“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986
US CHINA TRADE WAR NOVEMBER 14, 2016
This blog post contains several articles about trade and Trump after his victory on November 8th. The Trump victory will have a significant impact on trade policy. As stated below, the TPP is dead. The Republican Congress will not oppose Trump and bring the TPP to the Congressional floor in the Lame Duck. The TPP may only come back when and if the trade safety net, including Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies, is fixed.
The trade impact on the Rust Belt states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, is a major reason for the Trump victory. Trump’s victory means that trade wars may escalate. But with the increase in trade wars, global trade has already started falling and that means a 2015 drop of $200 billion in US exports. Exports create US jobs too and when exports fall US jobs fall.
As Congressman Don Bonker states, trade conflicts with China and other countries will increase both from the US and the Chinese side. Trump may well self-initiate trade cases against China and China will bring cases against the US. But Congressional Republicans will try to limit Trump’s protectionist nature.
Xi Jinping of China has already stated that the Chinese government wants to work with President Trump because of the importance of the US China economic relationship.
Complicating the situation is that last week the EC has proposed a change to its antidumping and countervailing to allow it to continue to treat China as a nonmarket economy country or as a country which distorts its market by government practices.
On the other hand, we can expect Congress to work very close with President Trump on different policy initiatives to make the United States a much more fertile ground for US manufacturing. This will mean cuts in Corporate tax rates and the reduction in production curtailing regulations. Trump will try and do everything possible to increase jobs in the United States. Hopefully, that will mean more support to Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, which is the only effective US trade remedy that saves companies and the jobs that go with them.
Under the Universal Trade War theme, there are articles by Chinese lawyers on Chinese antidumping law, along with newsletter from an Indian lawyer about Indian trade law. Many of these cases in other countries target the United States.
In addition, there is an article about Customs Evasion in the Aluminum Extrusions antidumping case and several recent 337 intellectual property cases against China.
If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address email@example.com.
TRADE AND TRADE POLICY
TRUMP VICTORY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR TRADE
Donald Trump won the Presidency on November 8th, and on January 20, 2017 Trump will become the 45th President of the United States. What does this mean for trade?
TPP IS DEAD
With the Trump victory, Republicans in the House and the Senate will not fight Trump and will not bring the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) to the floor during the Lame Duck session. According to recent press reports, Trump might try and renegotiate TPP, but as written, TPP is dead.
Several weeks ago during the heat of the campaign, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, stated that he could no longer campaign with Donald Trump. ln a speech on November 9th, the day after the Trump victory, House Speaker Paul Ryan ate humble pie.
In his speech, Ryan made it very clear that Trump’s victory was the most “incredible political feat” of his lifetime. For a video of Paul Ryan’s speech, see https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=paul+ryan+speech+video+after+trump+victory&view=detail&mid=556B672FB48D720BC373556B672FB48D720BC373&FORM=VIRE
Ryan also made it clear that he was extremely grateful because Trump was the first time Republican Presidential candidate to win Wisconsin’s electoral votes, his home state, since 1984. Ryan also stated that Trump had coat tails. Trump’s victory allowed down ballet Republicans to win. The most important example of that was Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson, who was in a very tough reelection campaign. Trump’s victory helped Ron Jonson win and allowed the Republicans to hold on to the Senate by a 51 to 49 plurality.
The simple political reality is that Trump’s victory allowed the Republicans to hold a majority in the Senate and the House.
As Paul Ryan stated,
“Donald Trump heard a voice in this country that no one else heard. He connected in ways with people that no one else did. He turned politics on its head. And now Donald Trump will lead a unified Republican government.”
There is no way that Paul Ryan is going to oppose Trump and bring the TPP to the floor of Congress in the face of that political feat. Let the next Administration deal with this issue. As explained below, the TPP will probably stay dead until Congress and the Administration fix the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program and make many US companies competitive again so they can withstand competition from imports.
It should be noted that those Republicans that distanced themselves from Trump, such as Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, lost their races. In light of the Trump victory and his opposition to Trump, Governor John Kasich will have little weight when he argues for the TPP.
TRUMP’S PROTECTIONIST ARGUMENT TO THE RUST BELT STATES DROVE HIS VICTORY
The big surprise in the Trump victory was that traditionally Democratic states, the Rust Belt, of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio all went for Trump. To illustrate the shock to the Democratic party, Hilary Clinton did not even campaign in the State of Wisconsin because the Democrats assumed they had Wisconsin in the bag. Why did these Rust Belt states go for Trump? Trade.
The person who forecast this victory was Michael Moore, the very famous Democratic gadfly and movie producer. In a true statement against interest, last summer Michael Moore explained why he, the Good Democrat, believed that Trump would win the election—the Rust Belt and Trade. http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/. Donald Trump spoke out against the US automobile companies moving their manufacturing to Mexico. Trump threatened that if they did, a President Trump would impose a 35% tariff on all these cars coming back to the United States. The Auto executives were stunned, but the Working Class in Michigan stood up and cheered. See Moore’s powerful video predicting the Trump victory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc. As Moore stated, Donald Trump is the “human Molotov cocktail” that these working people want to throw through the establishment window.
After the election, Moore also made it clear that it was not racism that allowed Trump to win. As Moore stated, millions of Americans, who voted for Barak Hussein Obama for two terms, voted for Donald Trump. See Moore’s video at http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/michael-moore-millions-of-trump-voters-elected-obama-twice-theyre-not-racist-video/. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, the reason Trump won was “the economy stupid” and one of the major economic issues was trade.
Ohio’s Cuyahoga County Republican Party Chairman Robert S. Frost stated that he believes that Trump’s trade message had a deep and profound effect on the regional electorate in Ohio:
“The economy has been going gangbusters, the U.S. has been expanding its trade relationships … but there are people here who [were] working, at many times, very skilled jobs that they took a great deal of pride in. They felt like they were left behind in this economy, and Donald Trump spoke right to that in places like Youngstown to Detroit to Milwaukee.”
Exit polls showed that half of Michigan’s voters are of the opinion that free trade takes away jobs, and those trade skeptics broke for Trump by a 57 to 36 percent margin over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. There are similar stories to be found in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where 47 percent and 53 percent of voters respectively felt that free trade hurts workers and jobs.
Trump’s arguments are the same protectionist arguments that Rust Belt Democrats have used to be elected for decades, but the Workers had seen no change. By upending conventional Republican wisdom on trade, Trump opened the door to a whole new group of voters. These workers in the Rust Belt are Nixon’s Silent Majority, the Reagan Democrats, that went for Trump.
As Frost further stated:
“Organized labor had thought that the Democrats had had their backs for the last 25 years, but they look around and see where they are, and they wonder why they had placed their faith there. Donald Trump went against what had been Republican orthodoxy on trade. Part of how we got there is that Hillary Clinton … began taking an internationalist position of trade for trade’s sake, as opposed to representing an American position on trade.”
Trump appealed to the emotions of workers who felt wronged by a steady pattern of trade liberalization that is, in their minds, was about to get much worse if the U.S. Congress had been able to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership accord,
On October 18, 2016 in an article in Real Clear Politics entitled “The Trump Trade Doctrine: A Path to Growth & Budget Balance”. Wilbur Ross & Peter Navarro explained why they believed the Trump Trade Policy would work:
Budget-deficit hawks often insist that the only way to balance the Federal budget is to raise taxes or cut spending. The far smarter path to balance the budget is simply to grow our economy faster.
From 1947 to 2001, the U.S. real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. Since 2002, that rate has fallen to 1.9 percent — at the cost of millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of additional income and tax revenues.
Donald Trump’s economic plan will restore America’s real GDP growth rate to its historic norm. It proposes tax cuts, reduced regulation, lower energy costs, and eliminating America’s chronic trade deficit. . . .
This new normal argument — it should more appropriately be called the “new dismal” — also ignores the self-inflicted negative impacts from poorly negotiated trade deals and the failure to enforce them. These bad deals include, most notably, NAFTA, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, and, most recently, Hillary Clinton’s debilitating 2012 U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
In 2012, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that the “cutting edge” South Korean deal would create 70,000 new jobs. Instead, the US has lost 95,000 jobs and America’s trade deficit with South Korea has roughly doubled. Moreover, workers in the U.S. auto industry, particularly in states such as Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, have been hard hit. . . .
Donald Trump has pledged to renegotiate every one of America’s bad trade deals according to the principles of the Trump Trade Doctrine. The Trump Trade Doctrine states that any new or renegotiated deal must increase the GDP growth rate, decrease the trade deficit, and strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base. . . .
Some critics will argue that reducing the flow of cheap imports from locales such as China, Mexico, and Vietnam will be inflationary and act as a regressive tax by denying lower-income households cheap imports. In reality, four decades of one-sided globalization and chronic trade deficits have shifted wealth and capital from workers to the mobile owners of capital and reduced the purchasing power of Americans.
A visit to cities like Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and Flint, Michigan, reveals quickly the falsehoods and broken promises of those who preach the gains from trade deficits — which are often financed by those who turn a profit from offshoring production. Trump’s proposals will reverse these trends, concentrate more wealth and purchasing power in the hands of domestic workers and result in substantially higher employment. This will more than offset any price increases. Moreover, as products develop a competitive advantage in America and increase their production and margins, prices per unit will go down.
To those alarmists who insist Trump’s trade policies will ignite a trade war, we say we are already engaged in a trade war — a war in which the American government has surrendered in before even engaging. Unfair trade practices and policies of our competitors are simply overlooked or ignored. As a well-documented result, America has already lost tens of thousands of factories, millions of jobs, and trillions in wages and tax revenues.
Donald Trump will simply put our government on the field in defense of American interests. As Trump pursues a policy of more balanced trade, our major trading partners are far more likely to cooperate with an America resolute about balancing its trade than they are likely to provoke a trade war.
This is true for one very simple reason: Our major trading partners and deficit counterparties are far more dependent on our markets — the largest in the world — than we are on their markets.
Consider that in 2015, we ran a trade deficit in goods of $746 billion. 76 percent of that trade deficit in goods concerned just four countries: China ($367 billion); Germany ($75 billion); Japan ($69 billion); and Mexico ($61 billion).
If we look at the bilateral relationships of America with each of these countries, improvement in our trade balance is clearly achievable through some combination of increased exports and reduced imports, albeit after some tough, smart negotiations — an obvious Trump strength. The same possibilities exist with countries where we are running smaller, but nonetheless significant, deficits, such as Vietnam ($31 billion), South Korea ($28 billion), Italy ($28 billion), and India ($23 billion).
Such deficit reduction negotiations will not be wild-eyed, hip-shooting exercises. A key part of the Trump strategy will be to divert some of the products our deficit counterparties import to U.S. suppliers.
For example, many of our trading partners with which we run large trade deficits import substantial hydrocarbons from elsewhere. It would not be difficult for, say, China, Japan, Germany, and South Korea to buy more U.S. hydrocarbons. Trump intends to end the regulatory constraints on hydrocarbon production and hydrocarbon exports, resulting in as much as $95 billion gains for the U.S.
Our deficit counterparties also import lots of industrial equipment and supplies of plastics and other materials, some from the U.S. already. There is ample room here for them — along with countries like India, Mexico, and Vietnam — to switch vendors.
Trump’s strategic approach to trade negotiations would begin with product-by-product and country-by-country analyses. Our negotiators would set goals that are achievable and pursue them fiercely. No prior administration has ever approached trade as surgically as a Trump Administration would.
As a business person, rather than a politician, Trump understands this: There is no more reason to let our major trading partners take advantage of us than there is for a large private company to permit its vendors to do so.
You will notice we have not mentioned tariffs. They will be used if necessary against mercantilist cheating, but only in a very precise and defensive way.
Ultimately, our view is that doing nothing about unfair trade practices is the most hazardous course of action — and the results of this hazard are lived out every day by millions of displaced American workers and deteriorating communities. We simply cannot trade on their one-sided terms; they are just too destructive to the U.S. growth process.
At the end of the day — and on November 8th — voters have a very clear choice between Trump’s smart path to rapid growth and budget balance and Hillary Clinton’s new dismal world of economic stagnation. At least on the economy, this choice is clear.
The problem with the argument, however, is that it is based on the economic situation decades ago when the US was the largest market in the World. That is no longer true. China with its 1.2 billion population has a larger market than the US. House Speaker Paul Ryan has cited many times that 75% of the World’s consumers are outside the United States.
The real problem with Trump’s trade policy is uncertainty. No one knows how aggressive Trump will be in a new Administration. Through the Commerce Department self-initiating antidumping and countervailing duty cases and bringing Section 201 Escape Clause cases against the World, a President Trump can certainly increase protectionist barriers in the US.
A President Trump can unravel NAFTA and dump the TPP, but if the US erects substantial barriers to US imports, countries around the World will respond by increasing barriers to US exports.
NOT RETALIATION RECIPROCITY
The problem with protectionism is that trade is a two-way street and what the US can do to countries, they can do back. In my last blog post, I stated that although many US politicians, including Donald Trump, want to adopt a mercantilist trade policy which favors pushing exports and protecting US industries from imports, the US politicians simply do not understand retaliation. In this blog post, I want to restate this because the issue is not retaliation. It is reciprocity.
Retaliation implies a tit for tat response. You attack us. We attack you. The United States files an antidumping case targeting $4 billion in imports of Solar Cells from China, and China responds with a meritless Chinese antidumping case targeting $2 billion in imports of Polysilicon from the United States. But that is not what truly happened. In the Chinese polysilicon case, for example, the Chinese polysilicon industry was truly being hurt by US imports.
The real issue is reciprocity. If the US can use its antidumping and countervailing duty laws to find dumping and subsidization in more than 90% of the cases, the Chinese governments and governments around the World can make the same finding with regards to imports from the United States. What goes around comes around.
Free trade agreements, such as the TPP and the TTIP, which would break this cycle are now dead as the US and each country wants to put its industries first and make their country and industries great again. The rise in economic nationalism results in trade wars in which country after country will fire trade guns against each other.
The argument that trade wars are already going on is true, but what the pundits do not realize is that under Trump the trade wars will get bigger. The US has antidumping and countervailing duty orders covering $30 billion in imports from China. The Chinese government has orders blocking about $10 billion in imports from the US, including polysilicon, chicken, numerous chemical products, and steel products. Just recently, the Chinese government has issued an antidumping order blocking over $1 billion in Chinese imports from the United States of distiller grains, and now there is talk about a case targeting $15 billion of imports of US soybeans. What goes around comes around.
In a November 11th editorial, entitled “The Message Of Donald Trump’s Stunning Victory” the International Business Daily stated that the one policy which has to be reined in by Republicans in Congress is trade:
“Republicans will also have to work hard to temper Trump’s anti-free-trade instincts. A trade war is the one big risk Trump’s presidency represents for the economy. Trump has repeatedly the he is all in favor of free trade, and the GOP needs to hold him to those words.”
TRADE IS FALLING AROUND THE WORLD
Moreover, on October 30, 2016, Binyamin Applebaum in an article entitled “A Little-Noticed Fact About Trade: It’s No Longer Rising” found that trade around the world is dropping, including a drop of $200 billion in US exports:
“The growth of trade among nations is among the most consequential and controversial economic developments of recent decades. Yet despite the noisy debates, which have reached new heights during this Presidential campaign, it is a little-noticed fact that trade is no longer rising. The volume of global trade was flat in the first quarter of 2016, then fell by 0.8 percent in the second quarter, according to statisticians in the Netherlands, which happens to keep the best data.
The United States is no exception to the broader trend. The total value of American imports and exports fell by more than $200 billion last year. Through the first nine months of 2016, trade fell by an additional $470 billion It is the first time since World War II that trade with other nations has declined during a period of economic growth. . ..
But there are also signs that the slowdown is becoming structural. Developed nations appear to be backing away from globalization.
The World Trade Organization’s most recent round of global trade talks ended in failure last year. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, an attempt to forge a regional agreement among Pacific Rim nations, also is foundering. It is opposed by both major-party American presidential candidates. Meanwhile, new barriers are rising. Britain is leaving the European Union. The World Trade Organization said in July that its members had put in place more than 2,100 new restrictions on trade since 2008.
“Curbing free trade would be stalling an engine that has brought unprecedented welfare gains around the world over many decades,” Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, wrote in a recent call for nations to renew their commitment to trade. . . .
But even if growth rebounds, automation reduces the incentives to invest in the low- labor-cost developing world, and it reduces the benefits of such investments for the residents of developing countries.”
UNFAIR TRADE CASES DO NOT WORK; THEY DO NOT SAVE THE US COMPANIES
The problem with the potential Trump policy of bringing more unfair trade cases to solve the trade problem is that trade cases do not work. They do not save the companies and the jobs that go with them.
Bethlehem Steel, a history that I am personally aware of, had 40 years of protection from steel imports through various antidumping and countervailing duty cases and orders. Where is Bethlehem Steel today? Green fields.
Trying to stop a wave of low priced imports by filing an unfair trade cases is like putting finger in a dike when faced with a tidal wave engulfing the entire company and industry.
When an industry and company is faced with competition from imports it is so easy to engage in globalization/international trade victimhood. We poor US companies cannot compete because all imports are dumped and subsidized.
For countries and companies faced with import competition, the easy solution is blame the foreigner. The only way for a company to truly survive, however, is give up the globalization victimhood mindset and do what is necessary to make the company competitive again.
EXISTING PROGRAMS TO MAKE US MANUFACTURING COMPANIES MORE COMPETITIVE IS THE ANSWER TO THE TRADE PROBLEM — TAA FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES AND THE MEP MANUFACTURING PROGRAM– BUT THEY HAVE BEEN CUT TO THE BONE
As described in my September newsletter and uschinatradewar.com blog post, which can be found at http://uschinatradewar.com/us-china-trade-war-tpp-politics-taaf-the-answer-2-billion-missing-dumping-duties-as-cases-rise-customs-law-changes-solar-cells-337-customs-stop-infringing-imports/, free trade requires competitive US companies and industries. For the US government to go forward with a free trade agenda and the passage of free trade agreements, it must restore the trade safety net.
The US Government already has successful programs to make US companies injured by imports competitive again, but they have been cut to the bone. Companies and Unions that want to take advantage of these programs and survive must first change their mindset and reject the defeatism of international trade/globalization victimhood.
Those programs are:
- Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (Commerce)
- The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Commerce)
Economists and policy makers of all persuasions are now beginning to recognize the requirement for a robust response by this nation to foreign imports – irrespective of party affiliation or the particular free trade agreement under consideration at any given moment. Companies, workers and Government officials need to stop blaming the foreigner and figure out what they can do to compete with the foreign imports. These two programs make US companies injured by imports competitive again.
Free trade does not have to be abandoned resulting in a lose lose situation for all countries. When the US Government enters into Trade Agreements, such as NAFTA, the TPP, or the TTIP, Government action changes the market place. All of a sudden US companies can be faced with a series of flash floods of foreign competition and imports that can simply wipe out US companies. The US Government must restore the international trade safety net.
A starting point for a trade adjustment strategy would be for a combined Commerce-Labor approach building upon existing authorities and proven programs, that can be upgraded and executed forthwith.
Commerce’s Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) has 11 regional (multi-state) TAAF Centers but the program has been cut to only $12.5 million annually. The system has the band-width to increase to a run rate of $50 million. Projecting a four-year ramp up of $90 million (FY18-FY21), the TAA program could serve an additional 2,150 companies.
Foreign competitors may argue that TAA for Firms/Companies is a subsidy, but the money does not go directly to the companies themselves, but to consultants to work with the companies through a series of knowledge-based projects to make the companies competitive again. Moreover, the program does not affect the US market or block imports in any way.
Does the program work? In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center in this video at http://mataac.org/howitworks/ describes in detail how the program works and saved four companies and the jobs that go with them. The reason 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 for each company to make the companies competitive again in the US market as it exists today.
Increasing funding will allow the TAA for Firms/Companies program to expand its bandwidth and provide relief to larger US companies, including possibly even steel producers. If companies that use steel can be saved by the program, why can’t the steel producers themselves?
But it will take a tough love approach to trade problems. Working with the companies’ management and the Union to forget about Globalization victimhood and start trying to actually solve the Company’s problems that hinder its competitiveness in the market as it exists today.
In addition to TAA for Firms/Companies, another important remedy needed to increase competitiveness is Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which has a Center in each State and Puerto Rico. MEP provides high quality management and technical assistance to the country’s small manufacturers with an annual budget of $130 million. MEP, in fact, is one the remedies suggested by the TAA Centers along with other projects to make the companies competitive again.
As a consequence of a nation-wide re-invention of the system, MEP is positioned to serve even more companies. A commitment of $100 million over four years would serve an additional 8,400 firms. These funds could be targeted to the small manufacturing firms that are the base of our supply chain threatened by foreign imports.
Each of these programs requires significant non-federal match or cost share from the companies themselves, to assure that the local participants have significant skin in the game and to amplify taxpayer investment. A $250 million commitment from the U.S. government would be a tangible although modest first step in visibly addressing the local consequences of our trade policies. The Department of Commerce would operate these programs in a coordinated fashion, working in collaboration with the Department of Labor’s existing Trade Adjustment Assistance for Displaced Workers program.
TAA for Workers is funded at the $711 million level, but retraining workers should be the last remedy in the US government’s bag. If all else fails, retrain workers, but before that retrain the company so that the jobs and the companies are saved. That is what TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP program do. Teach companies how to swim in the new market currents created by trade agreements and the US government
In short – this serious and multi-pronged approach will begin the process of stopping globalization victimhood in its tracks.
Attached is a longer proposal, taaf-2-0-white-paper, on how to expand TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP Program to make US companies more competitive again.
UNDER TRUMP TRADE CONFLICTS WITH CHINA WILL INCREASE
As readers may remember, my deep dive on the background of this election started with a February conversation and bet with my friend, former Democratic Congressman Don Bonker. He firmly believed that Hilary Clinton would win in a landslide and the Democrats would win the Senate and the House.
I knew people that were going to vote for Trump and believed that although Clinton would probably win, it would be a close election and the Republicans would probably keep the Senate and definitely the House. Trump won the election and the Republicans kept the Senate and the House.
Set forth below are Congressman Bonker’s thoughts on what he believes the Trump election means for future US Trade Policy regarding China.
‘Election Results: U.S. China Relationship
Prepared by: Congressmen Don Bonker (Democrat)
Winston Churchill’s characterization of “democracy as the worst form of government except for all the others” was on full display in America’s 2016 presidential election. Yesterday’s torrent of election results is revealing of America’s challenges ahead, not only domestically but internationally. This report is focused on how the election results will affect the U.S. – China relationship.
CANDIDATES WEBSITE/POSITIONS ON CHINA
Increase cooperation in areas of common interest
Reinforce alliances in the Asia-Pacific
Ratchet up the U.S. deterrent against Chinese cyberattacks
Take a stronger stance against China’s human rights record
Increase U.S. military presence in and around the South China Sea
Investigate and punish China for unfair trade practices
Designate China a currency manipulator
Ratchet up the U.S. deterrent against Chinese cyberattacks
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS. U.S. presidents are not elected by the popular vote but the so-called Electoral College – each of the 50 states select “electors” equal to the number of Congressmen — that determines the outcome. The margin is significant in that a sweeping victory with over 300 electoral votes will demonstrate a public mandate that will make the newly elected Presidents’ governing more effective. This year, Donald Trump’s victory with 289 electoral votes [which is now with Michigan and Arizona 309 votes] is not a big margin but his party being in control of both the Senate and House of Representatives, is a sufficient mandate, something of a populist uprising not seen in recent years.
The election of Donald Trump was unexpected and shocking, even troubling to many in the U.S. and around the world. The electoral vote is revealing of why and how he won the election – his anti-trade and immigration messages resonated in the four or five rust-belt states that were expected to vote for Hillary Clinton. Not unlike the Brexit vote, he played to the anger and fear that was directed at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., a movement that will definitely take the country in a new and perilous direction.
Most disconcerting is how a President Trump will conduct foreign policy given that he has no experience compared to Hillary Clinton, who served as Secretary of State and was expected to continue the Obama Administration’s policies and alliances with other countries. The U.S. China relationship is all about economics and trade, so his Seven-Step Trade Plan is an indication of what lies ahead:
Immediate withdraw from TPP and a renegotiation of NAFTA.
Appoint the “toughest and smartest trade negotiators.
Direct Department of Commerce to “identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm our worker” and direct all Federal agencies to use “every tool under American and international law” to end abuses.
Instruct the Treasury Department to label China a currency manipulator, promising that any international devaluation would be met with sharply through tariffs and taxes.
The U.S. Trade Representatives would be instructed to bring trade cases against Beijing under both U.S. laws and the WTO.
If China does not stop its illegal activities, Trump said he would invoke specific safeguards and tariff protections under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.
U.S. China Relationship
In past years, presidential candidates have been known for their “tough talk on China” during campaigns but eventually succumb to the geopolitical realities once they become president. Donald Trump has gone way beyond tough talk in that he has been relentless in his China bashing and threats to take punishing actions based on unfair trade practices.
More alarming have been his comments threatening the U.S. – China relationship, on one occasion stating that “I’d love to have a trade war with China…if we did no business with China, frankly we will save a lot of money.” This hopefully is more about rhetoric than policy and a sitting President and his advisors will be more realistic and engage China in ways that will be mutually beneficial.
Ultimately, it’s not so much about the rhetoric and issues but the relationship between the two heads of state. President Obama and President Xi Jinping had a “trust” working relationship that may not go as easily with Donald Trump, but he is a master negotiator who knows how to work out deals with others. Much will also depend on who will be his cabinet ministers and senior advisors.
U.S. – International. Donald Trump’s election has many world leaders concerned given his pledge of radical actions that will project a different America. For the past 50 years, America has been the undisputed leader worldwide but that is about to change, partly because both Donald Trump’s election is rooted in American anxiety, placing the blame on globalization and trade deals for job losses and economic hardship. In recent years partisanship and politicalizing of U.S. foreign policy has intensified in a way that inhibits a President’s ability maintain America’s leadership globally.
What does this mean in terms of America’s leadership internationally? The reverberating message and new mandate that comes out of the election may be alarming to foreign leaders in that a Trump Administration’s foreign policy will be unpredictable, to be sure, on both the economic and geopolitical fronts that will lead to greater uncertainty. It will definitely be more protectionist given Mr. Trump’s ranting that trade deals have caused job losses and economic hardship. More perplexing is whether a Trump presidency will abandon America’s alliances and commitments and embark on a course that is more self-serving.
Regardless of who was elected, one of the realities will be China possibly surpassing America as the world’s most powerful nation, which will be a dramatic wake-up call for a country that has proudly embraced this status for the past hundred years. A Trump presidency taking the country down the path of isolationism may have America backing away from its global responsibilities compared to China’s highly focused set of objectives and its growing presence internationally. Indeed, China has wisely avoided involvement in geopolitical and security issues, such as the Middle East, and instead is concentrating on economic and investment development, which rapidly advances their leadership standing around the world.
Two weeks before the election, the Democrats were expected to take control of the U. S. Senate hopefully gaining enough seats to be the Majority Party that would be fully supportive of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Instead the Republicans will now control both branches of the U.S. government. However, it will not represent a consensus or cooperation given the deep divisions within the Republican Party, particularly how the Trump candidacy shattered political convention by criticizing Congressional leaders and charting his own path
U.S. Senate. The Constitution specifies that one-third of the Senate positions are up every election year, which worked to the advantage of Democrats since most of the ballot positions were Republicans. Yet the election results favored the Republicans who will maintain their 51-45 advantage for the next two years. The Senate has the Constitutional authority to approve treaties and appointments to high-level positions and ambassadors. There should be cooperation, given that the same party controls both branches, but Donald Trump has defied the conventional approach to doing business, so this will add to the uncertainty.
House of Representatives. For the past six years the Republicans have been in control with a significant margin, despite divisions of within the Party that inhibits their ability to be productive. Prior to the election, the Republicans held 247 of the 435 seats that are up for election every year, a safe margin. While the Democrats did pick up eleven of the Republican held seats they will continue as the Minority Party for the next few years.
The same party in control of the White House and Congress would normally make for a productive session, but uncertainty lingers given the troubled relationship between Donald Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan. Prior to the elections, a fractured Republican Party has been unified only by its opposition to President Obama’s policies, like Obamacare, so many questions remain about how the Speaker will preside over his own problems as he prepares to work with a Trump Administration.
In contrast to Congressman Bonker, my belief is that the US China relationship may, in fact, work out better than people think under President Trump. While in China last month I met many Chinese who liked Trump, despite his trade policy, which was enlightening.
Although Trump will be tough in trade negotiations, Trump is a business man and likes to do deals. That means he is truly open to negotiations.
Also many Conservative publications, such as the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily (“IBD”), believe that Republican Congressional leaders, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, may be able to prevent Trump from starting an all-out, hot, trade war against China.
But the US China cold trade war will definitely continue as there will be more US trade actions against China, and more Chinese trade actions against the US. Both countries will feel the pain.
But the relationship will become even more complicated as the EC in response to the WTO December 11, 2016 deadline to grant China market economy status proposed on November 9th amending its antidumping and countervailing law to provide that although for WTO members normal value is determined on the basis of actual prices and costs in the foreign market, in certain circumstances, e.g., China, where prices and costs are distorted because of government intervention and not free market forces, the EC Commission can look at prices and costs outside China.
EC PROPOSES CHANGES TO ITS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING LAW TO IN EFFECT CONTINUE TO TREAT CHINA AS A NONMARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY
On November 9, 2016 the European Commission issued the attached proposed “Regulation of the European Parliament and Of The Council,” ec-china-market-economy-regs, on the way to calculate normal value for certain nonmarket economy countries, specifically China.
The EC Commission has proposed amending its antidumping law to provide that although for WTO members normal value is determined on the basis of actual prices and costs in the foreign market, in certain circumstances, where prices and costs are distorted because of government intervention and not free market forces, e.g., China, the EC Commission can look at prices and costs outside China, stating specifically if:
domestic prices and costs would not provide a reasonable basis to determine the normal value. This could be the case, for instance, when prices or costs are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by government intervention. Relevant considerations in this respect include, for instance, the fact that the market in question is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country; the state presence in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs; the existence of public policies or measures discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and the access to finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives.
In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate to use domestic prices and costs to determine the value at which the like product should be normally sold (“the normal value”) and a new provision (Article 2(6)a) stipulates that the normal value would instead be constructed on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks. For this purpose, the sources that may be used would include undistorted international prices, costs, or benchmarks, or corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country.
This methodology would allow the Commission to establish and measure the actual magnitude of dumping being practised in normal market conditions absent distortions.
For the sake of transparency and efficiency, the Commission services intend to issue public reports describing the specific situation concerning the market circumstances in any given country or sector. Of importance, the EU industry would be in a position to rely on and refer to the information contained in these reports when alleging in a complaint or a request for review that the domestic prices and costs in the exporting country are unsuitable to determine the normal value. Such reports and the evidence on which it is based would also be placed on the file of any investigation relating to that country or sector so that all interested parties would be in a position to express their views and comments. . . .
In the light of experience gained in past proceedings, it is appropriate to clarify the circumstances in which significant distortions affecting to a considerable extent free market forces may be deemed to exist. In particular, it is appropriate to clarify that this situation may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by government intervention. It is further appropriate to clarify that in considering whether or not such a situation exists regard may be had, inter alia, to the potential impact of the following: the market in question is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country; state presence in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs; public policies or measures discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and access to finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives. It is further appropriate to provide that the Commission services may issue a report describing the specific situation concerning these criteria in a certain country or a certain sector; that such report and the evidence on which it is based may be placed on the file of any investigation relating to that country or sector . . . .
It is further appropriate to recall that costs should normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation. However, where there are significant distortions in the exporting country with the consequence that costs reflected in the records of the party concerned are artificially low, such costs may be adjusted or established on any reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets or from international prices or benchmarks. In the light of experience gained in past proceedings, it is appropriate to further clarify that, for the purposes of applying the provisions introduced by this regulation, due account should be taken of all relevant evidence, including relevant assessment reports regarding the circumstances prevailing on the domestic market of the exporting producers and the evidence on which they are based, which has been placed on the file, and upon which interested parties have had an opportunity to . . .
Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is amended as follows:
In Article 2 the following paragraph 6a is inserted:
‘6a. (a) In case it is determined, when applying this provision or any other relevant provision of this Regulation, that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices and costs in the exporting country due to the existence of significant distortions, the normal value shall be constructed on the basis of costs of production and sale reflecting undistorted prices or benchmarks. For this purpose, the sources that may be used include undistorted international prices, costs, or benchmarks, or corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country with a similar level of economic development as the exporting country, provided the relevant cost data are readily available. The constructed normal value shall include a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits.
Significant distortions for the product concerned within the meaning of point (a) may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, are not the result of free market forces as they are affected by government intervention. In considering whether or not significant distortions exist regard may be had, inter alia, to the potential impact of the following: the market in question is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country; state presence in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs; public policies or measures discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and access to finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives.
In Article 11(4), the following subparagraph is added:
‘In the case of a transition from a normal value calculated pursuant to the former Articles 2(7)(a) or 2(7)(b) to a normal value calculated pursuant to paragraphs 1 to 6a of Article 2, any review pursuant to this paragraph shall be deferred to the date on which the first expiry review following such transition is initiated.’
STEEL TRADE CASES
CERTAIN CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL CUT TO LENGTH PLATE FROM AUSTRIA, BELGIUM, CHINA, FRANCE GERMANY, ITALY, JAPAN, KOREA AND TAIWAN
On November 7, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-multiple-ctl-plate-ad-prelim-11082016, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty investigations of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Austria, Belgium, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.
For Austria, the antidumping rate is 41.97%. For Belgium, the antidumping rate ranges from 2.41 to 8.5%. For China, the antidumping rate is 68.27%. For France, the antidumping rate ranges from 4.26 to 12.97%. For Germany, the antidumping rate ranges from 0 to 6.56%. For Italy, the antidumping rate ranges from 6.10 to 130.63%. For Japan, the antidumping rate ranges from 14.96 to 48.64%. For Korea the antidumping rate is 6.82%. For Taiwan, the antidumping rate ranges from 3.51 to 28%.
CIRCULAR WELDED CARBON-QUALITY STEEL PIPE FROM OMAN, PAKISTAN, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, AND VIETNAM
On October 24, 2016, Commerce in the attached fact sheet, pipe, announced its affirmative final determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) investigations of imports of circular welded carbon- quality steel pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, and countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from Pakistan.
For Oman, the antidumping rate is 7.24%. For Pakistan, the antidumping rate is 11.08% and the countervailing duty rate is 64.81%. For United Arab Emirates the antidumping rates range from 5.58% to 6.43%. For Vietnam the antidumping rate ranges from 0 to 113%
FOREIGN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW AND CASES
UNIVERSAL TRADE WAR CONTINUES
With the election of Donald Trump, as stated in my last newsletter, the Universal Trade War will continue. In addition to the US bringing antidumping and countervailing duty 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 antidumping and countervailing duty cases in other countries.
Set forth below are two articles by Chinese trade lawyers on how to respond in Chinese trade cases against the United States and other countries.
ROLAND ZHU, ALLBRIGHT LAW FIRM
A General Description of Anti-Dumping Regulation
of the People’s Republic of China
by Roland Zhu, Allbright Law Firm
In order to maintain foreign trade order and fair competition, China’s Ministry of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as “MOFCOM”) is responsible for conducting anti-dumping investigations against foreign exporters in case that imported products enter the market of the People’s Republic of China by way of dumping, and cause material damage or constitute a threat of material damage to an already established domestic industry, or cause a material impediment to the establishment of a domestic industry in accordance with the Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic of China, Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping and Interim Rules on Placing Cases on File for Antidumping Investigations, which are effective and applicable law.
Where there exists dumping or may exist dumping, an anti-dumping investigation may arise. A complete set of anti-dumping investigation procedure usually follows these steps:
- MOFCOM may place a case on file for antidumping investigations upon the application of an applicant; it may also place a case on file on its own initiative for anti-dumping investigations.
- MOFCOM shall, within 60 days as of its receipt of the application letter and the relevant evidence submitted by the applicant, examine whether the application is filed by the domestic industry or filed by representing the domestic industry, the contents of the application letter and the evidence attached to it, etc., and shall decide to initiate an investigation or not. Prior to the decision to initiate an investigation, the government of the exporting country (region) concerned shall be notified.
- MOFCOM shall publish the decision to initiate an investigation and notify the applicant, the known exporters and importers, the government of the exporting country (region) and other interested organizations and parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the interested parties”). As soon as the decision to initiate an investigation is published, MOFCOM shall provide the full text of the written application to the known exporters and the government of the exporting country (region).
- MOFCOM may conduct an investigation and collect information from the interested parties by, among other methods, sending questionnaires, using samples, holding public hearings and making on-the-spot verification.
- MOFCOM shall, on the basis of its findings, make a preliminary determination on dumping and injury, as well as on whether there exists a causal link between dumping and injury. The preliminary determination shall be published by MOFCOM.
- In cases where a preliminary determination on dumping, injury and the causal link between the two is affirmative, MOFCOM shall conduct further investigations on dumping, the dumping margin, the injury and its degree, and, make a final determination on the basis of its findings. The final determination shall be published by MOFCOM. Before the final determination is made, MOFCOM shall inform all known interested parties of the essential facts on which the final determination is based.
- An anti-dumping investigation shall be concluded within 12 months from the date of publication of the decision to initiate the investigation, and the period may be extended in special circumstances, but in no case shall the extension be more than 6 months.
- The anti-dumping measures taken by MOFCOM shall include provisional anti-dumping measures, price undertakings and anti-dumping duties. The period for applying the provisional anti-dumping measures shall not exceed four months from the effective date set forth in the public notice regarding the decision on provisional anti-dumping measures, and, in special circumstances, may be extended to nine months. The period for the levy of an anti-dumping duty and fulfillment of a price undertaking shall not exceed five years, and may be extended if, as a result of the review, it is determined that the termination of the anti-dumping duty would possibly lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
- The review proceedings shall be conducted with reference to the relevant provisions of Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping. Any review shall be concluded within 12 months from the date of the decision of initiation of such a review.
Answers to General Questions about Chinese Antidumping cases are listed below or you may refer to the general description of Chinese anti-dumping regulations.
- Information on recent cases filed in China against other countries
Answer: Please see the table below, which summarizes recent cases filed in China during the year of 2016 against other countries are:
Initiation Date Subject Merchandise Investigation Type Countries
1/12/2016 Dried Distiller Grains AD and CVD USA
2/5/2016 Pyridine AD Interim Review Japan and India
4/20/2015 Vinyldine Chloride Initial AD Review Japan
Vinyl Chloride Copolymer Resin
9/22/2016 Sugar Safeguard Multiple Countries including Brazil/Argentina
- What agency makes the AD and CVD decision? What agency makes the injury determination? How long does the initial investigation take? Are there mandatory companies?
Answer: The Trade Remedy and Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (the “Bureau”) makes the AD and CVD decisions as well as the injury determinations. An anti-dumping or countervailing investigation shall be concluded within 12 months from the date of publication of the decision to initiate the investigation, and the period may be extended in special circumstances, but in no case shall the extension be more than 6 months. There are mandatory companies in China’s AD investigation. The applicant, the known exporters and importers, the government of the exporting country (region) and other interested organizations and parties can register to the Bureau in order to participate in this anti-dumping investigation within 20 days from the date of promulgation of the initial announcement. The Bureau selects the respondents among those who have submitted dumping sampling questionnaire by using sampling survey. For other interested parties, including those are not chosen to answer the investigation questionnaire and those don’t register to the Bureau, the Bureau may make determinations on the basis of the facts already known and the best information available.
- Is the Chinese antidumping and countervailing duty law prospective or retrospective, retroactive liability? Is there a public interest test? Are there annual reviews? How long do the orders stay in place?
Answer: For retrospective issues you mentioned above, according to the Article 93 of Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China, Chinese antidumping and countervailing duty law shall not be retroactive, but the regulations formulated specially for the purpose of better protecting the rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations are excepted. The period for the levy of an anti-dumping duty shall not exceed 5 years, and may be extended as appropriate if, as a result of the review, it is determined that the termination of the anti-dumping duty would possibly lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. A midterm review may be conducted upon request by the interested parties and on the basis of examination of the relevant evidence submitted by the interested parties.
- Are there special rules for Non Market Economy Countries?
Answer: There are no such special rules in China.
Attached are several weekly newsletters, teams-newsletter-en-vol-2016-38 teams-newsletter-en-vol-2016-39 teams-newsletter-en-vol-2016-40, issued by Roland Zhu and his trade group at the Allbright Law Office.
FRANK HANG, GLOBAL LAW OFFICE
How Should Foreign Companies Respond to an Antidumping Investigation in China
- Definition of Dumping
According to Chinese Law, dumping consists of three factors-Dumping, Injury and Causation. As for the calculation of Dumping Margin, the following shall be taken into consideration:
- Dumping Margin= (Normal Value-Export Price)/CIF Price
- Normal Value and Export Price shall be compared on the same level, usually ex-factory level
- Comparison: a. weighted average Normal Value to weighted average Export Price; b. transaction-to-transaction comparison of Normal Value and Export Price; c. weighted average Normal Value to each transaction Export Price.
When calculating the Normal Value, the following methods are chosen by MOFCOM:
- Domestic Sales Price
- Constructed Value=Production Cost + S G & A + Reasonable Profit
- Export Price to a Third Country (Region)
In terms of category of AD Duty, China’s normal practice is to assign antidumping rates to producers, not trading companies. And there are 3 different types of rates for the enterprises to bear:
- Individual Rate
- Weighted Average Rate
- Country-wide Rate (Best Information Available, BIA)
When it comes to Injury Analysis, several factors shall be considered by MOFCOM: Imported Volume, Imported Price and other factors such as actual and potential decline of domestic industry in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investment or utilization of capacity, etc., factors affecting domestic prices; the magnitude of the margin of dumping, the actual or potential negative effects of the dumped imports on the domestic industry’s cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability of capital raising or investment, etc.
Cumulative Assessment means that the margin of dumping established in relation to the dumped imports from each country (region) is no less than 2 percent, and the volume of such imports from each country (region) is not negligible. It is negligible if the volume of the dumped imports from a particular country (region) is found to account for less than 3 percent of the total imports of the like products, unless countries (regions) which individually account for less than 3 percent of the total imports of the like products collectively account for more than 7 percent of the total imports of the like products.
- AD Investigating Procedures
In China, the AD Investigating Authority is MOFCOM Trade Remedy and Investigation Bureau who is not only in charge of determination of dumping margin but also in charge of determination of injury and causation.
Following procedures in a Chinese AD Investigation Case: Filing of the Petition are:
Filing Responding Registration, Issuing Questionnaires, Submitting Questionnaire Responses, Preliminary Determination, Public Hearing, On-site Verification, Final Determination, Price Undertaking, Administrative Reconsideration, Administrative Lawsuit, Interim Review, Sun-set Review, New Shipper Review, etc.
Within 10 working days after the deadline of filing the responding registration, the investigating authority will issue questionnaires to the registered companies. If the registered companies are numerous, the investigating authority will use sampling (usually 2 mandatory companies for each country/area).
It is important to note that foreign producers/foreign exporters must submit their responding registration documents to the investigating authority within 20 days as of the date of initiation through a PRC practicing attorney or by themselves. If they fail to do so, foreign producers will be treated as non-cooperative and MOFCOM will use the best information available (“BIA”) to make determination.
For the respondents, when submitting Questionnaire Response, they need to keep in mind that the questionnaire response must be submitted to the investigating authority within 37 days as of the date of the issuance of the questionnaires. The responding companies may apply for extension and the investigating authorities usually only give an extension of 7 days. And the questionnaire responses must be submitted through a PRC practicing attorney. After receiving the questionnaire responses, the investigating authority will review them and issue the supplementary questionnaires if certain questions require clarification or explanation further.
In an Interim Review, an application for interim review shall be filed within 30 days as of the expiration date of each year after the effective date of AD measures. The producers applying for interim reviews must have exported the subject merchandise to China within a period of 12 months prior to the application, and the export referred must have been made in sufficient quantities.
- Key Points of AD Defense Strategies
- Establishing an overall responding strategy before submitting the questionnaire responses to MOFCOM;
- Collaborating with the respondent’s department of administration, sales, production, finance, in-house counsel, foreign attorneys, PRC attorneys closely and efficiently;
- Accountant’s role is important in the calculation of dumping margin;
- Well-prepared for on-site verification;
- Communicating effectively with MOFCOM officials at different levels;
- Cooperate with other respondents on non-injury defense;
- Leverage the exporting country (region)’s government;
- Obtaining support from importers and down-stream companies.
Attached is a newsletter, ls-international-trade-amicus-september-2016, from the Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Law Firm in New Delhi on Indian antidumping law.
On October 26, 2016, the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled “Homeland Security Probes U.S. Aluminum Firms Over Chinese Imports” reported that Federal investigators had launched an investigation into whether Liu Zhongtian, a Chinese billionaire and the founder and chairman of aluminum giant China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd., was engaged in transshipment of aluminum extrusions to the United States in violation of US civil and criminal laws.
Commerce is investigating whether a New Jersey company, Aluminum Shapes LLC, imported pallets to remelt as a way to avoid a countervailing duty rate of 374%, part of a broader probe into Mr. Liu’s activities. The Commerce Department said preliminary findings would be released in coming weeks. Aluminum Shapes last month denied that the pallets were used as raw material for its plant.
Homeland Security is also investigating whether nearly one million tons of aluminum shipped to Aluminicaste Fundición de México, a factory once owned by Mr. Liu’s son, were part of an effort to evade U.S. tariffs by routing the metal through another country to disguise its origins.
SECTION 337 AND IP CASES
NEW 337 CASES
On October 31, 2016, DSM Deso Tech, Inc. and DSM IP Assets B.V. filed a 337 patent case against UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and Products from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.
UV Curable Coatings for Optical Fibers, Coated Optical Fibers, and Products
Christine E. Lehman
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner, LLP
DSM Deso Tech, Inc. and DSM IP Assets B.V.
Letter to Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, USITC; requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, regarding Certain UV Curable Coating for Optical Fibers, Coated Optional Fibers, and Products Containing Same. The proposed respondents are Momentive UV Coatings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., China and OFS Fitel, LLC, Norcross, Georgia.
On October 27, 2016, Celanese filed a 337 patent case against High Potency Sweeteners, ACE-K, from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.
Joshua B. Pond
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Celanese International Corporation, Celanese Sales U.S. Ltd. and Celanese IP Hungary Bt
Letter to Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, USITC; requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, regarding Certain High-Potency Sweeteners, Processes for Making Same, and Products Containing Same. The proposed respondents are Suzhou Hope Technology Co., Ltd., China; Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., China; and Vitasweet Co., Ltd., China.
MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES
On October 14, 2016, Qualcomm filed a 337 patent case against Mobile Electronic Devices from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Mobile Electronic Devices
Letter to Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, USITC; requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, regarding Certain Mobile Electronic Devices. The proposed respondents are Zhuhai Meizu Technology Co., Ltd., China; Zhuhai Meizu Telecom Equipment Co., Ltd., China; Dest Technology Limited, China; LGYD Limited, China; and Overseas Electronics, Inc., Chicago, IL.
If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, US trade policy, TPP, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law in general, please feel free to contact me.