against US exports of military products, including airplanes and agriculture products.

At the start of the hearing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said something has to be done to help the Steel producers.  In the past Secretary Ross has stated that the Section 232 case is meant to fill the gaps created by the patchwork of antidumping and countervailing duties on foreign steel, which he said have provided only limited relief to the U.S. industry:

“It’s a fairly porous system and while it has accomplished some fair measure of reduction, it doesn’t solve the whole problem.  So we are groping here to see whether the facts warrant a more comprehensive solution that would deal with a very wide range of steel products and a very wide range of countries.”

At the Trump Press Conference, Ross stated:

I am proud to stand here today and say that, under your leadership, we are restoring the primacy of American national security, American workers, and American businesses.

For years, we have simply reacted to over 150 cases of improper imports of foreign steel into this country. With our investigation launched last night, the federal government will finally become proactive.

This investigation will help ensure steel import issues do not make us less safe in a world that is increasingly fraught with geopolitical tensions.

The sheer volume of steel trade cases makes it clear that global steel overcapacity has an impact on our economy, but for the first time we will examine its impact on our national security.

We will conduct this investigation thoroughly and expeditiously so that we can fully enforce our trade laws and defend this country against those who would do us harm.

I look forward to the completion of this investigation so that I can report not just the findings, but also any concrete solutions that we may deem appropriate.

Under section 232 the Commerce Department will determine whether steel imports “threaten to impair” national security.  Commerce must issue its findings to the White House within 270 days, along with recommendations on what steps to take.

But Ross said that the investigation may move along a quicker track, citing the abundance of steel data the U.S. already has on hand from its past investigations as well as a memorandum from President Donald Trump that calls for the agency to expedite the process.  In fact, at the hearing, Secretary Ross stated that a report to the President will be issued by the end of June.

Once Commerce’s review is completed, the president has 90 days to decide whether to accept or reject its recommendations. The statute gives the administration wide latitude to act, including raising tariffs

Secretary Ross further stated in the past:

“We will conduct this investigation thoroughly and expeditiously so that, if necessary, we can take actions to defend American national security, workers, and businesses against foreign threats.  This investigation will help determine whether steel import issues are making us less safe in a world that is increasingly fraught with geopolitical tensions.”

While the use of Section 232 is rare, the actual deployment of tariffs under the 1962 law is even rarer. Commerce last conducted a Section 232 probe of iron and steel in 2001, but ultimately decided that the goods posed no national security threat, and no further action was taken.

The last time an administration forged ahead with import relief under the law was 1975, when President Gerald Ford hiked license fees and other charges on shipments of imported petroleum during the throes of the mid-70s oil crisis. President Richard Nixon also used Section 232 to impose an across-the-board 10 percent surcharge program in 1971.

But with the new protectionist outlook of the Trump Administration, the huge steel overcapacity in China, and the fact that there are no checks under section 232, this action could definitely result in tariffs, quotas and other trade remedies.

ALUMINUM

On April 27, 2017, President Trump and the US Commerce Department self-initiated a Section 232 National Security case against imports of aluminum from all countries.  Attached are documents related to the Case, ALUMINUM FED REG PUBAluminum Presidential Memo Summary.  The hearing will be June 22, 2017 at the Commerce Department.  The Presidential Memorandum issued on April 27th provides:

This Presidential Memorandum (PM) directs the Secretary of Commerce to investigate, in accordance with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the effects on national security of aluminum imports.

During this investigation, the Secretary will consider the following:

The domestic production of aluminum needed for projected national defense requirements.

The capacity of domestic industries to meet such requirements.

The existing and anticipated availabilities of the human resources, products, raw materials, and other supplies and services essential to the national defense.

Recognize the close relation of the Nation’s economic welfare to our national security, and consider the effect of foreign competition in the aluminum industry on the economic welfare of domestic industries.

Consider any substantial unemployment, decrease in government revenues, loss of skills or investment, or other serious effects resulting from the displacement of any domestic products by excessive aluminum imports.

The Secretary shall conduct this investigation with speed and efficiency in order to find if aluminum is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.

If the above is deemed true, the Secretary shall recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust aluminum imports so that they will not threaten to impair the national security.

Although Secretary Ross wants to expedite the case, there are rumors that many investigators and other staff in Import Administration have now been moved to work on the Section 232 cases.  With an enormous number of antidumping and countervailing duty cases along with two large Section 232 cases, Commerce staff will be stretched very thin.

SOLAR AD AND CVD CASES DID NOT WORK SO LET’S TRY A SECTION 201 ESCAPE CLAUSE CASE

Just recently, Solar World, the company that brought the Solar Cells and Solar Products antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China, announced that it was going into insolvency.  The bottom line is that the antidumping and countervailing duty orders against solar cells and solar products from China did not save Solar World, but they did result in substantial damage to the upstream US Polysilicon industry.  Because of the US action, China brought its own antidumping and countervailing duty case against $2 billion in US Polysilicon exported to China.  REC Silicon in Moses Lake, Washington got hit with a 57% antidumping duty, deferred a $1 billion investment into Moses Lake, and in November 2016 laid off 70 workers in Moses Lake and cut their capacity in half.

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case.  If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, within 60 days the President must decide whether or not to impose import relief, which can be in the form of increased tariffs, quotas or an orderly marketing agreements.

By the way, in its determination to the President the ITC is to report any assistance given companies under the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program, the only government program that truly saves US companies.  President Trump, however, in his recent budget proposal completely zeroed out the TAA for Companies program.  More about this below.  Directly contrary to President Reagan, President Trump does not want to make US companies more competitive so that they can compete; he wants to put up protectionist walls.

The main targets of the Petition are not imports from China, but imports from third countries.  In response to the antidumping and countervailing duty orders, many Chinese companies moved to third countries and set up production there.

SCOPE OF THE 201 INVESTIGATION

The articles covered by this investigation are CSPV cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building-integrated materials.

The investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of a thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction (or variant thereof) formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.

Included in the scope of the investigation are photovoltaic cells that contain crystalline silicon in addition to other photovoltaic materials. This includes, but is not limited to, passivated emitter rear contact (“PERC”) cells, heterojunction with intrinsic thin-layer (“HIIT”) cells, and other so-called “hybrid” cells.

Excluded from the investigation are CSPV cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, if the CSPV cells were manufactured in the United States.

Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm in surface area, that are permanently integrated into a consumer good whose function is other than power generation and that consumes the electricity generated by the integrated crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell. Where more than one cell is permanently integrated into a consumer good, the surface area for purposes of this exclusion shall be the total combined surface area of all cells that are integrated into the consumer good.

SECTION 201 PROCEDURES IN SOLAR CELL CASE

At the ITC, Section 201 cases are a two stage process.  The ITC must first determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.”  The ITC has determined that the investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” and will make its injury determination within 128 days after the petition was filed, or by September 22, 2017. The Commission will submit to the President the report required under section 202(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 2252(f)(1)) within 180 days after the date on which the petition was filed, or by November 13, 2017.

Notices of appearance at the ITC are due in about three weeks from now or 21 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register.  During the injury phase of the investigation, the ITC will hold an injury hearing on August 15, 2017.  Prehearing briefs are due at the ITC on August 8, 2017.  Posthearing briefs will be due at the ITC on August 22nd.

If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, it will go into a remedy phase and the hearing in that phase will be on October 3, 2017.

REASONS FOR SECTION 201 PETITION

According to Suniva in its petition, the problem is not China.  Suniva argues that the antidumping and countervailing duty orders in the Solar Cells and Solar Products case were simply evaded:

“as the impacted producers have simply opened significant capacity in third countries not subject to those AD/CVD orders. One of the underlying principles of those prior Title VII cases was that implementing duties against the subject goods originating from the offending countries would­ create a cost basis that generates greater domestic price equity. Unfortunately, that outcome has not occurred. Rather than invest in U.S. manufacturing or charge fair market prices, Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturers, either directly through the establishment of their own facilities, or indirectly through the support of contract manufacturing operations in Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, created alternative capacity that was not subject to U.S. tariffs.  In fact, the data in this petition shows a direct correlation between:

  • The institution of tariffs against subject goods made in China or Taiwan;
  • The reduction of imports into the United States from those countries; and

The increase in imports from Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and other third countries.”

The Petition also states:

“What is striking is that even with these relatively high duties against two of the world’ s largest CSPV cell and module countries, imports continue to flood into the United States. Also striking is the quantity of Chinese and Taiwanese product that continues to enter the United States -, despite these dumping and subsidy duties. What these AD/CVD cases have also done is push production into new countries – meaning that they have led to increased global production and capacity. Consider:

  • In a March 21, 2017, article in the Financial Post, it was reported about Canadian Solar that :”The company said it has also increased production from its manufacturing facilities in Southeast Asia and Taiwan to serve the U.S. market and avoid import “
  • In a January 10, 2017, article in Taiyang News, the following is stated about Chinese producer Solar Trina: “Trina Solar has begun production of solar panels at its newly opened Vietnam factory. The facility with capacity of 800 MW annually is located in Quang Chau Industrial Park in Viet Yen district, northern Ban Giang province, reported The Voice of Vietnam.” The article continues: “After Malaysia, Vietnam is now coming up as one of the most sought after locations for Chinese solar power companies to set up their manufacturing units. Some of the biggest names, including Trina Solar, Jinko Solar and the like have voluntarily withdrawn from the European Commission’s minimum import price (MIP) undertaking which slaps anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties ori solar panels produced in China. Most of them are keen to operate from locations beyond China to be able to circumvent these duties and even more the customs in the much larger US solar market.”
  • In a March 29, 2016, article in PY Magazine, it is reported that “Trina Solar reports that it has begun production at its PY cell and module factory in Rayong Thailand, which has the capacity to produce 700 MW of cells and 500 MW of PY modules annually.” It continues “Southeast Asia has become a major destination for Chinese and Taiwanese PY cell and module makers seeking to avoid U.S. and EU import duties on their “
  • In an October 26, 2015, press release, it is announced that Chinese producer JA Solar Holdings, , Ltd. opened a 400MW cell manufacturing facility in Penang, Malaysia. As stated in the release: “These cells will primarily be used to manufacture JS Solar Modules outside of China to provide competitive product solutions to certain overseas markets.”
  • In an October 6, 2016, PV Magazine article, it was noted that JA Solar further expanded its Malaysian operations. The article further notes: “The expansion comes in the face of falling module prices around the world, as an oversupply seems to be taking hold of the “
  • In a July 24, 2016, CLEANTECHIES article, it is reported that JA Solar is planning a $1 billion dollar module factory in Vietnam. As noted in the article: “The company already operates 8 factories across the {sic} Europe, the US and Japan. JA Solar, like several other·module manufacturers, facing import restrictions and duties in developed markets like the US and Chinese {sic}. Several Chinese and Taiwanese companies have opened factories in overseas locations-to bypass these restrictions.”
  • A January 25, 2016, China Daily article discusses Chinese panel producers moving operations to Thailand because “solar panels made in the kingdom do not invite heavy duties in the US and Europe.”.

In short, an unforeseen development of the antidumping and countervailing duty cases . . . has been the proliferation of CSPV cell and module manufacturing across the globe. This further supports the use of this global safeguard action. Without global relief, the domestic industry will be playing “whack-a-mole” against CSPV cells and modules from particular countries.

In short, imports have clearly “increased” within the meaning of the statute. Indeed, the increase has been massive; and the recent surge has been highly debilitating to the market structure. The way that the world’s largest producers have reacted to antidumping and countervailing duty claims demonstrates that global relief is required.”

The petition also shows enormous increases of solar cells from Mexico and Canada and with regards to Canada states as follows:

“Transshipment of Chinese-origin CSPV cells through Canada would explain the rapid growth in imports of CSPV cells and modules from Canada in recent years.”

The Petition also states:

“Further, the U.S. industry could not have foreseen that foreign producers, in response to [the antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China would move so rapidly and drastically to open new production facilities in third-countries resulting in no relief for the U.S. industry from the application of the orders in the antidumping and countervailing duty cases. As shown by the import data presented in Exhibit 7, the surge in imports from third-countries after the imposition of the AD and CVD orders is completely unprecedented and unforeseeable.  For example, between 2014 and 2016, imports from Malaysia surged 67 percent/while overtaking China as the largest source of imports. In addition, imports from Korea surged by 827 percent while increasing to become the third largest source of imports.  Imports from Mexico, now the fourth largest source of imports, surged 77 percent. Imports from Thailand, now the fifth largest source of imports, surged over 76,000 percent. Such a rapid and significant increase in imports from third-countries is an unprecedented and completely unforeseen development.”

Between the time the Petition was filed and the ITC institution of the case, Wuxi Suntech announced it opposition to the petition because the law firm that had represented Wuxi Suntech in the antidumping and countervailing duty case against China brought the Section 201 case on behalf of Suniva.  In addition, Sunrun, an importer and user of solar cells, entered a notice of appearance to point out that Solarworld does not support the petition and that Suniva represents less than 20% of US production, but the ITC went forward anyways.  Just today, however, Solar World announced that it is supporting Suniva’s Section 201 Petition.

NEW TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

TOOL CHESTS FROM CHINA AND VIETNAM

On April 11, 2017, Waterloo Industries Inc. filed major Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases against hundreds of millions of dollars of imports of certain tool chests and cabinets from China and Vietnam.

US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China will start on September 8, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties from China and Vietnam will start on November 7, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

If anyone wants a copy of the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted Chinese exporters/producers and US importers, please feel free to contact me.

COLD-DRAWN MECHANICAL TUBING FROM CHINA, GERMANY, INDIA, ITALY, KOREA AND SWITZERLAND

On April 19, 2017, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, Inc. filed major Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases against hundreds of millions of dollars of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from the six countries in 2016.  The petition alleges antidumping duties ranging as follows:

China: 88.2% – 188.88%

India: 25.48%

Italy: 37.23% – 69.13%

Germany: 70.53% – 148.32%

Republic of Korea: 12.14% – 48.61%

Switzerland: 40.53% – 115.21%

The cold-drawn mechanical tubing covered by the complaint is used to produce numerous different products in the United States, including auto parts and machinery.

As stated above, these trade cases move very quickly and many importers are blindsided because of the speed of the investigations.  In the Mechanical Tubing case, the ITC conducted its preliminary injury hearing on May 10, 2017 and briefs were filed soon after.  US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China and India will start on September 16, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties will start on November 15, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

Commerce has already issued quantity and value questionnaires to the Chinese producers in the AD and CVD cases with responses for both cases due June 5th.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

If anyone wants a copy of the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted Chinese exporters/producers and US importers, please feel free to contact me.  Atttached are the relevant parts of the petition, INJURY EXCERPT SCOPE IMPORTERS EXERPT MECHANICAL TUBING FOREIGN PRODUCERS EXCERPT MECHANICAL TUBING.

100 TO 150 SEAT CIVIL AIRCRAFT

On April 27, 2017, in the attached notice, AIRCRAFT, the Boeing Company filed an antidumping and countervailing duty case against 100 to 150 Seat Civil Aircraft from Canada.  The Canadian respondent company is Bombardier.  With all extensions, the Commerce Department’s Preliminary determination in the CVD case, which is when liability begins, is due September 24, 2017 and the Commerce Department’s preliminary AD determination, when liability begins, is due November 23, 2017.

With a sympathetic Trump Administration in power, there will be a sharp rise in AD and CVD cases against China and other countries.

LIGHTHIZER CONFIRMED—NAFTA FIGHT

On May 11, 2017, Robert Lighthizer was confirmed by the Senate as the next USTR.  On May 15th he was sworn into office by Vice President Pence.

With Senators and Congressmen, especially from agricultural states, calling for new trade agreements, USTR will have a lot of work to do.

NAFTA FIGHT

On May 18, 2017, in the attached letter, nafta NOTIFICATION, USTR Lighthizer informed Congress of the President’s intention to renegotiate NAFTA.  In the letter, Lighthizer specifically stated:

In particular, we note that NAFTA was negotiated 25 years ago, and while our economy and businesses have changed considerably over that period, NAFTA has not.  Many chapters are outdated and do not reflect modern standards. For example, digital trade was in its infancy when NAFTA was enacted. In addition, and consistent with the negotiating objectives in the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act, our aim is that NAFTA be modernized to include new provisions to address intellectual property rights, regulatory practices, state-owned enterprises, services, customs procedures, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labor, environment, and small and medium enterprises. Moreover, establishing effective implementation and aggressive enforcement of the commitments made by our trading partners under our trade agreements is vital to the success of those agreements and should be improved in the context of NAFTA. . . .

We are committed to concluding these negotiations with timely and substantive results for U.S. consumers, businesses, farmers, ranchers, and workers, consistent with U.S. priorities and the negotiating objectives established by the Congress in statute. We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress as negotiations with the NAFTA countries begin, and we commit to working with you closely and transparently throughout the process.

On May 18, 2017, John Brinkley published an article in response to the Lighthizer letter:

White House’s NAFTA Renegotiation Letter To Congress Is Surprisingly Rational

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seems to be trying to inject some rationality into President Trump’s trade policies. With the White House in turmoil over the Russia investigation and FBI Director James Comey’s firing, he might just get by with it.

Lighthizer on Thursday formally notified Congress of the administration’s intention to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. The notification started the clock ticking on the 90-day period that has to elapse before the renegotiations can start.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Lighthizer made some surprisingly sensible remarks about what needed to be done – surprising because it included none of the bluster and hostility that President Trump has directed at America’s NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico.

The letter said NAFTA needed to be improved in the areas of intellectual property rights, digital trade, state-owned enterprises, customs procedures, food safety, workers’ rights and environmental protection.

All that is true. NAFTA doesn’t address digital trade, because it didn’t exist in 1993 when the deal was signed, but it now dominates every aspect of international commerce in goods and services.

Workers’ rights and environmental protection are addressed in side agreements that aren’t enforceable. Making those standards tougher fully enforceable would lessen the incentive for US companies to move to Mexico.

The letter also said trade rule enforcement “should be improved in the context of NAFTA.” It’s hard to imagine how that might happen.  NAFTA allows a private company from one of the three countries that has operations in one of the others to file a complaint with the NAFTA secretariat against the host country if the company believes its rights have been violated. This Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) chapter allows for a hearing before a three-judge arbitration panel. Since 1994, the United States has prevailed in every NAFTA ISDS complaint that it has filed or has been filed against it and that has proceeded to a final ruling. It’s going to be hard to improve on that.

When two governments go head-to-head in a trade dispute, they usually take it to the World Trade Organization. The trend there is that the complaining government almost always wins.  The U.S. has won 91% of the cases it has filed in the WTO and lost 84% of those filed against it. Its overall batting average is just over .500. There is nothing that can be done in NAFTA to affect that.

Maybe the best thing the administration could do for American businesses when it convenes the renegotiation with Mexico and Canada is to focus on ways to make it easier for small companies to qualify for duty-free treatment under NAFTA. Lighthizer’s letter seemed to suggest the administration was interested in doing that. It’s easy for big corporations to comply with the myriad rules and regulations that cover imports, exports and free trade agreements; they can hire armies of lawyers and trade specialists to manage compliance with them. Most small firms can’t do that and many find that compliance isn’t worth the time and money. So, they don’t export. Or they export without applying for duty-free treatment under NAFTA. They just pay the tariff. A 2015 Thomson Reuters Global Trade Management survey of small business owners found that complying with rules of origin and other regulations was the principal difficulty that they faced in exporting their products.

To qualify for duty-free treatment under NAFTA, an exporter most certify that a certain percentage of a product’s value originated in the U.S., Mexico or Canada. There are two problems with this. One is that small manufacturers don’t always know where all their parts and components came from and it can be difficult to track them all down. They have to call their suppliers, who may have to call another supplier. The other problem is that the U.S. government allows exporters to use one of two processes for determining regional content and, for most people, neither of them is easy to navigate. . . .

Making this process easier would increase imports and reduce the trade deficit, although not by  much.

If the U.S. negotiators can focus their efforts on these constructive and necessary improvements to NAFTA, rather than on the threats and ultimatums that Trump and his nationalist faction in the White House have made, they might end up with an agreement that all three countries will be happy to sign.

On May 25th, the US Pork Producers issued the attached white paper, NAFTAReport05-24-17, arguing that if NAFTA negotiations lead to the disruption of agricultural exports generally – and pork exports specifically – to Canada and Mexico, that would “have devastating consequences for our farmers and the many American processing and transportation industries and workers supported by these exports.”

The White paper cites an Iowa State economist who states that if Mexico were to respond to a US withdrawal from NAFTA with a 20% duty on pork, the US port industry would lose the entire Mexican market.

Nick Giordano for the National Pork producers went on to state:

“A loss in exports to Mexico of that magnitude would be cataclysmic for the U.S. pork industry. Pork producers will support updating and improving NAFTA but only if duties on U.S. pork remain at zero and pork exports are not disrupted.”

On May 24th, USTR Lighthizer pledged that boosting agricultural exports remains a top priority for the Trump administration. He added that he and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are under specific marching orders to protect current market access for U.S. farm products in the revised NAFTA.  Lighthizer specifically stated:

“The president has specifically told each of us that this is a very, very top priority.  One, not to do any damage and two, to add to the bottom line. So we expect to do that.”

BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES

The only good news about Border Adjustment taxes is the President Trump did not include Border Adjustment Taxes in his tax proposal to Congress.  Despite the decision not to put border adjustment taxes (“BAT”) in the Administration’s tax proposal, the House Republicans and Ways and Means Committee continue to push it.  See May 23rd Ways and Means hearing on Border Adjustment Taxes, at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/live/.

Archer Daniel Midland argued for the BAT, citing problems with Agriculture exports, but the retailers, including Target and WalMart, came out strongly against it.  One witness stated that US products are taxed twice, but imports are only taxed once and get a rebate when the product is exported to the US.

But it was also clear from the hearing that Congressmen are split on the Border Adjustment tax.

On May 23, 2017 Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, however, in a closed-door meeting with Democrats on the Ways and Means stated that both he and President Trump are opposed to the Border Adjustment Tax.   One California Democrat, Judy Chu, on the Ways and Means Committee, directly asked Mnuchin if he supported  the  BAT.  As she stated Mnuchin’s concern was the impact on consumers:

“He actually said straight out that he doesn’t support it and the president doesn’t support it.  Unless he was lying to us yesterday, I really felt it was dead on arrival.”

On May 24th, Paul Ryan stated that the BAT needs to be changed and immediately imposing it in its full form would be “too disruptive”.

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES – A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TRADE REMEDY WHICH ACTUALLY WORKS

As indicated in previous blog posts, I feel very strongly about the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program because with very low funding it has a true track record of saving US companies.  In fact, in the ongoing Section 201 case on Solar Cells, the statute requires the industry seeking protection to provide a trade adjustment plan to the Commission to explain how the industry intends to adjust if trade relief is provided.  The problem is that the Commission is not the entity with experience on determining whether the Trade Adjustment plans are viable.  The entities with that experience in trade adjustment plans are the various trade adjustment centers throughout the US.

Donald Trump’s proposed budget, however, would 0/zero out the trade adjustment assistance for companies program.  Although Secretary Wilbur Ross has made it very clear he wants to increase exports to reach the 3% plus growth rate, putting protectionist walls up to limit imports of steel, aluminum and many other products invites retaliation.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports.  Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports to make them more competitive.  The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure.  Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Right now the total cost to the US Taxpayer for this nationwide program is $12.5 million dollars—truthfully peanuts in the Federal budget.  Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.  In his budget, Trump increases TAA for Workers, but kills TAA for Companies.  Yet to retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job in TAA for workers is $5,000.  To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works.  In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, 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.

But as also stated in my last blog post, in this environment with so many injured companies, funding for TAA for Firms/Companies has to be increased so it can do its job.   Moreover, with the threats of a massive trade war in the air, which will injure all US companies and destroy US jobs, the US government needs to look at an alternative—TAA for Firms/Companies is that alternative.

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS

Attached are newsletters from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office about developments in Chinese trade law.  Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.16 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.17 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.18 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.19 Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.20

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NEW SECTION 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES

COLLAPSIBLE SOCKETS FROM MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES

On April 10, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, SOCKETS MARINE ,PopSockets LLC filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Collapsible Sockets for Mobile Electronic Devices from the following Chinese companies:

Agomax Group Ltd., Hong Kong; Guangzhou Xi Xun Electronics Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Chuanghui Industry Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen VVI Electronic Limited, China; Shenzhen Yright Technology Co., Ltd., China; Hangzhou Hangkai Technology Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Kinsen Technology Co., Limited, China; Shenzhen Enruize Technology Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Showerstar Industrial Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Lamye Technology Co., Ltd., China; Jiangmen Besnovo Electronics Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Belking Electronic Co., Ltd., China; Yiwu Wentou Import & Export Co., Ltd., China; and Shenzhen CEX Electronic Co., Limited, China.

ROBOTIC VACUUM CLEANING DEVICES

On April 18, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, ROBOTIC VACUM CLEANERS, iRobot Corporation filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices from the following US and Chinese companies:

Bissell Homecare, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan; Hoover Inc., Glenwillow, Ohio; Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co., Inc. d/b/a TTI Floor Care North America, Inc., Glenwillow, Ohio; Bobsweep, Inc., Canada; Bobsweep USA, Henderson, Nevada; The Black & Decker Corporation, Towson, Maryland; Black & Decker (U.S) Inc., Towson, Maryland; Shenzhen ZhiYi Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a iLife, China; Matsutek Enterprises Co., Ltd., Taiwan; Suzhou Real Power Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., China; and Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., China.If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, border adjustment 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.

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump’s Trade War on downstream industries, the Mechanical Tubing case, the Section 232 cases, the 201 case against Solar Cells, border adjustment 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.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–TRUMP TRADE AGENDA, INTERNAL TRADE BATTLES, LIGHTHIZER, BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES, AGRICULTURE, NAFTA, TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE, CFIUS, ZTE AND SECTION 337

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR UPDATE APRIL 21, 2017—MANY NEW TRADE CASES BEING FILED

The Trump trade war has escalated big time with new antidumping and countervailing duty cases against Mechanical Tubing, Tool Chests and a new Section 232 National Security case against all Steel imports.  Many importers simply do not realize how fast these trade cases move and how fast they can find themselves liable for antidumping and countervailing duties and other trade sanctions. With a sympathetic Trump Administration and a very sympathetic Wilbur Ross as the new Secretary of Commerce, more cases are going to be filed against China and numerous other countries.

In addition to the new trade cases, two section 337 patent cases has been filed against China on sockets for mobile electronic devices and robotic vacuum cleaning devices.

COLD-DRAWN MECHANICAL TUBING FROM CHINA, GERMANY, INDIA, ITALY, KOREA AND SWITZERLAND

On April 19, 2017, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products, Michigan Seamless Tube, LLC, PTC Alliance Corp., Webco Industries, Inc., and Zekelman Industries, Inc. filed major Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases against hundreds of millions of dollars of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from the six countries in 2016.  The petition alleges antidumping duties ranging as follows:

China: 88.2% – 188.88%

India: 25.48%

Italy: 37.23% – 69.13%

Germany: 70.53% – 148.32%

Republic of Korea: 12.14% – 48.61%

Switzerland: 40.53% – 115.21%

The cold-drawn mechanical tubing covered by the complaint is used to produce numerous different products in the United States, including auto parts and machinery.

As stated above, these trade cases move very quickly and many importers are blindsided because of the speed of the investigations.  In the Mechanical Tubing case, as indicated in the attached notice, ITC PRELIM MECHANICAL TUBING NOTICE, the ITC will conduct its preliminary injury hearing on May 10, 2017.  US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China and India will start on September 16, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties will start on November 15, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

If Importers want to fight the case, they must move quickly.  The first ITC hearing in the case will be on May 10, 2017, which is the part of the proceeding where importers can have a real impact.

Atttached is a copy of the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted Indian, Chinese, Korean, German, Swiss and Italian exporters/producers and US importers, please feel free to contact me.  INJURY EXCERPT SCOPE IMPORTERS EXERPT MECHANICAL TUBING FOREIGN PRODUCERS EXCERPT MECHANICAL TUBING

TOOL CHESTS FROM CHINA AND VIETNAM

On April 11, 2017, Waterloo Industries Inc. filed major Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases against hundreds of millions of dollars of imports of certain tool chests and cabinets from China and Vietnam.

As indicated in the attached notice, ITC PRELIM MECHANICAL TUBING NOTICE, in the Tool Chests case, the ITC will conduct its preliminary injury hearing on May 2, 2017.  US importers’ liability for countervailing duties on imports from China will start on September 8, 2017, 150 days after the petition was filed, and for Antidumping Duties from China and Vietnam will start on November 7, 2017, 210 days after the petition was filed.

The entire investigation will take one year and antidumping and countervailing duty orders can last for 5 to 30 years.

If Importers want to fight the case, they must move quickly.  The first ITC hearing in the case will be on May 2, 2017, which is the part of the proceeding where importers can have a real impact.

Attached is a copy of the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted Chinese and Vietnamese exporters/producers and US importers, Tool chests CHN VNM petition vol 1 narrative.  If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.

With a sympathetic Trump Administration in power, there will be a sharp rise in AD and CVD cases against China and other countries.

NEW NATIONAL SECURITY SECTION 232 CASE AGAINST STEEL IMPORTS FROM NUMEROUS COUNTRIES, INCLUDING CHINA

On April 20, 2017, as indicated in the attached documents, Presidential Memorandum Prioritizes Commerce Steel Investigation _ Department of Commerce Section 232 Investigation on the Effect of Imports of Steel on U.S, President Trump announced a new trade investigation of steel imports under section 232 to determine if the tariffs should be imposed because the increased steel imports pose a threat to national security.  The trade action will be conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act since 2001.

If the Commerce Department determines that the steel imports are a threat to national security, President Trump will be empowered to levy high tariffs and quotas on imports of steel products from various countries.

Under Section 232, the Commerce Department will conduct an investigation into the potential national security threat posed by the entry of foreign steel into the U.S. market. Commerce must issue its findings to the White House within 270 days, along with recommendations on what steps to take.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has stated, however, that the investigation may move along a faster track.  Once Commerce’s review is completed, the President has 90 days to decide whether to accept or reject its recommendations and to impose trade restraints, including tariffs or quotas on steel imports.

This may be the first attack, not just against China, but all steel imports from every country.  The problems with Commerce self-initiating antidumping and countervailing duty cases is the International Trade Commission.  The Administration does not control the ITC, but it does control Commerce.  By bringing a section 232 case, the Administration skips the injury test by the ITC and assuming the Commerce Department reaches an affirmative determination, the President is empowered to impose import relief in the form of tariffs and quotas.  From the Administration’s point of view, there is more than one way to solve the import problem.

NEW SECTION 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES

COLLAPSIBLE SOCKETS FROM MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES

On April 10, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, SOCKETS MARINE, PopSockets LLC filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Collapsible Sockets for Mobile Electronic Devices from the following Chinese companies:

Agomax Group Ltd., Hong Kong; Guangzhou Xi Xun Electronics Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Chuanghui Industry Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen VVI Electronic Limited, China; Shenzhen Yright Technology Co., Ltd., China; Hangzhou Hangkai Technology Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Kinsen Technology Co., Limited, China; Shenzhen Enruize Technology Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Showerstar Industrial Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Lamye Technology Co., Ltd., China; Jiangmen Besnovo Electronics Co., Ltd., China; Shenzhen Belking Electronic Co., Ltd., China; Yiwu Wentou Import & Export Co., Ltd., China; and Shenzhen CEX Electronic Co., Limited, China.

ROBOTIC VACUUM CLEANING DEVICES

On April 18, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, ROBOTIC VACUM CLEANERS, iRobot Corporation filed a section 337 patent case against imports of Robotic Vacuum Cleaning Devices from the following US and Chinese companies:

Bissell Homecare, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan; Hoover Inc., Glenwillow, Ohio; Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co., Inc. d/b/a TTI Floor Care North America, Inc., Glenwillow, Ohio; Bobsweep, Inc., Canada; Bobsweep USA, Henderson, Nevada; The Black & Decker Corporation, Towson, Maryland; Black & Decker (U.S) Inc., Towson, Maryland; Shenzhen ZhiYi Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a iLife, China; Matsutek Enterprises Co., Ltd., Taiwan; Suzhou Real Power Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., China; and Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., China.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the antidumping and countervailing duty cases, Section 232 Steel case, Trump and Trade, US trade policy, or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR MARCH 26, 2017

Dear Friends,

Although politicians in Washington DC have been focused on Obamacare and Russian involvement in the election, trade issues lurk beneath the surface.  Trade was stirred up with the release of Trump’s Trade Agenda, Lighthizer Confirmation Hearings, rumors of internal fights in the Trump trade team and meetings with foreign leaders, including Angela Merkel of Germany.  In fact, the amount of material on trade is mountainous.

One of the pillars for Trump’s objective of hitting a 3 percent annual growth rate (Obama never got over 2%,), is increased US exports, but as indicated above, trade is a two-way street.  As Democratic Congressman Rick Larson of Washington stated recently at the Washington Council on International Trade Meeting on March 13, the Trump Administration has to choose between a trade policy of Trade Agreements or Border Adjustment Taxes.  If the Trump Administration intends to hit imports with increased Border Adjustment Taxes, it will be very difficult to negotiate trade agreements with the many countries on Trump’s list.

On March 21st, in pushing the Republicans in the House of Representatives to push for the Obamacare repeal bill, President Trump stated that without the Obamacare repeal, the Republicans cannot take up the Tax Bill.  But with the collapse of the Obamacare repeal on March 24th, Congress is pivoting to Tax Reform.  That means tax reform, including the Border Adjustment Taxes, will be front and center.  The target of Trump and the Republican Congress is to pass a tax reform bill by August.

Thus the Trump Administration will be soon at a crossroads—increased taxes/tariffs on imports or trade agreements.  It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to have both.

Meanwhile, the decision of Senate Democrats to stall on the Confirmation of Robert Lighthizer has hurt the trade debate in the Administration.  Lighthizer knows trade law.  Many of the officials, such as Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, in the Administration, do not know trade law and the Democratic decision to stall the confirmation truly has hurt the United States.

In addition to Border Adjustment taxes, this newsletter contains several articles about Trump and Trade or the Trump Trade Report.  There are growing arguments between Administration officials and by Republican Senators and Representatives outside the Administration on the Trump Trade Policy as officials and Senators and Congressmen understand the ramifications of a protectionist trade policy on the constituents in their States and Districts.

Agriculture is waking up. During the recent March 14 Confirmation Hearing of Robert Lighthizer, one could see the concerns of Senators from Agricultural States as they realize that agricultural exports, their ox will be the one gored by the new Trump trade policy.

Meanwhile, NAFTA will be renegotiated; CFIUS may include reciprocity: China is taking a divide and conquer strategy on the Non-Market Economy Issue in Antidumping Cases; and new trade cases have been filed on Aluminum Foil and Silicon Metal.

ZTE has agreed to pay record fines because of its export control violations; and a recent section 337 patent case stated that the US production of the patent lessee can be used to meet the domestic industry requirement.

In addition, hopefully Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, which is the only effective US trade remedy that saves companies and the jobs that go with them without curtailing imports, will expand.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRUMP TRADE REPORT

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ISSUES ITS 2017 TRADE POLICY AGENDA AND IT CREATES CONCERNS

On March 1, 2017, the Trump Administration issued its attached National Trade Policy Agenda for 2017 pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 2213(a)(l)(B), 2017 TRUMP Trade Agenda.  In the short summary, which was released on March 1st, Trump stated in part:

“The overarching purpose of our trade policy – the guiding principle behind all of our actions in this key area – will be to expand trade in a way that is freer and fairer for all Americans. Every action we take with respect to trade will be designed to increase our economic growth, promote job creation in the United States, promote reciprocity with our trading partners, strengthen our manufacturing base and our ability to defend ourselves, and expand our agricultural and other exports.

As a general matter, we believe that these goals can be best accomplished by focusing on bilateral negotiations rather than multilateral negotiations – and by renegotiating and revising trade deals when our goals are not being met. Finally, we reject the notion that the United States can strengthen its geopolitical position by adopting trade measures that make American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses less competitive in global markets.”

In other words, the Trump Administration will take a much stronger position on trade agreements and trade policy.

The most controversial part of the Trade Policy Agenda is the strict approach to the WTO.  Thus, one of the key objectives of the Agenda is”

“Resisting efforts by other countries – or international bodies like the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) – to weaken the rights and benefits of, or increase the obligations under, the various trade agreements to which the United States is a party.”

The Agenda then states under the section “Defending Our National Sovereignty Over Trade Policy”:

“it has been a basic principle of our country that American citizens are subject only to laws and regulations made by the U.S. government – not rulings made by foreign governments or international bodies. This principle remains true today.  Accordingly, the Trump Administration will aggressively defend American sovereignty over matters of trade policy.”

One of the key objectives, just like other Administrations, will be to reduce and eliminate foreign barriers to US exports, but the Agenda then goes on to state:

“It is time for a more aggressive approach. The Trump Administration will use all possible leverage – including, if necessary, applying the principle of reciprocity to countries that refuse to open their markets – to encourage other countries to give U.S. producers fair access to their markets. The purpose of this effort is to ensure that more markets are truly open to American goods and services and to enhance, rather than restrict, global trade and competition.”

One key principle the administration said it plans to apply is a form of trade quid pro quo called “reciprocity” to countries that refuse to open up their markets.  Lawmakers and the Trump administration are considering toughening up national-security reviews of foreign investments into the U.S. to leverage better trade terms with China. If Beijing does not open up its markets to U.S. investors or exports, for example, the administration could use its powers to block Chinese deals to buy U.S. assets, or threaten higher tariffs on  Chinese imports.

The Agenda also expresses an interest in using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to open up restraints in foreign countries to US exports.  But 301 has not been used since the WTO’s 1995 inception.  The Agenda states

“Properly used, Section 301 can be a powerful lever to encourage foreign countries to adopt more market-friendly policies.  The Trump administration believes that it is essential to both the United States and the world trading system that all U.S. trade laws be strictly and effectively enforced.”

The Agenda also singles out trade deficits with China, Mexico, Canada and Korea and calls for a renegotiation of trade agreements and a more aggressive approach to trade enforcement.  Although these policies are very aggressive on paper, the question is how will the new Trump Administration apply these policies.

In conclusion, the Agenda states:

“For more than 20 years, the United States government has been committed to trade policies that emphasized multilateral agreements and international dispute settlement mechanisms. The hope was that by giving up some of our willingness to act independently, we could obtain better treatment for U.S. workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses, Instead, we find that in too many instances, Americans have been put at an unfair disadvantage in global markets. Under these circumstances, it is time for a new trade policy that defends American sovereignty, enforces U.S. trade laws, uses American leverage to open markets abroad, and negotiates new trade agreements that are fairer and more effective both for the United States and for the world trading system, particularly those countries committed to a market-based economy.”

The Trump Administration also stated that it intends to update the document when Congress confirms Robert Lighthizer as the next US Trade Representative.

Parts of the policy document contain arguments similar to those in a widely attached circulated memorandum Mr. Lighthizer wrote in 2010 to the US China Commission, LIGHTHIZER 2010 STATEMENT US CHINA ECONOMIC SECURITY COMMISSION. At the time, Mr. Lighthizer told a congressionally mandated China commission that the U.S. could put its WTO commitments on hold, restricting imports from China until the country changes its behavior in key areas.

When the Trump Trade Agenda came out, the Press reported that the Trump Administration will ignore adverse decisions from the WTO.  During the Obama Administration, however, although WTO decisions were not ignored, they were slow walked, especially in the antidumping and countervailing duty area, with only small changes made in response to the WTO decision.

The Trump Administration will probably follow the same procedures.  The rubber will only meet the road when in response to adverse WTO decisions, foreign countries work up retaliation lists.  Then the Administration will have to decide whether to ignore the WTO decision or not.

In fact, after the Agenda was released, Presidential spokesman Sean Spicer stated that noncompliance with the WTO was not the formal policy of the administration.

In addition, many trade experts believe that the Trade Agenda was just rhetoric and we will need to see whether in the future there truly will be a fundamental shift in actual trade policy.  As one trade expert told me, it will take years for this policy to actually work out.

Moreover, as indicated below, Agriculture is waking up.  Now that Agricultural Senators and Congressmen realize that if there is a trade war, their ox is the one that will get gored, agriculture exports will be seriously hurt, the Trump Administration will probably slow up its aggressive trade policy as the hot protectionist rhetoric meets the realities of the international trade system where trade is a two way street.

If the United States truly signals it will not comply with WTO decisions, and other countries impose retaliatory penalties against U.S. imports, it could usher in an era of economic protectionism worldwide, which could trigger a global trade war that could disrupt international business and growth.  But that also would mean that the Trump Administration will not meet its 3% GDP growth target for the entire economy.

The real issue that the Trump Administration simply does not understand is that even though there may be trade deficits, free trade rises all boats.  The US now has over $1 trillion in exports, but the Trump Administration is focused on trade deficits with countries, such as China, Mexico and Germany.  The Trump Administration ignores the trade surpluses with other countries.  More importantly, free trade agreements have caused all boats to rise, increasing economic activity in the United States and creating jobs.  Because of NAFTA, US exports have quintupled creating millions of new jobs, but the Trump Administration appears to focus only on the trade deficit, which is relatively small in comparison to the surge in US exports.

At the same time that the White House issued its trade agenda on March 1, John Brinkley of Forbes, in an article entitled,Trump’s Trade Ideas As Bad As Ever,” responded to on President Trump’s first “State of the Union” address to the Congress where Trump stated:

“I believe strongly in free trade, but it also has to be fair trade.

Fine, but how do you achieve fair trade? Is it to punish other countries whose trade policies aren’t advantageous to the United States? Or is it to work with them collegially to get them to change those policies?
The latter course is the one that all presidents since World War II have chosen. They have negotiated 14 free trade agreements with 20 countries – agreements that require parties to eliminate tariffs and give fair and equitable treatment to one another.

Previous presidents helped set up the GATT and then the World Trade Organization as a forum for ensuring that countries play by the rules of global trade. Since the WTO was created in 1994, the United States has quietly resolved hundreds of trade disputes in its favor through WTO-sponsored consultations.

When consultations don’t solve the problem, the government can file a formal complaint in the WTO’s Dispute Resolution Body. If it rules in our favor, we can impose temporary, retaliatory tariffs or demand compensation.

That is fair trade. Accusing other countries of taking advantage of us, threatening them with exorbitant tariffs, and declaring that the United States is not beholden to WTO rules, as the Trump administration did today, is not fair trade. It’s more like anarchy.

On March 8, 2017 after the Trade Policy Agenda was issued, John Brinkley of Forbes published another article entitled, “Trump’s Disdain For WTO Portends Only Trouble” stating:

After the World Trade Organization was established in 1995, the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations made good use of its dispute settlement system. The United States is batting about .500 in cases that proceeded to a final ruling; most of them don’t. Barack Obama had a perfect record in the WTO when he left office, but some of the complaints his administration filed are still pending.

None of the three presidents said the system was unfair or tried to make an end run around it.

Then came Donald Trump. He has nothing but disdain for the WTO and for the very idea of an international organization making and enforcing rules that the United States has to obey. So, in keeping with Trump’s “America First” ideology, the White House declared last week that America doesn’t have to follow those rules.

When one country accuses another of a trade rule violation, such as dumping a product in the host country at below-market value or unfairly subsidizing a domestic industry, the first step toward resolving it is a WTO-sponsored consultation between the two governments. If that fails, the accuser can request a hearing by a dispute settlement panel. The loser of that proceeding can take its case to the WTO’s Appellate Body.

Between 1995 and 2015, the United States filed 109 complaints to the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body and had 124 filed against it. The U.S. government has settled about two-thirds of them through consultations, thus making recourse to a hearing unnecessary. Like most diplomatic initiatives, these results are achieved out of the public eye and without fanfare.

It’s hard to know what the Trump administration finds objectionable about this system, or why he considers the WTO “a disaster.” None of the WTO’s 163 other members seem to have a problem with it.

But Trump and his merry band of protectionists think they know a better way: to ignore the WTO if it issues a ruling they don’t like.

The President’s Trade Policy Agenda for 2017 says legislation enacted in 1994 lets the administration decide arbitrarily whether to comply with a WTO dispute settlement ruling that goes against the United States.

“If a WTO dispute settlement report is adverse to the United States, [the U.S. Trade Representative shall] consult with the appropriate Congressional committees concerning whether to implement the report’s recommendation, and, if so, the manner of such implementation and the period of time needed for such implementation,” the Trade Policy Agenda says.

In other words, the United States will comply with WTO decisions – decisions based on rules that the United States helped write – if it feels like it. Incredibly, Trump, et al, seem to think this approach would have no negative consequences.

If the U.S. government refuses to comply with a dispute settlement ruling against it, the WTO can authorize retaliation by the aggrieved party. That is likely to be a tariff increase targeted at the industry whose trade practices led to the adverse ruling. If a targeted tariff increase isn’t feasible, the aggrieved country can raise tariffs against some other industry.

Presumably, Trump would then retaliate against the retaliator and off we’d go into a destructive trade war.

It’s important to understand that the United States was intimately involved in the creation of the WTO and the drafting of its rules. During previous administrations, the U.S. ambassador to the WTO was in Geneva almost every day protecting the interests of the American industries and workers. Contrary to what Trump says, the WTO is not a foreign body accountable to no one. It’s a democratic institution, accountable to its members.

As former U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in the President’s Trade Agenda for 2014:

“A robust international trading system offers the greatest economic benefits when all trading partners abide by their commitments and play by the same rules.”

LIGHTHIZER CONFIRMATION HEARING

On March 14, 2017, the Senate Finance Committee held its confirmation hearing on Robert Lighthizer as United States Trade Representative.  One can see the confirmation hearing in its entirety at https://www.c-span.org/video/?425333-1/us-trade-representative-nominee-testifies-confirmation-hearing

But as of March 23, 2017, Lighthizer’s confirmation vote is being held up in the Committee and on the Senate floor because his status as an advocate more than 30 years ago for the Brazilian government in a 1985 trade case, prior to the time when I was an associate at Skadden, Arps, appears to require a waiver in order for him to assume his role at USTR.  Unfortunately, this decision has left Lighthizer, the best trade lawyer on Trump’s team, out of the internal discussions on trade policy.

The White House has itself pushed to make the waiver vote unnecessary. White House counsel Donald F. McGahn wrote to Hatch and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on March 3 citing a Clinton-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion as a challenge to the waiver rule.

A week after the March 21st confirmation hearing, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas stated:

“I think we made it clear, I think [Finance Chairman] Orrin Hatch made it very clear that it’s not needed. But I don’t know what mood our friends across the aisle are in, and I have no idea what they’re going to do.”

Senator Ron Wyden ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, however, stated:

“We’ve made it clear we’re going to insist on the waiver. There’s this quaint idea that the law should actually matter, and the law says a person in his position has got to get a waiver.”

Thus Lighthizer’s nomination has been held up “for what feels like eons” according to Wyden, but at this point in time it is still not moving.

Meanwhile on March 22, 2017, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the attached letter, chamber_letter, pushed for a quick vote Lighthizer for USTR stating:

“Mr. Lighthizer has led a distinguished career as a trade policy practitioner and has a reputation as a staunch advocate for American industry. The Chamber believes he will represent the nation’s interests well as he works with international partners and addresses trade challenges at the negotiating table and before the World Trade Organization. The Chamber encourages a swift vote on his nomination and looks forward to working with him as the next U.S. Trade Representative.”

During the Confirmation hearing, Lighthizer had bipartisan support with many Democratic and Republican Senators vouching support for his candidacy.  One of the two issues of primary importance was the decision to break mega deals, such as the TPP, into bilateral deals with individual countries.

The problem, however, is that trade deals take a lot of time to negotiate.  The TPP took almost 10 years to negotiate with the 12 countries involved.  But by abandoning the TPP, with an objective of creating individual trade deals with the TPP member companies, the US Government has probably quintupled its work load, if not increased it twelve fold.

Although Lighthizer indicated that USTR would use the TPP draft agreement as a basis to negotiate a number of bilateral agreements, negotiating that many trade deals will take an enormous amount of work by a very small agency – USTR—with only just over 200 employees at offices in Brussels Belgium, Geneva Switzerland and Washington DC.  Trump’s budget is not clear whether USTR will get an increase in budget or whether its budget will be cut.

The second point is the importance of Trade Deals to US Agriculture exports.  In the Lighthizer confirmation hearing, all of a sudden Senators from agriculture states started to wake up.  If the TPP had passed, the biggest winner would have been US agriculture exports with tariffs dropping on more than 18,000 different products, many being agricultural products.  Now the TPP is gone and countries are racing into those overseas markets to replace US agricultural products.

Agriculture Senators and Congressmen want trade deals now because the United States is exporting billions of dollars in agricultural products to the rest of the World.  Mexican government officials recently declared that since Trump wants to be tough on trade with Mexico, they will cut $2.4 billion in imports of corn from the United States and replace the US corn with corn from Brazil and Argentina.  Congressman Newhouse at a recent Washington Council on International Trade stated that after the Korea FTA, exports of Washington State cherries doubled and Washington State French fries increased by 52%.  Increased exports means more jobs.

With a decision not to do the TPP, Senators and Congressmen from agricultural states fear that other countries will replace the United States and get those benefits.  As indicated below, that is a real and justified fear.

TRUMP TRADE AGENDA—OPPOSITION TO THE TRUMP TRADE POLICY IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND IN CONGRESS

Part of the Trump trade problem is the perception by Trump and many on his internal trade staff, such as Peter Navarro, that trade is a one-way street.  The Administration apparently believes it can simply issue an executive order raising tariffs, taxes or barriers to imports with no reaction by foreign countries.

But the Trump Administration is now in the international arena.  Although Trump won the Presidency, he has no political power over foreign countries.  Trade is a two-way street and as stated in several past newsletters, Mexico, Canada, China, and Germany have all threatened retaliation if the US imposes trade restraints, including Border Adjustment Taxes.  Deals have to be negotiated, but most countries, including the US, will not negotiate a deal when a gun is pointed at their head.

INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION TRADE FIGHTS—NAVARRO CREATES AN INTERNAL TRADE WAR

On March 10th the Financial Times reported that a trade war had broken out in White House in what was called “a fiery meeting” in the Oval Office pitting economic nationalists close to Donald Trump against pro­trade moderates in Treasury and the Economic Council from Wall Street.

Navarro is the ultra-nationalist economist who has angered Berlin and other European allies by accusing Germany of currency manipulation and exploiting a “grossly undervalued” euro and calling for bilateral discussions with Angela Merkel’s government over ways to reduce the US trade deficit with Germany.

The fight was between trade hardliners, such as Steve Bannon and Peter Narvarro, against the free trade economic faction led by Gary Cohn, the executive from Goldman Sachs, who heads the National Economic Council.  Note that since Lighthizer has not been confirmed, he could not be part of the discussion.  Bannon and Navarro support the Border Adjustment Tax while Cohn and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin oppose it.

During the last several weeks, Navarro appeared to be losing influence. But during the recent Oval Office fight, Mr Trump appeared to side with the economic nationalists.

Mr Navarro’s case has angered Republicans in Congress because he was criticized for being ill­prepared and vague at a closed­door briefing he held with Senators in February.

Reports have been made that Mr Navarro is becoming increasingly isolated in the administration. He has been operating with a very small staff out of an office in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, while Mr Cohn has been adding staff to his NEC base inside the West Wing of the White House.

On March 5th, Navarro published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on why trade deficits matter:

Do  trade  deficits matter? The question is important because America’s trade deficit in goods is large and persistent, about $2 billion every day. . . .

Reducing a trade deficit through tough, smart negotiations is a way to increase net exports—and boost the rate of economic growth. . . .

Similarly, if the U.S. uses its leverage as the world’s largest market to persuade India to reduce its notoriously high tariffs and Japan to lower its formidable nontariff barriers, America will surely sell more Washington apples, Florida oranges, California wine, Wisconsin cheese and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Just as surely, the U.S. trade deficit would fall, economic growth would increase, and real wages would rise from Seattle and Orlando to Sonoma and Milwaukee. . . .

But running large and persistent trade deficits also facilitates a pattern of wealth transfers offshore. . .

Might we lose a broader hot war because America has sent its defense-industrial base abroad on the wings of a persistent trade deficit?

Today, after decades of trade deficits and a mass migration of factories offshore, there is only one American company that can repair Navy submarine propellers—and not a single company that can make flat-panel displays for military aircraft or night-vision goggles. Meanwhile, America’s steel industry is on the ropes, its aluminum industry is flat on its back, and its shipbuilding industry is gathering barnacles. The U.S. has begun to lose control of its food-supply chain, and foreign firms are eager to purchase large swaths of Silicon Valley’s treasures.

Much of Wall Street and most economists simply don’t care. But to paraphrase Mike Pence on the 2016 campaign trail, the people of Fort Wayne know better. The analysts at the Pentagon know better, too. That’s why, for both economic and national-security reasons, it is important to bring America’s trade back into balance—through free, fair and reciprocal trade.

As indicated below, however, do trade deficits justify increased US barriers to imports?  Wouldn’t a policy of making companies more competitive with imports, such as Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, explained below be a better option.  TAA does not risk retaliation from other countries.

Moreover, as stated above, focusing on trade deficits ignores the enormous increase in US exports to those countries.  Navarro focuses on a trade deficit and ignores the fact that US exports are over $1 trillion and support millions of jobs.  A trade war will cut those exports and jobs in half.  That will not make America great again.

Recently Navarro attempted to intervene in an antidumping duty case at the Commerce Department on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea sparking outrage from the trade lawyers representing the Korean steel mills.  Navarro should keep in mind that the Commerce Department in antidumping cases makes its decision based on the facts on the administrative record and the Commerce Department’s determinations are subject to Court review by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  In the past, Courts have made clear that when a Government agency, such as the Commerce Department, makes a decision based on politics, that is a reason for depositions of the government official.  Navarro might be deposed in any appeal of the OCTG case to the Court.

On March 13, John Brinkley of Forbes in an article entitled, “Commerce Secretary Ross Thinks U.S. Is In A Trade War”, which also addressed Navarro’s thinking, stated:

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, responding to concerns that the Trump administration is pushing the United States toward a trade war, said we were already in one.

“We’ve been in a trade war for decades,” he said last week in an interview with Bloomberg News. “That’s why we have the (trade) deficits.”

But not to worry, Ross said. “It’s not going to be a shooting war. If people know you have the big bazooka, you probably don’t have to use it.”

That’s the Luca Brasi negotiating method: bend to our will or we’ll blow you to smithereens. Peter Navarro, the head of the White House National Trade Council, recently suggested that future trade agreements include a rule stating that they can be renegotiated any time the U.S. runs a trade deficit with the partner country. That is, to put it mildly, a non-starter.

Ross’s and Navarro’s remarks are symptomatic of the Trump administration’s singular obsession with trade deficits. However, the fact that the United States has a global trade deficit does not mean we’re in a trade war. It doesn’t mean our trading partners are cheating us any more than that we’re cheating Canada and the United Kingdom by running trade surpluses with them. It means we import more than we export. One of the reasons for that is the strength of the dollar in foreign exchange markets. A strong dollar makes imports less expensive and exports more expensive. That, in turn, leads to more choices and lower prices for American consumers.

Navarro said in a recent speech that trade surpluses were synonymous with economic growth. History suggests otherwise. The U.S. economy added 235,000 jobs in February and the unemployment rate fell to 4.7%. The trade deficit in January (February not available yet) was $48.5 billion, the highest it’s been since March  2012.

The trade deficit decreased during the recession of 2008-09. The United States ran a trade surplus through most of the Great Depression.

Ross didn’t say who the enemy was in this supposed trade war, but President Trump has made it clear that he has it in for China and Mexico, our second and third largest trading partners, respectively. Our largest bilateral trade deficits are with those countries.

So, Trump intends to renegotiate NAFTA. And, he has threatened China with punitive tariffs. He has said doing these things would erase the U.S. trade deficit, cause a renaissance of American manufacturing jobs and bring the 3% GDP growth he promised.

They would do none of those things.

“Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and launching trade actions against China ensure political headlines, but they will not make much difference to the global U.S. trade deficit. Nor will they bring more jobs and higher wages to U.S. workers,” said Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Euijin Jung of the Peterson Institute of International Economics in an article published in February.

They also noted that the trade deficit is financed in part by foreign direct investment, which is unquestionably beneficial to the U.S. economy. Foreign-owned companies operating in the United States directly employ 6.1 million Americans, according to the U.S. Commerce Department. FDI stock in the U.S. stands at almost $3 trillion.

One way to reduce the trade deficit would be to devalue the dollar against the Chinese yuan and other currencies.  That would be politically difficult because it’s what Trump (wrongly) accuses China of doing on a regular basis. It would also raise the prices of imported food and manufactured goods and, possibly, cause inflation. That would hurt low-income Americans the most.

A better idea would be for the Trump trade triumvirate to calculate America’s balance of trade with its 20 free trade agreement partners. They would find that we have an aggregate trade surplus with them. Maybe then they’d reconsider their plans to renegotiate or withdraw from those agreements.

If Ross thinks we’re in a trade war now, let him propose raising tariffs against Mexico and China over and above the World Trade Organization’s Most Favored Nation rates. Then, we’d be in a trade war for real.

NAVARRO’S STANDING WITH CONGRESS DROPS

On March 16th, senior trade officials from the administration, minus Robert Lighthizer, headed up to Capitol Hill to talk with members of the House Ways and Means Committee about NAFTA, among other trade topics – marking the latest step in what one administration official described as a series of ongoing consultations between the administration and Congress before the White House formally moves to reopen the agreement.

The next step will be for the administration to formally notify Congress that its NAFTA  plans to begin talks, triggering a congressionally mandated 90-day consultation period before the renegotiation can start.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that the White House hopes to send that notification letter “sometime in the next couple of weeks,” meaning formal talks are likely to begin around early summer. Ross is expected attended the March 16th meeting, as did senior members of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative including general counsel and acting USTR Stephen Vaughn, and deputy general counsel Maria Pagan.

Peter Navarro, however, did not go to the Capital Hill meeting. After a meeting with the Senate Finance Committee in February – which was described as “a disaster” – Navarro made such a poor impression that Senators viewed it as a reason for why they need to get USTR nominee Robert Lighthizer confirmed as soon as possible.  That meeting also spurred additional questions about who is really in charge on trade and led to strong reminders that USTR holds the statutory authority.

G-20 BECOMES MORE PROTECTIONIST

On March 18th, the trade protectionist rhetoric increased as it was reported that the G-20 member states dropped the no-protectionism pledge, which indicates more trade storms to come.  The G­20 is an informal forum on economic cooperation made up of 19 countries plus the European Union.  Finance ministers from the Group of 20 countries met in the southern German town of Baden­Baden and issued a statement saying only that countries “are working to strengthen the contribution of trade” to their economies.  In last yearʹs meeting under the Obama Administration, called on countries to resist “all forms” of protectionism, which can include border tariffs and rules that keep out imports to shield domestic companies from competition.

During the press conference, I was told that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, was peppered with questions about the border adjustment tax.  Munchin did state that trade deals need to offer a win-win scenario and went on to state:

“We believe in free trade: we are one of the largest markets in the world, we are one of the largest trading partners in the world.  Having said that, we want to re­examine certain agreements… And to the extent that agreements are old agreements and need to be renegotiated weʹll consider that as well.”

AGRICULTURE WAKES UP BECAUSE IT REALIZES HOW MUCH IT WILL LOSE WITH A PROTECTIONIST ANTI TRADE POLICY

In the past, many reporters have asked me what could China or other countries retaliate against.  The United States does not export much.  US exports are simply too small.  In the face of large trade deficits with China, Mexico and other countries in the manufacturing area, what is the US exporting that can be a retaliation target?

US trade data indicate that US exports for 2016 were over $1 trillion.  In the Robert Lighthizer confirmation hearings, you could hear the real concern of many Senators, especially from the agriculture states, that products from their states could be retaliation targets.  Their worry is certainly justified.

As Senator Pat Roberts stated at the Lighthizer Confirmation hearings:

“I’m going to try and demonstrate that we are going through a pretty rough patch in agriculture.  If Trump makes good on his promises to turn U.S. trade policy into a war against imports, “we are going to get into a very difficult situation.”

During the Confirmation Hearing, Roberts, Grassley and other Agriculture Senators extracted a pledge from Lighthizer that in negotiating trade agreements he would push agriculture interests to the top of the list. Senators and Congressmen from Agriculture states fear that if no new trade agreements are negotiated, US agriculture will lose market share and will become the retaliation target of other countries.

Mexico, in fact, is one of the largest buyers of US corn, much of which comes from Kansas and Iowa.  US exports about $2.4 billion in corn to Mexico.  Now Mexico is talking about retaliation and buying its corn from Brazil and Argentina.  What goes around comes around.

U.S. Senators and Congressmen noticed when a Mexican lawmaker introduced legislation favoring Latin American products over American- exported corn, a key winner in Nafta. That move followed warnings from Mr. Trump that Nafta would be renegotiated and Mexico would have to pay for a new border wall.  In response, Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa stated:

“I have been worried because other countries have pushed back: ‘You want us to build a wall, well we’re not going to take your corn.’  If we’re talking about renegotiating Nafta, we actually stand to lose ground in agriculture—so we would really have to work that very, very carefully.”

On March 6th, leaders of the US Dairy industry were in Mexico to attempt and protect their exports from uncertainty over the future of NAFTA. After NAFTA was signed in 1994, American dairy exports to Mexico more than quadrupled to $1.2 billion, accounting for nearly one-fourth of all U.S. dairy exports last year. Because of Trump’s attacks on Mexico, it has encouraged Mexican importers to find other suppliers in the European Union and New Zealand, which are eager to get into the market, and in New Zealand’s case are part of the TPP.

In response to the criticism that Trump is putting his trade focus on the plight of the U.S. manufacturing sector at the expense of the export-dependent agriculture sector, on March 21st Trump pivoted to agriculture.  Sean Spicer, the President’s press secretary stated:

“While our farmers are the most efficient in the world, margins have been tightening, regulations have been multiplying, and exports, which has historically counted for over one- fifth of the U.S. farm production, have been declining due to unwise trade policies.  The President promised the many people in the agriculture industry and throughout rural America that he would not allow this to continue and he will continue to pursue policy changes that will reverse this disturbing trend.”

John Bode, president and CEO of the Corn Refiners Association praised the statement saying that Trump’s proclamation recognizes that “improved trade balances and a successful agriculture sector are inextricably linked.”  He further stated:

“Our industry’s exports not only deliver jobs at home, they are among America’s fundamental strengths abroad.  We are heartened to know that this White House agrees and that they will seek to increase agricultural exports as they examine existing and future trade agreements.”

Ray Starling, special assistant to the president for agriculture on the National Economic Council, recently stated at a National Ag Day event in Washington:

“The President has talked a lot about our manufacturing imbalance on trade, but that is not meant to neglect ag. That is essentially to say we know ag is doing a good job, we are making strides there, we need to do more.”

Now we have to wait and see if Trump truly means what he says or whether he wants a trade war, which will hurt US exports, especially in the agriculture area.

SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN WANT MORE TRADE DEALS–BILATERAL VERSUS MULTILATERAL DEALS

Back on January 26, 2017 in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump explained that he did not like multilateral trade deals, such as the TPP, because they are a mosh pit and fall to the lowest common denominator.

During his confirmation hearing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that it easy to negotiate bilateral deals than multilateral deals.  But the question is, will it be easier to negotiate 12 bilateral deals with 12 different countries when one deal, the TPP, would have done it.  More importantly, although the US will renegotiate NAFTA and start trade deals with Japan and eventually Britain, is it truly realistic for the very small USTR to have continual negotiations with dozens of countries at the same time.  The TPP took 10 years to negotiate.  Maybe Ross is just playing a game and does not want more trade deals.

At a recent trade conference on March 13th here in Seattle held by the Washington Council on International Trade, however, it was very apparent that Washington State Congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, want more trade deals.

At the Conference Congressman Dave Reichert, WA Republican, and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means, stated that the Trump Administration intends to do more bilateral deals.  He also stated that since NAFTA is a trilateral agreement, all three countries, Mexico, Canada and the US need to be at the table.

Reichert also stated that we cannot give up trade agreements because the cost would be too high.  China will benefit.  He also stated that the United States needs to set the international trade standards through trade agreements or China will do so and 95% of the World’s population and markets are outside US.

Reichert stated that the longer we wait to do trade deals, the more market shares we lose.  He pointed to the FTA with Korea, which dramatically reduced the 24% Korean tariff on cherries, and Washington State cheery exports doubled and Washington French Fries went up 53%.

When NAFTA took place US exports to Mexico doubled reaching $180 billion.  There is now over $500 billion in trade between US and Mexico

Following Reichert, Republican Congressman Dan Newhouse, who represents large Agricultural interests in the Center of Washington stated, “We cannot afford to waste any time as we create opportunities for local producers and exporters to gain access to new markets.”

Congressman Rick Larsen stated that the Administration has to decide whether it will do Border Adjustment taxes or trade deals.  Larsen went on to state that trade is much bigger than just agreements. It is soft power.  Asian countries see the US leading with military power, but the US relationship with the other Asian countries is less secure if the only relationship is military and not trade.

Democratic Congressman Denny Heck stated that TPP went too far too fast and was not politically possible.  Echoing Donald Trump, Heck stated that the white working man has seen no increase in income in 40 years.

But Newhouse stated that after the Korea FTA, Washington State potato growers saw an increase in exports of 670,000 tons of French Fries to Korea.  That is jobs.

On March 22nd, John Brinkley in an article entitled, Trump’s “Trade Policies Would Take From the Many and Give To a Few” points out the problem of relying only on bilateral agreements as compared to multilateral agreements:

“Politics can be defined as taking something from someone and giving it to someone else. Done right, the winners outnumber the losers and the sacrifice will have been worthwhile.

This seems lost on the Trump administration, whose trade proposals are likely to create a lot more losers than winners.

Let’s start with his plan to eschew multilateral trade agreements and negotiate only bilateral ones. With a multilateral agreement, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, all parties play by the same rules. That means exporters don’t have to figure out what the rules of origin are country-by- country. They’re all the same.

Deciphering and complying with rules of origin under a free trade agreement are among the most difficult and time-consuming chores that exporting companies have to perform. If the rule says 70 percent of a truck’s parts have to have been made in the United States, the company has to go to its suppliers and say, where did the door handles come from? Where did the tires come from?

A lot of smaller companies find it isn’t worth the time and expense, so they ship the product and pay the tariff. Or they don’t export at  all.

Having a series of bilateral agreements makes it even harder, because each agreement would have its own rules of origin. American manufacturers were looking forward to ratification of the TPP, because it was to be a 12-country trading bloc with one set of rules. But Trump withdrew the United States from it.

Renegotiating NAFTA is another idea that would take from the many for the benefit of a few.

Breaking up NAFTA and negotiating separate bilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada would be even worse. U.S. Trade Representative nominee Robert Lighthizer said during his Senate confirmation hearing that the administration might take that course.

NAFTA has been in effect for 23 years. Whatever impacts it had on American employment and economic growth are well in the past. If you look under NAFTA’s hood, you see a complex network of supply chains crossing the three countries’ borders. They make it easy and cost-effective for American manufacturers to buy parts from Mexico or Canada and have them delivered quickly and duty-free.

About half of Mexico’s exports to the United States are parts for products that are built here – car parts, electronic components and so  on.

Making those parts more expensive would make the products they go into more expensive and would reduce the importing companies’ revenues, leading to lay-offs or worse. That is basic economics.

Trump said yesterday that renegotiating NAFTA was “going to be an easy one.” Everyone who has ever been a trade negotiator probably got a chuckle out of that. . .. .

“The United States has been treated very, very unfairly by many countries over the years, and that’s going to stop,” he said last week during a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Poor little us. We’re being pushed around by those mean bullies from South Korea and Mexico.

Nonetheless, the U.S. and global economies have been growing at a healthy pace. The U.S. unemployment rate is 4.7 percent, about as low as it can go, and median wages have finally started to increase for the first time since the recession of 2008.

This seems to call for an economic policy of caution and restraint to keep the recovery going rather than taking a machete to our trade agreements and punishing our trading partners for transgressions they have not committed.

That would harm vastly more Americans than it would help.

On February 28th, however, it was reported that the EU expects the Trump Administration to negotiate with the entire block as EU countries pushed back on Trump’s bilateral dreams.  European countries in the EU bloc have been unified against the Trump administration’s reported attempts to bring individual EU countries into direct, bilateral trade deals with the U.S. The EU ambassador at a recent National Press Club meeting stated that bilateral deals are “nonsense”.  David O’ Sullivan stated:

“It’s nonsense to talk about bilateral deals with countries that are part of a single market.  Would American companies really want 28 separate FTAs?”

In Germany, Martin Schäfer, spokesperson for the German foreign ministry, stated:

“The [European] Commission carries out trade negotiations and concludes trade agreements for Europe and for us. This is the legal status, about which we have nothing critical to say.  The new political constellation in the U.S. and elsewhere should not tempt anybody to take up a different position.”

European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom also stated recently:

“The U.S. administration seems to favor bilateral relations over multilateralism. And some of the proposals we have seen floated, such as a border adjustment tax, could be at odds with WTO rules. Countries should be able to protect themselves from distortions and unfair trade practices. But that has to be done within the framework of the WTO. Global rules mean everyone playing fair, by a consistent, predictable and transparent rulebook.

In an age when some want to rebuild walls, re-impose barriers, restrict people’s freedom to move … we stand open to progressive trade with the world.”

On March 6th, a top European official stated that U.S. President Donald Trump’s protectionist stance may propel Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin American economic powers into market-opening alliances with the European Union.  Jyrki Katainen, a vice president of the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, said Trump’s rejection of multilateral commercial deals and border-tax threat are giving impetus to the 28-nation bloc’s push for free- trade or investment pacts with countries including Japan, China, India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

Katainen stated that:

“When there has been some signals to raise protectionism, especially from the U.S. side, the rest of the world seems to be fighting back and saying that this is not our line, this is something which we don’t want. This is music to our ears.”

The comments signal that Trump’s “America First” approach that seeks to reduce the U.S.’s $502 billion trade deficit may be as much an opportunity as a threat to the EU.

Recently, the US equipment manufacturing industry, which supports more than 1.3 million jobs, expressed its concern about exports.  A report by the Association of Equipment Manufacturers stated that about 30 percent of the construction equipment and about 30 percent of the agricultural equipment manufactured in the United States is designated for export – and would therefore be hit hardest by any slowdown in global trade:

“Slow international growth combined with uncertainty about trading rules under the Trump administration could act as a drag on the equipment manufacturing industry’s overall performance.  Any steps the Trump administration might take to revisit or exit existing trade agreements could further complicate the challenging economic environment outside the United States.

It is difficult to precisely forecast how the Trump administration might rewrite existing trading rules, but any steps that make it more difficult for manufacturers to export their products could hinder growth in the industry.”

TPP CONTINUES WITHOUT THE US

On March 14th Government officials from the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership nations minus the United States held a two-day summit in Chile to discuss a path forward on trade following the US decision to withdraw from the TPP.

New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay stated:

“I have recently visited Australia, Japan, Singapore and Mexico, met with ministers from Brunei and Malaysia and talked directly with trade ministers from all other TPP countries.  It is clear our partners remain committed to the benefits high quality trade agreements provide.”

Even though the TPP requires that at least six countries composing at least 85 percent of the entire TPP’s collective economic production, with the US withdrawal, the other 11 countries have decided to move forward with the TPP.  As Wendy Cutler, a former trade negotiator at USTR, stated:

“A TPP agreement without the U.S. is still relevant and would have significant economic value.  You’d still have four of the world’s 20 largest economies — Japan, Canada, Australia, and Mexico — alongside significant emerging economies, like Vietnam and Malaysia.”

In other words, other countries will replace US exports in those markets because they will have the benefit of the TPP.

After the meeting in Chile, Australian Trade Minister Steven Ciobo stated:

“I was particularly pleased there was continuing movement on the TPP.  Countries remain committed to exploring all the avenues and opportunities in relation to the TPP. There was broad agreement on the high level of ambition in the TPP being a benchmark and something we shouldn’t just let slip away.”

Japanese State Minister Takao Ochi stated:

“As long as Japan is concerned we don’t want to exclude any possible ways and we would like to take initiative in discussing with each of the member countries.”

The 11 countries will now work to preserve the trade deal’s innovations, which included new rules on digital trade, disciplines for state-owned companies and what have been touted as the toughest labor and environment protections of any modern trade agreement. The innovations also include new market access that countries negotiated on everything from milk powder to insurance services.

BORDER ADJUSTMENT TAXES

As stated in my last newsletters, the big issue in the trade area right now is border adjustment taxes and tax reform.  New Treasury Secretary Mnuchin says tax reform will take place in August 2017 and it is a priority for the Trump Administration.  Part of that reform is Border Adjustment Taxes (“BAT”).  See http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/23/treasury-secretary-mnuchin-lays-out-aggressive-timeline-for-tax-reform.html.  As Mnuchin states, a US deficit of $20 trillion, which was doubled by President Obama, is a concern, but more important is economic growth, which will result in more tax revenue.  To get economic growth, taxes and regulations have to be cut.

But with the failure of Obamacare in the House, taxes, including border adjustment taxes, move to the front of the Congressional calendar.  Trump and Republicans in the Congress, especially the House, appear to be moving ahead with an alternative to tariffs to spur US manufacturing and that is taxes.  There is now an attempt in Congress to give American-made products a big tax advantage over their foreign competitors through border adjustment taxes, and, in effect, counter the value added taxes used in other countries to deter imports.  As Kevin Brady, Chairman of House Ways and Means, argues, almost 80% of countries border adjust their taxes.  That includes Mexico, Canada, China, and the European countries, putting US exports at a substantial disadvantage.  For Brady’s argument, see videos at the following links, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yYHGoFmNEk&feature=youtu.be and

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/icymi-chairman-brady-cnbc-makes-case-ending-made-america-export-tax/.

Under a border adjustment tax (“BAT”), a 20% tax would be applied against all domestic products and imported products.  But the domestic producer would be allowed to deduct all the domestic costs associated with producing that product.  Thus if a $100 product was produced in the US, the domestic producer could deduct $70 in costs, resulting in a 20% tax on $30 or a $6 tax.  But there would be no deduction of domestic costs for a $100 import resulting in a 20% tax on the full $100 or a $20 tax, giving the domestic product a 14% tax advantage.  The BAT would not apply to exports.

This proposal has welled up from the House of Representatives and is strongly supported by House Speaker Paul Ryan and the Chairman of House Ways and Means, Kevin Brady.  Their argument is that border adjustment tax is needed to offset value added taxes in other countries.  Brady argues that the BAT is the only way to end the “Made in America” tax.

One example given is that if an automobile is produced in the US and exported to Mexico, a 35% corporate tax is levied on the profits of the US automaker and then the US automobile is hit with a 16% value added tax when it comes into Mexico.  On the other hand, when an automobile is produced in Mexico for shipment to the US, there is no corporate tax on the export and no corresponding tax in the US on the Mexican export to the US.  In effect, Ryan and Brady argue that this is a tremendous incentive to move manufacturing out of the United States to countries with value added taxes, such as Mexico, China, Canada, EU and many other countries.

Border adjustments serve as a way to level the playing field and alter value-added consumption taxes many countries, including European countries, Mexico, Canada and China, impose on each stage of production, as products are sold internationally.  Proponents argue that the BAT is not trade policy and does not favor exports over imports.  To see the companies that have VAT taxes in place, see the Ways and Means website at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/ending-made-america-tax-three-major- wins-american-people/.

The Trade War in the Administration on border adjustment taxes has become clear as Bannon, Navarro and others are in favor, but Cohn and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin are opposed.  Wilbur Ross is on the fence.  Trump himself has not taken a position.

On March 25th During a morning interview, Mnuchin said he had been overseeing work on the administration’s tax bill over the past two months and it would be introduced soon. He said the goal was still to win Congressional approval of the tax measure by August. But if the timeline is delayed, he said he expected the proposal to pass by the fall.  Mnuchin did not reveal whether the administration will include the Border Adjustment tax.

On March 9th Bloomberg reported that the BAT is in deep trouble.  The BAT is important because it is expected to raise more than $1 trillion in revenue, which would offset the cut to corporate tax rates:

Companies that rely heavily on exports, such as Boeing Co. and Oracle Corp., love the plan—for obvious reasons. Beyond profits, they also say a BAT would make American manufacturers more competitive by putting them on equal footing with foreign competitors around the world.

Importers hate the BAT. Big retailers such as Walmart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. contend that border adjustments will dent profit margins and force them to raise prices on everything from avocados and furniture to Nike shoes and French cheese. In a Feb. 28 letter to congressional leaders, the Americans for Affordable Products coalition said the tax would raise consumer costs “by as much as $1,700” in the first year. . . .

Companies are taking their message to consumers. In late February the National Retail Federation, which opposes the BAT, started airing TV commercials that parody an OxiClean infomercial, telling shoppers that “the all-new BAT tax is specially designed to make your disposable income—disappear!” Proponents, through the American Made Coalition that includes Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer Inc., launched a Twitter feed to support the tax. Both sides have created Facebook pages and websites with auto-form letters that viewers can send to Congress. Both, too, routinely pepper media outlets with press releases citing prominent people in the private sector and academia who either love or hate it.

As Bloomberg further states in Congress the BAT is running into opposition from Republicans:

A core group of House Republicans has come out in recent weeks against the BAT, citing the higher prices they’d inflict on consumers. Republican Senate support is in doubt, too. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Walmart’s home state of Arkansas, told a Senate floor session on Feb. 15 that border adjustments are “a theory wrapped in speculation inside a guess.” The next day, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said, “The hard reality is the border tax is on life support.”

But as Bloomberg further states:

“Ryan and Brady aren’t backing down. Without border adjustments, they say, their plan to rewrite the tax code can’t happen. That $1.1 trillion in revenue is crucial to the politics of the BAT, since it helps keep it deficit- neutral, a prerequisite for passing a tax bill through the Senate without Democratic votes. “What it boils down to is that it’s a way to pay for the rest of the tax plan,” says Veronique de Rugy, an economist at George Mason University. “Only revenue comes from this feature—economic growth doesn’t.” That $1 trillion is also crucial to how the BAT might affect the economy. Says Ross, “That is way too big a number to get wrong.”

EUROPE, THE WTO AND CHINA

Meanwhile, other countries are lining up to retaliate if the BAT is passed.  On February 28th, it was reported that the EU is preparing a legal challenge against Donald Trump’s US border tax plan in what could be biggest trade dispute in a century.  Jyrki Katainen, the European Commission’s Vice President, told the newspaper: “If someone is behaving against our interests or against international rules in trade then we have our own mechanisms to react.”  He said the EU was seeking to avoid a potential trade war with the US as it would be “disastrous” for the world economy.

“We have all the legal arrangements within the EU but we are also part of global arrangements like the WTO and we want to respect the global rule base when it comes to trade.”

One WTO trade dispute expert estimated that a defeat in such a case could see around $385bn a year in trade retaliation against the US.  Volker Kauder, parliamentary floor leader of Merkel’s conservatives, also recently stated:

“If Donald Trump imposes punitive tariffs on German and European products, then Europe should also impose punitive tariffs on U.S. products.”

Meanwhile, the Chinese government has been seeking advice from think tanks and policy advisers on how to retaliate against trade penalties imposed by the US.  China’s strongest responses would likely include finding alternative suppliers of agricultural products, machinery and manufactured goods, and reducing the number of consumer goods like cellphones and laptops that it exports to the United States. Other possibilities could include levying a tax or other penalty on major U.S. companies that do business in China or restricting access to the country’s services sector.

NAFTA RENEGOTIATION

The first trade agreement, which the Trump Administration will negotiate is NAFTA.  President Trump has already formally notified both Canada and Mexico that he intends to renegotiate NAFTA.  The negotiations will probably start sometime this summer.

On March 12, 2017, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated that the Trump administration has yet to determine what the trade agreement replacing NAFTA will look like.  As Ross stated:

“One size doesn’t fit all.  The issues of automotive are not the same as the issues of agriculture; they’re not the same as the issues of electronics, or steel. It’s a very, very complicated situation. So it’s very hard to paint just with one big broad brush.”

On March 16, 2017, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau stated:

“NAFTA’s been … improved a dozen times over the past 20 years. There’s always opportunities to talk about how we can make it better. It has led to a lot of great jobs for a whole lot of people on both sides of the border and I very much take him [Trump] at his word when he talks about just making a few tweaks. Because that’s what we’re always happy to do.

“We’ve got auto parts crisscrossing the border six times before they end up in a finished product. You’ve got over $2 billion a day going back and forth. So, making sure that the border is … secure but also smooth in its flow of goods and people is essential to good jobs on both sides of the border.”

Meanwhile, there are a number of meetings between US, Canadian and Mexican officials preparing for the NAFTA negotiations.

On March 21st, the Trump administration created the attached list, KEY ELEMENTS, of more than 20 foreign trade practices it would like to address in a renegotiation of NAFTA and in any bilateral trade deal it might pursue.  The list includes relatively new areas like foreign currency manipulation, where achieving agreement could be difficult, but also a host of others like intellectual protection that have long been mainstays in U.S. trade agreements.  Payne Griffin, deputy chief of staff at the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, stated:

“These are market problems that the administration has identified either through vigorous consultations with Congress or their own internal research.  It is a non-exhaustive list of things that may be addressed in these bilateral trade agreements.”

CHINA NONMARKET ECONOMY

China has initiated a mandatory 60-day consultation period with both economies before deciding to request a dispute settlement panel to hear its complaint.  China has now decided to only target the EU, which is in the process of trying to change antidumping methodology. Brussels is trying to come up with a new way of treating China under its trade remedy law while still recognizing that Beijing intervenes heavily in its economy.

The United States has said it would only consider a change in response to a formal request from China to be treated as a market economy, something it has not done since 2006.

Apparently, China is trying a strategy of ‘divide and conquer’.  Take on the EU first, because it is already revising its law and they might get a good WTO decision, then face the tougher battle against the U.S.”

MORE TRADE CASES COMING

A law firm that specializes in bringing antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) trade cases recently told me that they are in the process of preparing a number of new cases against China and other countries.  With a sympathetic Trump Administration and a very sympathetic Wilbur Ross as the new Secretary of Commerce, more cases are going to be filed.

ALUMINUM FOIL FROM CHINA

On March 9, 2017, the US Aluminum Foil Trade Enforcement Working Group, including Aleris Inc., Alpha Aluminum, Golden Aluminum, Granges Americas Inc., JW Aluminum Company, Novelis Corporation, Republic Foil Inc., Reynolds Consumer Products, and United Aluminum Corporation, filed major AD and CVD cases against more than $658 million of aluminum foil imports from China in 2016.

The petition alleges duties ranging from at a minimum of 38 percent to a high of 134 percent and targets 232 Chinese exporters and producers of aluminum foil.  The aluminum foil covered by the complaint covers household aluminum foil as well as aluminum foil used in cookware, product packaging and heat exchangers found in cars and HVAC systems.

US importers can be liable for CVD duties on aluminum foil imports from China as soon as August 6, 2017 and AD duties on October 5, 2017.

Attached are the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted Chinese exporters/producers and US importers, 2017.03.08 CHN-ALUMINUM FOIL Petition Vol I 1Narrative IMPORTERNAMES.  If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.

SILICON METAL FROM AUSTRALIA, BRAZIL, KAZAKHSTAN AND NORWAY

Although the US industry may believe AD and CVD petitions will move the Chinese imports share to the US industry, that is not necessarily the case.  Case in point, on March 8, 2016, Globe Specialty Metals Inc. filed major AD and CVD cases against imports of Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Norway.  Chinese silicon metal has been under an AD order with shut out rates since 1991.

Attached are the relevant parts of the AD and CVD complaints along with a list of the targeted foreign exporters/producers and US importers, SMALL SILICON METAL PETITION.

The first hearing at the ITC is March 29th.  Commerce will issue questionnaires probably in the first week of April.  Commerce Department preliminary determinations in the Countervailing Duty cases, which is when liability for importers begins, can happen as soon as August.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me.

With a sympathetic Trump Administration in power, there will be a sharp rise in AD and CVD cases against China and other countries.

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES – A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TRADE REMEDY WHICH ACTUALLY WORKS

Previous newsletters stated Wilbur Ross has made it very clear to reach the 3% plus growth rate, the US must increase exports.  Yet, at the same time, the Trump Administrations keeps concentrating on deficits and accusing foreign governments of treating US companies unfairly.  Trump and his Administration do not look internally and try to find ways to make the US companies more competitive, which will not create a trade war.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports.  Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports to make them more competitive.  The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure.  Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Right now the total cost to the US Taxpayer for this nationwide program is $12.5 million dollars—truthfully peanuts in the Federal budget.  Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury.

As stated in my last blog post, TAA for Firms/Companies works.  In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, 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.

But as also stated in my last blog post, in this environment with so many injured companies, funding for TAA for Firms/Companies has to be increased so it can do its job.   Moreover, with the threats of a massive trade war in the air, which will injure all US companies and destroy US jobs, the US government needs to look at an alternative—TAA for Firms/Companies is that alternative.

FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES

UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES

With the election of Donald Trump, as stated in my last blog post, 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.  It will also discuss potential US exports that can be retaliation targets.

MEXICO

On March 6, 2017, Alexandro N. Gomez-Stozzi, a Mexican trade lawyer, at the Gardere firm in Mexico City sent me the following summary of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations in Mexico:

Mexican Antidumping and Countervailing (AD/CVD) Investigation Procedures Factsheet

  • AD/CVD investigations in Mexico may take from 12 to 18 months as of the publication in the Diario Oficial regarding the initiation of investigation. Terms within the investigative process may be extended with cause, at the discretion of the authority. Investigations are generally conducted as follows (variation of a chart created by Mexican authorities):
  • There is a single investigating authority, the Ministry of Economy´s International Trade Practices Unit (known by its Spanish acronym UPCI, for Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales). UPCI makes all relevant findings: (i) dumping or countervailing, (ii) material injury or threat thereof and (iii) causation. Final AD/CVD orders are signed by the Minister of Economy; although informally, trade policy considerations in other sectors come into play before deciding to issue an AD/CVD order. UPCI is also in charge of safeguard investigations.  
  • Investigations are usually requested by Mexican producers representing at least 25% of the total production, although UPCI may initiate investigations if it deems so appropriate.
  • Exporters and importers of affected goods are strongly encouraged to retain Mexican counsel, as all appearances have to be made in Spanish and a domestic service address has to be designated.
  • When issuing a preliminary determination, the authority may: (1) impose a preliminary AD/CVD duty and continue with investigation, (2) continue the investigation without an AD/CVD duty, or (3) terminate the investigation on insufficient evidence grounds.
  • In its final determination, the authority may (i) confirm or modify its preliminary determination to impose an AD/CVD duty, or (2) declare the investigation concluded without imposing an AD/CVD duty. Under stringent circumstances, final determinations may impose retroactive duties for up to three months from date of publication of the preliminary determination.
  • During the course of an investigation, Mexican law allows for interested parties to ask UPCI to convene conciliatory meetings, at which proposals may be presented to resolve the case and terminate the investigation. These proceedings coexist with Antidumping Agreement´s price undertakings.
  • AD/CVD orders remain in effect for 5 years. They may be renewed for similar periods when warranted after a sunset review which covers both dumping (or countervailing) and injury.  Circumvention, actual coverage of AD/CVD orders, and similar proceedings can also be initiated as long as orders are in effect.
  • World Trade Organization (WTO)´s Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements are applied as is in Mexican investigation proceedings. Mexican trade-remedy law and regulations may sometimes be contradictory with WTO agreements; in case of conflict, the WTO Agreements would prevail in court.

CHINA AD/CVD NEWSLETTERS

Attached are newsletters from Chinese lawyer Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office about Chinese trade law, Team’s newsletter-EN Vol.2017.09.

CFIUS—WILL INVESTMENT RECIPROCITY BE A NEW REQUIREMENT??

There is movement within the United States to establish investment reciprocity as a criteria in investigations by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States into its national security reviews of inbound transactions, a policy shift that would weigh the heaviest on Chinese buyers if enacted.

Investment reciprocity — the idea that the U.S. should block a foreign entity’s investment in a particular industry when a U.S. buyer would be similarly blocked in that entity’s country — has been on politicians’ radar since before Donald Trump took office.

Trump made no secret of his leanings on the campaign trail, criticizing in particular a Chinese investment group’s acquisition of the 130-year-old Chicago Stock Exchange, a deal that has since been cleared by CFIUS.

If the U.S. does decide to go this route, there are at least a couple ways the government could go about it. The President could direct CFIUS to focus more heavily on particular industries or use a broader definition of national security, as long as those directives don’t stray too far from the regulations dictated by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007, or FINSA. Congress can also amend FINSA to expand either the range of industries susceptible to national security review, or even expand the review itself from one focused solely on national security to a review that more broadly considers foreign investments in the U.S.

CHINESE MILITARY BUILDUP TO PROTECT ITS TRADE INTERESTS???

As mentioned in prior blog posts, there is a close relationship between defense/security and trade.  The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was created, in part, by the US naval embargo of Japan.

One of the strongest arguments for the Trans Pacific Partnership was the geo-political argument that the TPP would bring us closer to the Asian countries.  Former defense secretary Ash Carter stated at one point that the TPP was equivalent to another US aircraft carrier.

On March 15, 2017, Malia Zimmerman for Fox News in an article entitled “China next US threat? Beijing beefs up military to protect trade”, stated:

With a laser-like focus on protecting its lifeblood – trade – China is dramatically altering its military operations, creating specialized teams that can protect its maritime resources, routes and territorial expansion plans. . . .

Harry Kazianis, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Defense Studies for The Center for the National Interest, stated:

“The great Achilles heel of China is trade—especially natural resources that come via sea and into its ports—and a big reason it will inevitably become a globally deployed military power. Beijing’s armed forces are working to slowly but surely reinforce and protect its overseas hubs as well as trade routes that move from Europe, the Middle East and Africa and into China’s territorial waters.”

ZTE HIT WITH SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING EXPORT CONTROLS ACT

On March 7, 2007, in a notice and judgement, which will be attached to my blog, judgment 3-22ZTE Corporation Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay Over $430, the US Justice Department announced that ZTE Corp, has agreed to plead guilty and pay a combined a penalty of $1.1.9 billion for violating U.S. sanctions by sending U.S.-origin items to Iran.  As the Justice Department notice states:

ZTE Corporation has agreed to enter a guilty plea and to pay a $430,488,798 penalty to the U.S. for conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by illegally shipping U.S.-origin items to Iran, obstructing justice and making a material false statement. ZTE simultaneously reached settlement agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). In total ZTE has agreed to pay the U.S. Government $892,360,064. The BIS has suspended an additional $300,000,000, which ZTE will pay if it violates its settlement agreement with the BIS. . . .

“ZTE Corporation not only violated export controls that keep sensitive American technology out of the hands of hostile regimes like Iran’s – they lied to federal investigators and even deceived their own counsel and internal investigators about their illegal acts,” said Attorney General Sessions. “This plea agreement holds them accountable, and makes clear that our government will use every tool we have to punish companies who would violate our laws, obstruct justice and jeopardize our national security.  . . .”

“ZTE engaged in an elaborate scheme to acquire U.S.-origin items, send the items to Iran and mask its involvement in those exports. The plea agreement alleges that the highest levels of management within the company approved the scheme. ZTE then repeatedly lied to and misled federal investigators, its own attorneys and internal investigators. Its actions were egregious and warranted a significant penalty,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. “The enforcement of U.S. export control and sanctions laws is a major component of the National Security Division’s commitment to protecting the national security of the United States. Companies that violate these laws – including foreign companies – will be investigated and held to answer for their actions.”

“ZTE Corporation not only violated our export control laws but, once caught, shockingly resumed illegal shipments to Iran during the course of our investigation,” said U.S. Attorney Parker. “ZTE Corporation then went to great lengths to devise elaborate, corporate-wide schemes to hide its illegal conduct, including lying to its own lawyers.”

“The plea agreement in this case shows ZTE repeatedly violated export controls and illegally shipped U.S. technology to Iran,” said Assistant Director Priestap. “The company also took extensive measures to hide what it was doing from U.S. authorities. This case is an excellent example of cooperation among multiple

U.S. agencies to uncover illegal technology transfers and make those responsible pay for their actions.”

The plea agreement, which is contingent on the court’s approval, also requires ZTE to submit to a three- year period of corporate probation, during which time an independent corporate compliance monitor will review and report on ZTE’s export compliance program. ZTE is also required to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding any criminal investigation by U.S. law enforcement authorities.  . . .”

According to David Laufman, chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the DOJ’s National Security Division, it was “extraordinarily difficult” to obtain key documents and witnesses located in China until on March 7, 2016, the Commerce decision to add ZTE to the so-called Entity List.  According to Laufman, “The game-changing event in this case, was the Commerce Department’s decision to pursue an entity listing of ZTE, demonstrating the efficacy of the whole-of- government approach” to national security.

Companies end up on the Entity List after Commerce determines they are tied to illicit weapons programs, terrorism or other national security threats, and thereafter can’t trade with U.S. companies without a special dispensation from the agency.

This may be the first case in which the Commerce Department has used an Entity List designation to force a foreign company to cooperate in a probe.  Commerce will probably start using this strategy in future investigations.

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

DOMESTIC INDUSTRY FROM PATENT LICENSEE

On March 8, 2017, the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued the attached interesting decision, 2 PAGE ONE PAGE DI, in the Section 337 case Certain Silicon-On-Insulator Wafers.  In that decision, the ITC Administrative Law Judge determined that it could find a domestic industry in a Section 337 if the US patent licensee’s activities show domestic activity.  Even though the patent holder was a non-practicing entity, the ALJ determined:

Silicon Genesis Corporation (“SiGen”), has established contingently a domestic industry in the United States through the activities of its licensee, SunEdison Semiconductor Limited (“SunEdison”) . . . through its licensee, SunEdison, SiGen has proven by a preponderance of evidence that it has made a significant domestic investment in plant and equipment, in capital and labor, and a substantial investment in research and development to produce certain silicon-on-insulator (“SOI”) products at issue in this Investigation.

The decision did not break new ground, but it reminds nonpracticing entities, (“NPEs”) that one way to meet the domestic industry requirement under Section 337 is through the actions of patent licensee in the United States.

NEW 337 CASES AGAINST CHINA

On March 10, 2017, in the attached ITC notice, Intravascular Sets, Curlin Medical, Inc., Moog, Inc., and Zevex, Inc. filed a section 337 case against imports of Intravascular Administration Sets from Yangzhou WeiDeLi Trade Co., Ltd., China.

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, border adjustment 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.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

Law Blog Development & Digital Marketing by Adrian Dayton & Company