US CHINA TRADE WAR – SECTION 301 TARIFFS, TRANSSHIPMENT FALSE CLAIMS ACT, ANTIDUMPING AND 337 CASES

White House Fence Summer Red Flowers Fountain Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC

TRADE IS A TWO-WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 20, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR – AUGUST 7, 2019

Dear Friends,

This blog post signals a change.  Recently I brought in Fred Rocafort, a young attorney, to help me with the trade practice and this newsletter.  Fred worked for the State Department in China and speaks fluent Chinese and Spanish.  He then worked for years in China and Hong Kong as an Intellectual Property lawyer.

In this blog post, we will discuss briefly the Section 301 case and the ongoing negotiations, the transshipment problem, the False Claims Act and impact on importers and competitors, the impact of the Fabricated Structural Steel from China case on the US construction industry, the highest antidumping rate in history, and new Section 337 cases.

Finally, this has been a very difficult newsletter to write because of this very difficult period in US China relations.  Because of constant criticism of China in Trump’s campaign to be President, one knew that Trump would be very tough on China.  Meanwhile, on the China side, as described in more detail below, President Xi Jinping has made dramatic changes in Chinese society to create a more statist economy in order to preserve the power of the Communist Party.  These two very different approaches have led to the trade conflict.

The objective of this blog is not to take one side or the other in the dispute but to focus on the reality as exists now in US China relations and spot and explain the issues so that readers can better understand the situation.  Since I am a US trade lawyer, it is easier for me to find US sources and understand better where the US is coming from.

But the rhetoric has become so heated on both the US and China sides that readers may think I am trying to favor one side over the other.  That is not my intent.  My intent is to focus on the real issues so that both sides can better understand each other.

Although the US China situation does not look good now, Dan Harris, my partner, has recently written an article entitled “Why NOW Is A Very Good Time to Double Down on Doing Business in China”.

No situation is every truly black and white.  It is grey.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

DEVELOPMENTS SINCE LAST BLOG POST

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS STOP IN MAY AS TARIFFS ON THE $200 BILLION GO FROM 10% TO 25%, POTENTIAL TARIFFS ON THE REMAINING $300 BILLION FROM CHINA GO 10% SEPTEMBER 1ST BECAUSE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AFTER G-20 MEETING SHOW NO MOVEMENT CHINA RETALIATES ON AUGUST 5TH

Although the US and China were close to a trade deal with reportedly a 120 to 150 page agreement, in May 2019 China backtracked and redlined out much of the proposed trade deal.  In particular, apparently the Chinese government backtracked on commitments to deal with Intellectual Property Theft and Forced Technology Transfer.

As stated in the last blog post:

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 response to the Chinese government’s retreat, on May 9, 2019 in the attached Federal Register notice,MAY 9 FED REG 25% 200 BILLION, the US government raised tariffs on the third $200 billion in imports from 10 to 25%.

On May 17, 2019, in the attached Federal Register notice, MAY 17 USTR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON TARIFFS $300 BILLION, the USTR started the process of imposing a 25% tariff on the remaining $300 billion from China.

On June 24th, in the attached Federal Register notice, June 24.2019.Procedures_for_Requests_to_Exclude_Particular_Products_from_the_September_2018_Action, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) set up an exclusion process for the 25% tariffs on the $200 billion.

As a result of the meeting between Presidents Xi and Trump at the G-20 in Japan on June 28th, President Trump agreed to postpone the 25% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion with the promise that trade negotiations would start up again.

Trade negotiations started up on July 30 and 31st, but there has been very little progress.  The Chinese government’s apparent new strategy is to wait for the US Presidential Election in November 2020 and hope for a better deal.  But all indications are that the Chinese economy is hurting so we will have to wait and see.

In response to the Chinese strategy, on August 1, 2019, President Trump announced 10% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion in imports from China effective September 1, 2019.  At that point in time, all of China’s exports to the US will be covered by tariffs.

On August 5, 2019, the Chinese government retaliated letting the Chinese currency drop in value to 7 yuan to the dollar, cheapening the Chinese currency so that Chinese exports will be cheaper to offset the US tariffs.  Also the Chinese government stopped all purchases of US agricultural products.

See Donald Trump Accuses China of Currency Manipulation as Yuan PlungesSee also China to suspend purchases of US farm products in retaliation for ‘serious violation’ of trade deal between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump.

FRED’S TAKE—FRED ROCAFORT ARTICLE ON SECTION 301 AND TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

USTR Lighthizer and SecTreas Mnuchin are heading to Shanghai next week for trade talks. The choice of Shanghai is interesting. One analyst suggested that China was sending a message that “trade should be trade, and politics should be politics”. Even SecTreas Mnuchin invoked the spirit of the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, which paved the way from rapprochement between the U.S. and China—and ironically the current mess in which the two countries find themselves. Perhaps the hosts are thinking of a different kind of optics. There is arguably no image that is more associated worldwide with China’s economic miracle than the Lujiazui skyline—look up “china economic miracle” on Google Images for confirmation. It is hard to reconcile the portrait of China as an economic villain with the Pearl of the Orient’s vibrancy.

Before delving into the prospects for the upcoming talks, it is worth taking a step back and remembering how we got to this point. As mentioned above, the Shanghai Communiqué that Mnuchin celebrated set in motion a process that would over time entangle the Chinese economy with those of the United States and other nations in an unprecedented way. Though Cold War realities were initially foremost in America’s thinking, soon China policy became undergirded by the idea that increased engagement with the U.S. and its democratic, free-market allies would inexorably take China down their same path.

There was certainly much change, but only to the extent that it allowed China to become an export powerhouse. One can imagine the thrill felt by foreign executives as they saw the first cases of Coke cross the Shenzhen River into Mainland China in 1979, representing a symbolic first step towards the final realization of the long-standing Western dream of opening up China. Yet 30 years later, in some fundamental ways little has changed for foreign business. Sure, it has been a relatively smooth ride for the KFCs, Colgates and Nikes of the world, who contribute mightily to the state coffers. But for most foreign businesses, the China experience has been a negative one. As a longtime China expat, I heard so many tales of woe that I became jaded. Business partners colluding with local authorities to edge out foreign investors. Rampant counterfeiting and infringement of foreign brands. Continued restrictions on market access. Capricious immigration policies. China nightmares remain unabated despite repeated government assurances of coming improvements. Mr. China remains as much of a cautionary tale today.

Ultimately, the Chinese leadership viewed and continues to view Reform and Opening as a transactional mechanism. Reform and Opening themselves were never the objectives; continuity of Party rule has always been. This is why China continues to pick and choose when it comes to reform, in a way that has led to a collision with the United States.  By the time the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign got underway, it was clear to most China-watchers that the country would not follow the path of South Korea and Taiwan towards democracy, negating the one hope that secured for China so much patience over the years. In this environment, a certain Donald Trump decided that it was time to bring this issue to the forefront.

The current trade war’s first salvo was fired in March 2018, when President Trump directed the USTR to propose a list of products to be subjected to tariffs, in response to the findings of the USTR Section 301 investigation launched in August 2017. Ultimately 1,300 types of products were listed.

China retaliated with tariffs on 128 U.S. products and asking the WTO for consultations on the U.S. tariffs. After a visit to Washington by Vice Premier Liu He, China’s point man on trade, the two countries announced that there “was a consensus on taking effective measures to substantially reduce the United States trade deficit in goods with China”. This led SecTreas Mnuchin to declare that the trade war was “on hold”. However, and perhaps reflecting disagreements within the Trump team, shortly thereafter 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of imports were announced. These tariffs went into effect on June 6 ($34 billion) and August 8 ($16 billion).  China retaliated in kind.

In September 2018, the U.S. announced 10% tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese products, which were raised to 25% on May 5, 2019. China’s expected retaliation came on June 1, in the form on tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. imports.

Presidents Trump and Xi met during the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan and announced a truce. The upcoming talks in Shanghai are the first high-level encounter since then.

The smart money is on keeping expectations low. As an analyst quoted by the SCMP noted, the “talks will only result in a small step”. Still, even a small step would be a welcome respite from the spiral of escalation we have seen over the past year. The key question is, what exactly would that small step be?

A rollback in tariffs is one option. The Chinese have previously demanded that all tariffs be eliminated before a deal can be reached. This is surely a no-starter for the Trump team, which in fact would like to keep some tariffs in place even after a deal is made. However, having slapped tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, the U.S. side has plenty of room for maneuver, allowing it to simultaneously eliminate the tariff burden considerably, while still leaving meaningful tariffs in place.

On the issue of Huawei, the introduction of a bipartisan bill in Congress that would lock the Shenzhen-based telco into the Commerce Department’s blacklist complicates matters. Paradoxically, however, the Democrats jump onto the Huawei bandwagon could help the Trump negotiators in two ways. First, it moves the goalposts in a way that allows the administration to do a lot without accomplishing anything when it comes to Huawei. Second, Lighthizer and Mnuchin can now point to concrete evidence that a Democratic victory in 2020 might not deliver the Chinese from American wrath. Better the devil you know…

As for China’s side of the bargain, hopes of placating the U.S. with purchases of agricultural goods seems to have faded, as the Chinese come to realize that no amount of sorghum is going to get the U.S. to ease up on its core demands. It is critical to remember that the Section 301 investigation that provided the legal basis for the tariffs concerned Chinese government practices “related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation”. In the absence of meaningful Chinese concessions on these areas, it is hard to see the U.S. budging at all on tariffs or Huawei.

The Section 301 investigation report provides a clear picture of what the U.S. would like to see happen with regard to these critical areas. Last month, China announced it will open up new sectors to foreign investment, and it may offer further liberalization. On the other hand, it is hard to envision the Chinese undertaking to amend laws such as JV Regulations at American behest.

As difficult as it may be for some Dragon Slayers to accept, not every single line of Chinese jurisprudence has been drafted with a nefarious, China-first agenda in mind. For instance, when Article 43(1) of the JV Regs call for “fair and reasonable” fees for the use of technology, it is reflecting the basic principle that, “In civil activities, the principles of voluntariness, fairness, making compensation for equal value, honesty and credibility shall be observed” (Art. 4, General Principles of Civil Law). Meanwhile, “Vaguely worded provisions and uncertainty about the applicable rules” are a hallmark of Chinese legislation, and serve as powerful levers with implications that go far beyond FDI.

One intriguing, if unlikely, possibility would be the introduction of more specific investment terms into a bilateral treaty (such as the income tax treaty or the consular convention). This could include language that places Chinese investment into the U.S. under additional scrutiny. It could also provide for special procedures that allow companies such as Huawei to obtain technology while providing certain safeguards. This approach would allow the Chinese to save face as far as its own legislation is concerned, while pleasing the Americans (who, given the current tenor in Washington, are unlikely to care too much about any protestations from Brussels or Ottawa regarding this side deal).

Speaking of unconventional wisdom, the possibility of non-trade elements playing a role in a deal cannot be discarded. In the leadup to the talks, Secretary Pompeo called China’s treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang “the stain of the century”, while Vice President Pence tweeted a condemnation of China’s record on religious freedom. This simultaneous push on trade and human rights is consistent with the “whole of government” approach against China called for in the—ironically-named—John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.

Admittedly, it is hard to see where China can budge, especially in the kind of public way that the Trump team needs to be able to claim some kind of victory. That said, if it gives him some oxygen on tariffs and Huawei, President Xi might be willing to pull something out of his hat on North Korea or even the South China Sea.

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 the attached Full Section 301 Report and Interim Report

If the Chinese government can compromise on IP Theft and Forced Technology Transfer in an enforceable agreement, I suspect that a deal can be reached.

If not, however, US has imposed 25% tariffs on $250 billion in imports from China with potentially another 25% tariff on the remaining $300 billion, which means by September 1st all imports from China will be hit with a 10 to 25% tariff.   See the Federal Register notices above.

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 $550 billion plus, the US could weather a trade war much better than China.

Enforcement of any agreement with China is also a big issue. At the beginning of the Section 301 Report, 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 agreements 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 attached USTR 301 report, USTR FULL 301 REPORT CHINA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.  All those agreements between the US and China were breached.

China’s failure to follow through on past trade agreements is not just a Trump issue.  Recently, former USTR Charlene Barshefsky, a good Democrat, who negotiated the US China WTO Agreement under President Clinton, has stated that the Chinese government broke all the WTO Agreements it signed.

SECTION 301 PROCEDURES AND THE JUNE 24, 2019 EXCLUSION PROCESS FOR THE $200 BILLION

As to the procedures in the Section 301 case, please see my October 1, 2018 blog post at 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.  The exclusion process for the third $200 billion list just started up on June 24th and the deadline is September 30, 2019.

Also the process has started to impose 25% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion from China.

Theoretically, 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.

FRED ROCAFORT ARTICLE ON THE JUNE 24TH EXCLUSION PROCESS FOR THE TARIFFS ON THE $200 BILLION

Back in June, Adams Lee (one of my fellow international trade lawyers) urged those who manufacture products in China for the U.S. to Get Going on Your China Tariff Exclusion Requests Now. 

Adams’ advice has clearly not gone unheeded. These days, client calls to discuss exclusion requests are as much a part of my morning routine as my first cup of joe. The deadline for filing List 3 exclusion requests is September 30, 2019, though one wonders why the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is even bothering with a deadline. According to Roll Call, the process for reviewing exclusion requests has “slowed to a painful crawl” and “USTR in July up to the 19th had completed work on just 60 of the total 2,900 requests for tariff waivers on [List 2] tranche requests”.  Not a promising sign when trying to determine how long it will take to sort out the 60,000 List 3 requests for which USTR is bracing — never mind the looming List 4 requests, when essentially all China imports will be subject to tariffs.

Our clients are understandably interested in any patterns that are emerging regarding approvals. Thanks to the Mercatus Center, we know List 1 requests for capital goods have been approved at a higher rate than intermediate goods or consumer goods, but for List 2 requests, consumer goods were approved at a higher rate than either capital or intermediate goods. It is important, however, to keep in mind that consumer goods account for only a fraction of the List 1 and 2 requests. More on this later.

Turning to the substance of the requests, after reviewing many of the requests adjudicated by USTR, approved requests tended to clearly articulate why the product for which an exclusion was sought cannot be sourced from anywhere other than China. I emphasize cannot because what trips up many requestors is that they end up explaining why they do not want to source from elsewhere.

For instance, take this denied tariff exclusion request from List 1:

[Company X] respectfully requests that you grant its request for an exclusion.

While we cannot seek exclusions on every component that we source from China, we are pursuing exclusions for several higher value and/or larger volume components, including this product.

[Company X’s] sourcing decisions are guided by a number of factors including availability of the part; quality of the part; landed cost… desire to work with a particular supplier; capacity of a supplier to produce volume needed on deadline; supply chain risk management; and minimizing capital investment.

*    *    *    *

Failure to grant [Company X’s] exclusion request will increase the company’s production costs. As a result, the company will reduce its margins, pass the additional cost onto consumers… negatively affect… the 60,000+ American workers [Company X] employs… (emphasis added)

Readers from my generation may remember the The Far Side, a brilliant comic created by Seattle’s own Gary Larson. One of my favorite cartoons juxtaposed what an owner said to his dog (“You stay out of the garbage! Understand, Ginger?”) with what Ginger actually heard (“blah blah Ginger blah”). To USTR (Ginger) this request is screaming, “I don’t want to pay more, blah blah”.

To be sure, paying more for products manufactured in China is a completely legitimate concern and I am not trying to make light of the real struggles faced by Company X and others that have their products made in China. But we are right now in a large-scale trade war with China (with no end in sight) and in the same way our great-grandparents were expected to buy Liberty bonds during World War I, the USTR expects businesses that ship China-manufactured products to the United States (and  the buyers of those products) to bear economic burdens as the country “max[es] out [its] economic power.”

Company X’s tariff exclusion request (above) does passingly mention availability of its product outside China, but it fails to flesh out how that forces it to get that product from China. Is the product not available at all in a third country? Or is it available, but not at the sufficient volume or necessary quality?

It is worth keeping in mind that USTR largely avoided consumer goods in Tariff Lists 1 and 2, but consumer goods account for more than 30% of the List 3 products (compared to less than 1% in the first two lists). This shift could bring about a sea change in tariff exclusion rejection patterns. USTR has rejected just over 60% of the List 1 tariff exclusion requests and 45% of the List 2 requests it has received.

My suspicion is that the move towards consumer goods in List 3 will cause tariff exclusion rejection numbers to increase from Lists 1 and 2. One of the key issues for USTR when it considers exclusion requests is the following:

Whether the particular product [for which the tariff exclusion is being sought] is available only from China. In addressing this factor, requesters should address specifically whether the particular product and/or a comparable product is available from sources in the United States and/or in third countries.

A familiar theme in this blog is the shift of manufacturing activity out of China, primarily to Southeast Asia and to Mexico.  In How to Stop Manufacturing in China: Try Harder, we wrote how in many instances (but certainly not all), it is neither difficult nor expensive to move manufacturing outside China:

This probably sounds harsh, but many companies would benefit from moving their manufacturing out of China that have not yet done so for reasons more related to inertia than to economics or anything else. I realize change is hard but if you are in a situation where you are essentially paying 25% more than your competitors and at huge risk of your products being slapped with retroactive duties ranging from 20% to 250%, inertia is not a good excuse.

Of course, there are companies that have almost no choice but to have their products made in China. China has been developing its export-oriented capabilities for decades and its manufacturers enjoy access to a massive internal market and to levels of government assistance that cannot be matched in other low-cost destinations. As per a Quartz article:

Then there are the products the US almost exclusively gets from China. Raising tariffs on these goods will likely cost American consumers, and leave importers in a bind to find substitutes in the short-term—in the long-run, manufacturers may look to produce these goods outside China. We identified 11 product categories that China supplied 95% of US imports worth at least $100 million in 2018 by analyzing data from the US Census Bureau. All 11 product categories were on the list of goods for which the US has threatened to raise tariff rates by 25%. The US has since agreed to delay these hikes as part of negotiations.

By contrast, China’s manufacturing competitors have been flooding the lower ends of the value chain. Simply put, it is easier to set up a sneaker factory than a chemical processing plant. Back to Quartz:

The US imports about $100 million dollars in soy sauce every year. China supplies 42%. But it also gets a lot of soy sauce from Japan (17%), Hong Kong (14%) and Thailand (7%). If the US raises tariffs on Chinese soy sauce, importers might shift their buying to these other countries to avoid cost increases.

This means that when it comes to consumer goods, we expect fewer U.S. importers will be able to answer “No” to the key question in the exclusion request form: “Is this product, or a comparable product, available from source[s] in third countries?”. As a result, it can be fully expected that USTR will deny a higher rate of List 3 and List 4 requests.

What all of this means is that if you really need to source your products from China, you need to ensure that your tariff exclusion requests are as strong as they can be. On the flip side, what is happening with the tariff exclusion process is another reminder that the conversation about getting out of China needs to happen now, especially because we do not see the United States eliminating its China tariffs soon, if ever:

If your company is thinking there will be a solution to the US-China trade war and that solution will obviate any need to move your manufacturing from China, you are very likely engaging in wishful thinking. The US-China trade war has been going on for more than a year now and, if anything, we are farther away from resolution than when it started.

What is happening with the tariff exclusion process underscores this point. By now, everyone should have disabused themselves of any notion that  tariff exclusions would be an effective workaround. They will not, unless you can truly show that your product cannot be sourced in a third country. This is the time to recognize the difference between needing to source your product from China and preferring to do so.

If you need to stick with China and you are looking down at the tariff barrel, make sure you look at some of the approved tariff exclusion requests for inspiration and be sure to clearly spell out why you do not have a China alternative, remembering that “I would have to pay more” is not going to cut it. On the other hand, if you can source your product from somewhere other than China at comparable cost and quality, it is probably time for you to move on.

I will in the meantime be working on completing and submitting more tariff exclusion requests.

BEING TOUGH ON CHINA IS A BIPARTISAN REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT ISSUE

The Chinese government’s apparent strategy in the trade negotiations is to wait and see what happens in the next Presidential election in November 2020 and hope for a better deal with a new Administration.  But after the two recent debates by Democratic candidates, Democratic pundits complain that no Democratic Presidential candidate to date can beat Donald Trump. With that situation in mind, Chinese government officials might want to rethink that strategy.

Moreover, contrary to many commentators in China and elsewhere, the tough position against China in these trade negotiations is not just President Donald Trump.  After Trump’s announcement of a potential 10% tariff starting September 1 on the remaining $300 billion imported from China, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who leads the Democrats in the Senate, came out in favor of the Trump tariffs telling President Trump to stand tough on China.

In light of these facts, 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 in Congress, 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.

Although a President Biden, whose son Hunter Biden has a billion-dollar deal in China, might be easier on China, the rest of the Democratic field will be very tough on China.  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.

FORMER DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN DON BONKER TRADE ARTICLE ON THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE TO TRUMP ON TRADE

On May 21, 2019, my friend Don Bonker, a former Democrat Congressman, published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “On Trade, Where Are My Fellow Democrats?” stated in part:

President Trump’s latest round of punishing tariffs on China, with threats of more to come, will have a devastating effect on the world’s two largest economies. His actions are contrary to the Republican Party’s usual doctrine of free trade, and they have alarmed business leaders, farmers and the American sectors and regions that will most acutely feel the pain of the tariff increases and China’s targeted retaliation.

So where are the Democrats? Until Mr. Trump arrived on the scene, the Democratic Party had itself been sojourning down the path of protectionism, driven by organized labor. Since then, the president has ripped up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, overhauled the North American Free Trade Agreement, and hit even U.S. allies with harsh tariffs-all while Democrats have been strangely silent. It seems as if they either tacitly support Mr. Trump’s reckless trade policies or simply lack an alternative.

Sidestepping the Constitution, which clearly assigns to Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” the Trump administration is using executive orders and national-security statutes to impose punishing tariffs. If a President Bernie Sanders were doing this, Senate Republicans would protest furiously. Yet Republicans and Democrats alike are letting the president do what he wants. . . .

The U.S. has tens of thousands of domestic companies that would be highly competitive in foreign markets if they could collaborate in marketing and shipping their products abroad. In 1982 I worked with Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige to resolve this problem by passing the Export Trading Company Act, enacted with bipartisan support, that included a waiver to allow these companies to team up without being in violation of the antitrust laws.

Unfortunately, the law has since been largely ignored by recent administrations, including Mr. Trump’s.The White House has tried plan after plan to restrict imports and punish trading partners. But focusing on the export side is a better way to ensure that American companies get a larger share of the world market. Over the years, Congress has established agencies and mandates to help U.S. companies go international, but they exist more like fiefdoms.  There is no global strategy and no coherence.

I’d also advise a presidential candidate to reorganize all the trade agencies-the Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Trade and Development Agency, U.S. Commercial Service and others-under one umbrella with a new mandate to make America more competitive.

In the 2020 election, the Trump administration will continue to offer protectionist policies and ongoing threats that may provoke a repeat of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which precipitated the collapse of the world trading system. Democrats need to give voters a clear alternative: Elect a president who will take America back from the brink, make exports a much higher priority, and adopt policies to make U.S. companies far more competitive in the global economy.

Congressman Bonker has some very good points, but the Democratic party does not appear to be listening to his advice.  Many Democratic Senators and Congressmen agree with President Trump’s tough stance on trade, especially with regards to China.

LONG TERM IMPACT OF TRADE WAR ON US CHINA RELATIONS, THE XI JINPING BACKLASH AND THE DECOUPLING WITH CHINA

Recently, many books have been written by Chinese experts in the United States and elsewhere about the substantial political change in China and the decision by President Xi Jinping to move China back from a free market with private companies to a state-controlled economy.  Tax rates on Chinese entrepreneurs are reportedly as high as 65%.

See the January 2019 book by Nicholas Lardy, a US expert, entitled “The State Strikes Back The End of Economic Reform in China”, which states:

“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).”

State Strikes Back at p, 507-508 (2019).

A more influential book is the most recent book by Richard McGregor “Xi Jinping The Backlash”.  See https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/opinions/xi-jinping-backlash-opinion-intl-hnk/index.html.  McGregor in his book describes in detail the movement of President Xi Jinping to recentralize decision making authority in Beijing and move China back to a more authoritarian State run completely by the Chinese Communist Party.

This dramatic political change in China has now resulted in a major reassessment by many US politicians of relations with China.  See podcast by Newt Gingrich, one of the elder statemen in the Republican Party and an advisor to President Trump, “China How We Got It Wrong”.  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/newts-world/id1452065072?i=1000438763243.

Gingrich is a free trader, but recent developments in China have led him to completely change his outlook of China.  The movement by President Xi Jinping to a more authoritarian, State Run society, in China has caused many US and other Western politicians to believe that China is not moving in the right direction.  That is not a good sign for future US/Western Democracy relations with China.

Moreover, the long-term effect of the Trump trade war and the change in policy in China regarding the treatment of private companies and foreign companies is leading to a decoupling in supply chains between the US and China and also a decoupling of many foreign companies from China suppliers.  Although some foreign companies will continue to have operations in China, many others are moving.  See August 5, 2019 South China Morning Post article, Japan’s Sony, Ricoh and Asics join manufacturers’ mass exodus from China’s factories as US tariffs on made-in-China products bite,

Many US importers are moving or looking to move supply to a third country.  US companies that have operations in China are moving or looking to move all or almost all of their production from China.  The reports are that Apple and Fox Conn have succeeded in moving all of their Chinese production to Vietnam.

We are working with Chinese, foreign and US companies that want to move production or supply to a third country, including Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand.  This major decoupling with China will have a major impact on the Chinese economy and on China’s foreign relations with other countries.  That is the simple reality of the situation.

But at the same time, as stated above, Dan Harris, my partner, has recently written an article entitled “Why NOW Is A Very Good Time to Double Down on Doing Business in China”.

THE RISE OF TRANSSHIPMENT AND HOW INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES CAN PROFIT FROM RIVALS TRANSSHIPMENT: IMPORTERS BEWARE

MOIETY  AND THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

In response to these trade actions, many Chinese companies have attempted to transship products through third countries to the United States.  The Wall Street Journal recently published a piece on transshipment.  See https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-impose-additional-10-tariff-on-chinese-goods-11564681310?mod=hp_lead_pos1.  In the video attached to the article, my partner Steve Dickinson, describes the transshipment problem in detail.

Many US importers, however, many not realize that importing goods through transshipment is a crime, which can land importers in prison.  In fact, two of my past clients went to prison for importing transshipped Chinese products through a third country.

When an importer imports products into the United States, he must submit a Section 7501 Customs form to the US Customs and Border Protection, which requires the importer to specifically declare the country of origin.  If a false 7501 Customs form is submitted to the US government and the importer knew the country of origin was false, that is Customs fraud, which can trigger significant civil and criminal penalties.

In fact, recently, a US importer contacted me because he had received an e-mail from a Chinese chemical producer/exporter, saying buy my chemical product, which is covered by a US antidumping (“AD”) order.  The Chinese producer told the US importer not to worry about the AD duties because the Chinese company would simply ship the product through Taiwan, call it Taiwan product and no problem.  The importer was very angry because he knew that transshipment is a crime, and he the US importer could find himself criminally liable for such a scheme.

Another importer recently stated that he intended to get around a US trade order by triangulation, simply shipping the Chinese product to a third country and then changing the country of origin from China to the third country.  I told the importer that this was Customs fraud and could lead to criminal and civil prosecution.

In another situation, several importers have contacted me because to get around trade orders, including antidumping and the Section 301 tariffs, Chinese companies are telling their US importers not to worry because they will just label the country of origin as Hong Kong or Singapore.  Import games, such as switching the country of origin, can lead to civil and criminal violations, which can lead to enormous penalties and even prison time.

Chinese companies and US importers have different interests.  The Chinese company wants to ship to the US.  The US importer wants to stay out of Customs trouble and avoid additional liability, be it civil or criminal.

But the question for many individuals and companies, be they Chinese or US, is how can we profit from this if we know competitors, including Chinese producers and US importers, are not playing by the rules?

Anyone, including companies in China or US importers, can profit if they discover Chinese exports or US imports that violate US Customs and Trade laws by using transshipment, shipping through a third country to change the country of origin.

Under 19 USC 1619, the Moiety statute, any person can receive compensation not to exceed 25% of the recovery, up to $250,000, for providing to any Customs officer or US attorney:

“original information concerning .. . any fraud upon the customs revenue, or any violation of the customs laws or the navigation laws which is being, or has been, perpetrated or contemplated by any other person and such information leads to a recovery of . . .any duties withheld, or … any fine, penalty, or forfeiture of property incurred . . . .”

Many US and foreign individuals and companies, including US importers and even Chinese producers/exporters, can profit even more from transshipment under the False Claims Act.   Under Title 31, United States Code, Section 3729 (G), et. seq., any person, including companies, currently face triple damages and a penalty of $11,000 per claim for any of the following acts:

“(G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.”

Section 3730 of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) provides a private right of action, that is a private person may sue for a violation of section 3729 on behalf of the US government, such as Customs fraud.  The private party called a relator can be a competitor, such as a US importer or foreign producer, or an insider, such as a secretary or a filing clerk.  The relator files a copy of the complaint and written disclosure of all material evidence and information possessed by the person under seal in the Federal District Court to show that certain US importers and foreign producers/exporters have committed fraud on the US government by transshipping products covered by antidumping and other trade orders to avoid the duties.

The complaint is brought on behalf of the United States and the Department of Justice.  The complaint and the evidence supporting the complaint are not served on the defendants, but on the US government, which has 60 days to determine whether or not to intervene in the case.

If the government decides to intervene and prosecute the action, the private party is entitled to 15 to 25 percent of any recovery.  If the government decides not to prosecute the case and the private party goes forward, the private parties are entitled to 25 to 30 percent of any recovery.

The remedy in a False Claims Act case is triple damages and in many AD and countervailing duty (“CVD”) cases, especially against China, the missing AD or CVD duties can be well over 100 to 300% on imports over the last 5 to 6 years.  In one recent preliminary antidumping determination against mattresses from China, the antidumping rate is 1,731%, the highest antidumping rate in history.

If total annual imports have come in from the transshipment country are over $15 million, for example, the total damages could be well over $100 million to $200 million with a potential payout to the relator of millions of dollars.

Relators, be they a competitor or an individual, can become very rich because of a False Claims Act case.  We presently have an ongoing False Claims Act case, where the total award is $62.4 million.  We are in the process of negotiating a multi-million dollar settlement for the relator in that case.  In a medical FCA case here in Seattle, a young clerk made several million dollars because of a False Claims Act case.

Although President Donald Trump and many in Congress scream about evasion of US AD and other trade orders because of transshipment, they often do not realize that there are already legal hammers to crush transshipment in the US legal arsenal and that is the Moiety Statute and the False Claims Act.

HUAWEI’S PROBLEMS CONTINUE

At the G-20 meeting between Presidents Xi and Trump, the Huawei issue was raised.  But to date, the Commerce Department has not done anything concrete to help Huawei and at the most has talked about making it easier for US companies to export products to Huawei that do not damage US national security.

But the major problem for Huawei is the criminal cases and to date nothing has been done from the US side to stop these cases.  More specifically, on January 28, 2019, the Justice Department issued two indictments against Huawei.  One 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.

This indictment 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.

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.  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 second indictment 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.

In fact, Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, recently announced that it has 1,000 investigations into Chinese IP theft.  See https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3019829/fbi-has-1000-probes-chinese-intellectual-property-theft-director

THE PROBLEM FOR CHINESE FACING CRIMINAL PENALTIES IS THAT US ARREST WARRANTS AND EXTRADITION REQUESTS ARE ENFORCEABLE IN MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an article about a Chinese aluminum mogul, Liu Zhongtian, who was indicated in the US for evading $2 billion in tariffs in the Aluminum Extrusions from China Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case.  The indictment focuses on fraud and international money laundering, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 465 years.  See https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-billionaire-indicted-in-u-s-in-alleged-tariff-evasion-scheme-11564586470?mod=hp_lead_pos4.

The problem Mr. Liu faces, like Meng Wanzhou, is that although he cannot be arrested in China, as soon as he takes a step outside of China, he is vulnerable.

As stated in past newsletters, 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 in China 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, he or she can be arrested.  US judgments are enforceable in many other countries, including Taiwan, Canada and until recently Hong Kong.

HIGHEST ANTIDUMPING RATE IN HISTORY AND THE CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES TRAP

As mentioned above, on July 10, 2019, in the Mattresses from China Antidumping case, Commerce issued the highest preliminary antidumping rate in history of $1,733%.  This can be a very difficult problem if there is a critical circumstances situation.  In the recent Quartz Surface Products from China Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case, we have been representing a substantial number of US importers.

In that case, the Commerce Department found antidumping rates ranging from 265 to 333% and countervailing duty rates ranging from 45 to 190%. More importantly, the Commerce Department made critical circumstances determinations exposing many importers to millions of dollars in retroactive liability for imports 90 days prior to the Preliminary Determinations.

For critical circumstances (“CC”) to stick, however, the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) had to determine that the increased imports would “undermine seriously” the remedial effect of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders to be issued.  This is a very high statutory standard and, therefore, in over 90% of the cases, the ITC reaches a negative CC determination.  In the Quartz Surface Products case, luckily for many US importers, the ITC did reach a negative CC determination.

For almost 8 months before the ITC ruling, however, US importers were under immense pressure from US Customs and Border Protection to pay the millions in outstanding cash deposits during the CC period.  In fact, a number of US importers received notices of liquidated damages for failure to pay the cash deposits in the CC period, when the ITC ultimately reached a negative CC determination.

This CC situation created a number of sleepless nights for US importers.

FABRICATED STRUCTURAL STEEL FROM CHINA AND IMPACT ON US CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Another problem has risen in the US Construction industry for the ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty case on Fabricated Structural Steel from China.  Many developers, who may not be importers but have set construction contracts, have called because of exposure to the CVD Preliminary Determination and rates of 36 to 179% and the potential AD rates of 222%.

If there are CC determinations by Commerce in the Fabricated Structural Steel case, this could put importers and downstream developers into a very difficult situation.

RECENT SECTION 337 PETITIONS

Two recent Section 337 petitions, which may be of interest are the following.

LIGHT EMITTING DIODES

On July 30, 2019, the Regents of the University of California filed a Section 337 case against imports of Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products.  The proposed respondents are:

Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, WA; Amazon.com Services, Inc., Seattle, WA; Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Union, NJ, IKEA of Sweden AB, Sweden; IKEA Supply AG, Switzerland; IKEA Distribution Services Inc., Conshohocken, PA; IKEA North America Services , LLC, Conshohocken, PA; Target Corporation, Minneapolis, MN; and Walmart Inc., Bentonville , AR.

CHILD RESISTANT CLOSURES

On July 22, 2019, Reynolds Presto Products Inc. filed a Section 337 case against imports of Child Resistant Closures with Slider Devices Having a User Actuated lnsertable Torpedo for Selectively Opening the Closures and Slider Devices.  The proposed respondents are:

Dalian Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., China; Dalian Altma Industry Co., Ltd., China; Japan Takebishi Co., Ltd., Japan; Takebishi Co., Ltd., Japan; Shanghai Takebishi Packing Material Co., Ltd., China; and Qingdao Takebishi Packing Industry Co., Ltd., China.

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

Best regards,

Bill Perry and Fred Rocafort

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://uschinatradewar.com/6102-2/

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

US Capitol North Side Construction Night Washington DC ReflectioFIRM UPDATE

In mid-August, Adams Lee, a well- known Trade and Customs lawyer from White & Case in Washington DC, has joined us here at Harris Moure in Seattle.  Adams has handled well over 100 antidumping and countervailing duty cases.  Attached is Adams’ bio, adams-lee-resume-aug-16, and his article is below on the new Customs Regulations against Evasion of US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders.

Adams and I will both be in China from Sept 11th to October 1st in Beijing, Shanghai and Nanjing.  If anyone would like to talk to us about these issues, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail, bill@harrismoure.com.

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR SEPTEMBER 8, 2016

Dear Friends,

Trade continues to be at the center of the Presidential primary with a possible passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership during the Lame Duck Session.  This blog post contains the sixth, and maybe the most important, article on Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies of a several part series on how weak free trade arguments have led to the sharp rise of protectionism of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and the now possible demise of the Trans Pacific Partner (“TPP”).

The first article outlined the problem and why this is such a sharp attack on the TPP and some of the visceral arguments against free trade.  The second article explored in depth the protectionist arguments and the reason for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  The third article explored the weak and strong arguments against protectionism.  The fourth article discussed one of the most important arguments for the TPP—National Security.  The fifth article discussed why the Commerce Department’s and the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC) policy in antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) cases has led to a substantial increase in protectionism and national malaise of international trade victimhood.

The sixth article provides an answer with the only trade program that works and saves the companies and the jobs that go with them—The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program along with MEP, another US manufacturing program.  The Article will describe the attempts by both Congress and the Obama Administration to kill the program, which may, in fact, have resulted in the sharp rise in protectionism in the US.

To pass the TPP, Congress must also provide assistance to make US companies competitive in the new free trade market created by the TPP.  Congress must restore the trade safety net so that Congress can again vote for free trade agreements, and the United States can return to its leadership in the Free Trade area.  The Congress has to fix the trade situation now before the US and the World return to the Smoot Hawley protectionism of the 1930s and the rise of nationalism, which can lead to military conflict.

In addition, set forth below are articles on a possible new antidumping case on Aluminum Foil from China and the rise of AD and CVD cases, the $2 billion in missing AD and CVD duties, the new Customs regulations to stop Transshipment in AD and CVD cases, the upcoming deadlines in the Solar Cells case in both English and Chinese, recent decisions in Steel cases,  antidumping and countervailing duty reviews in September against Chinese companies, and finally an article about how to stop imports that infringe US intellectual property rights, either using US Customs law or Section 337 at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).

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

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE PROTECTIONISM IS STILL A VERY BIG TOPIC OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; THE TPP PROBABLY IS NOT COMING UP IN THE LAME DUCK

As mentioned in my last newsletter, I believe that if Hilary Clinton is elected, President Obama will push for the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) to come up for a vote during the Lame Duck Session.  The Congress, however, has other ideas.

In early August, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan stated that he saw no reason to bring up the TPP in the Lame Duck because “we don’t have the votes.”  Ryan went on to state:

“As long as we don’t have the votes, I see no point in bringing up an agreement only to defeat it.  They have to fix this agreement and renegotiate some pieces of it if they have any hope or chance of passing it. I don’t see how they’ll ever get the votes for it.”

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden stated in late August that he will not take a position on the TPP until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brings the TPP up for a vote.  But on August 26th, Mitch McConnell stated that passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be the next president’s problem, saying that the Senate will not vote on the treaty this year:

“The current agreement, the Trans-Pacific [Partnership], which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year.  It will still be around. It can be massaged, changed, worked on during the next administration.”

With this statement, McConnell appears to have killed passage during the Obama Administration.

But businesses continue to push for the TPP.  On Sept 6th, the California Chamber of Commerce urged its Congressional delegation to pass the TPP.  In the attached Sept 7th letter, 9-7finaltppletter, the Washington State Council on International Trade also urged its Congressional delegation to pass TPP, stating:

“with 40 percent of Washington jobs dependent upon trade, it is paramount that we prioritize policies and investments that increase our state’s international competitiveness. That is why it is so important that you join us in calling for an immediate vote on the TPP; according to a newly released Washington Council on International Trade-Association of Washington Business study, Washington could have already increased our exports by up to $8.7 billion and directly created 26,000 new jobs had the TPP been implemented in 2015.

While the U.S. has some of the lowest import duties in the world on most goods, our local Washington exporters are faced with thousands of tariffs that artificially inflate the cost of American-made goods. TPP will help eliminate these barriers . . ..

TPP aligns with Washington’s high standards, setting 21st century standards for digital trade, environmental protections, and labor rules .  . . .  If we want to increase our competitiveness and set American standards for global trade, we must act now with the TPP.

This election season’s rhetoric has been hostile toward trade, but the TPP’s benefits for our state are undeniable. It is imperative that our state steps up to advocate for the family wage jobs and economic opportunities created by trade, and the time to do so is now.”

Despite the Congressional opposition, ever the optimist, President Obama keeps pushing for passage during the Lame Duck.  On August 30th, the White House Press Office stated:

“The president is going to make a strong case that we have made progress and there is a path for us to get this done before the president leaves office.”

On September 1, 2016, at a Press Conference in Hangzhou, China for the G20 meeting, President Obama said he is still optimistic about passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Obama argued that the economic benefits of the pact would win out once the “noise” of the election season subsides.

The President said he plans to assure the leaders of the other countries that signed the TPP that the U.S. will eventually approve the deal despite the very vocal opposition from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Presidential candidates.

President Obama went to state:

“And it’s my intention to get this one done, because, on the merits, it is smart for America to do it. And I have yet to hear a persuasive argument from the left or the right as to why we wouldn’t want to create a trade framework that raises labor standards, raising environmental standards, protects intellectual property, levels the playing field for U.S. businesses, brings down tariffs.”

Obama stated that although other countries, such as Japan, have troubles passing the TPP, the other countries:

“are ready to go.  And what I’ll be telling them is that the United States has never had a smooth, uncontroversial path to ratifying trade deals, but they eventually get done”

“And so I intend to be making that argument. I will have to be less persuasive here because most people already understand that. Back home, we’ll have to cut through the noise once election season is over.  It’s always a little noisy there.”

As mentioned in the last blog post, one of the strongest arguments for the TPP is National Security.  Trade agreements help stop trade wars and military conflict.  But despite that very strong point, the impact of free trade on the average manufacturing worker has not been beneficial.

In a recent e-mail blast, the Steel Workers make the point:

“Because of unfair trade, 1,500 of my colleagues at U.S. Steel Granite City Works in Granite City, Illinois are still laid-off. It’s been more than six months since our mill shut down.

Worker unemployment benefits are running out. Food banks are emptying out. People are losing their homes. City services might even shut down.

But there’s finally reason for hope. The Commerce Department recently took action to enforce our trade laws by placing duties on unfairly traded imports from countries like China. That will help ensure steel imports are priced fairly — and allow us to compete . . . .

All told, nearly 19,000 Americans have faced layoffs across the country because of the steel imports crisis.

China is making far more steel than it needs. China knows this is a problem, and repeatedly has pledged to cut down on steel production. But nothing has changed . . . .

China’s steel industry is heavily subsidized by its government, and it also doesn’t need to follow serious labor or environmental rules. But China has to do something with all that steel, so it dumps it into the United States far below market value.”

In a recent Business Week article, Four Myths about Trade, Robert Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, made the same point stating:

The Washington trade establishment’s second core belief is that trade is an unalloyed good, even if other nations engage in mercantilism. . . . it doesn’t matter if other nations massively subsidize their exporters, require U.S. companies to hand over the keys to their technology in exchange for market access, or engage in other forms of mercantilist behavior.  . . .

But China and others are proving that this is folly. In industry after industry, including the advanced innovation-based industries that are America’s future, they are gaming the rules of global trade to hold others back while they leap forward. . ..

It’s a reflection of having lost competitive advantage to other nations in many higher-value-added industries, in part because of foreign mercantilist policies and domestic economic-policy failures.

The Author then goes on to state the US must be tough in fighting mercantilism and “vigilantly enforce trade rules, such as by bringing many more trade-enforcement cases to the WTO, pressuring global aid organizations to cut funding to mercantilist nations, limiting the ability of companies in mercantilist nations to buy U.S. firms, and more.”

But this argument then runs into reality.  As indicated below, Commerce finds dumping in about 95% of the cases.  Thus, there are more than 130 AD and CVD orders against China blocking about $30 billion in imports.  Presently more than 80 AD and CVD orders are against raw materials from China, chemicals, metals and various steel products, used in downstream US production.  In the Steel area, there are AD and CVD orders against the following Chinese steel products:

carbon steel plate, hot rolled carbon steel flat products, circular welded and seamless carbon quality steel pipe, rectangular pipe and tube, circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe, steel threaded rod, oil country tubular goods, steel wire strand and wire, high pressure steel cylinders, non-oriented electrical steel, and carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod.

There are ongoing investigations against cold-rolled steel and corrosion resistant/galvanized steel so many Chinese steel products from China are already blocked by US AD and CVD orders with very high rates well over 100%.

AD and CVD orders stay in place for 5 to 30 years and yet the companies, such as the Steel Industry, still decline.  After 40 years of protection from Steel imports by AD and CVD orders, where is Bethlehem Steel today?  The Argument seems to be that if industries simply bring more cases, the Commerce Department is even tougher and the orders are enforced, all US companies will be saved, wages will go up and jobs will be everywhere.

The reality, however, is quite different.  In fact, many of these orders have led to the destruction of US downstream industries so does hitting the Chinese with more trade cases really solve the trade problem?

More importantly, although Commerce does not use real numbers in antidumping cases against China, it does use actual prices and costs in antidumping steel cases against Korea, India, Taiwan, and many other countries.  In a recent antidumping case against Off the Road Tires from India, where China faces dumping rates of between 11 and 105%, the only two Indian exporters, which were both mandatory respondents, received 0% dumping rates and the Commerce Department in a highly unusual preliminary determination reached a negative no dumping determination on the entire case.

Market economy countries, such as Korea and India, can run computer programs to make sure that they are not dumping.  This is not gaming the system.  This is doing exactly what the antidumping law is trying to remedy—elimination of the unfair act, dumping.

Antidumping and countervailing duty laws are not penal statutes, they are remedial statutes and that is why US importers, who pay the duties, and the foreign producers/exporters are not entitled to full due process rights in AD and CVD cases, including application of the Administrative Procedures Act, decision by a neutral Administrative Law Judge and a full trial type hearing before Commerce and the ITC, such as Section 337 Intellectual Property cases, described below.

In fact, when industries, such as the steel industry, companies and workers along with Government officials see dumping and subsidization in every import into the United States, this mindset creates a disease—Globalization/International Trade victimhood.  We American workers and companies simply cannot compete because all imports are dumped and subsidized.

That simply is not true and to win the trade battles and war a change in mindset is required.

In his Article, Mr. Atkinson’s second argument may point to the real answer.  The US government needs to make US manufacturing companies competitive again:

It must begin with reducing the effective tax rate on corporations. To believe that America can thrive in the global economy with the world’s highest statutory corporate-tax rates and among the highest effective corporate-tax rates, especially for manufacturers, is to ignore the intense global competitive realities of the 21st century. Tax reform then needs to be complemented with two other key items: a regulatory-reform strategy particularly aimed at reducing burdens on industries that compete globally, and increased funding for programs that help exporters, such as the Export-Import Bank, the new National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, and a robust apprenticeship program for manufacturing workers. . . .

if Congress and the next administration develop a credible new globalization doctrine for the 21st century — melding tough trade enforcement with a robust national competitiveness agenda — then necessary trade-opening steps like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will once again be on the table and the U.S. economy will begin to thrive once again.

When it comes to Trade Adjustment Assistance, however, as Congressman Jim McDermott recently stated in an article, workers do not want handouts and training.  They want jobs.  The only trade remedy that actually provides jobs is the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program and MEP, another manufacturing program.

FREE TRADE REQUIRES COMPETITIVE US COMPANIES— TAA FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES AND THE MEP MANUFACTURING PROGRAM ARE THE ANSWER

On August 17th, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the author referred to “the longstanding Republican promotion of trade as an engine of growth.” The author then goes on to state:

But what Donald Trump sees and the Republican elites have long missed is that for trade to be a winner for Americans, our government must provide policies for our industries to be the most competitive in the world. Mr. Zoellick and others promoted trade without promoting American competitiveness.  . . .

Mr. Zoellick should take a lesson from the American gymnasts in Rio and see how competitiveness leads to winning.

Although Donald Trump might agree with that point, there are Government programs already in effect that increase the competitiveness of US companies injured by imports, but they have been cut to the bone.

This is despite the fact that some of the highest paying American jobs have routinely been in the nation’s manufacturing sector. And some of the highest prices paid for the nation’s free trade deals have been paid by the folks who work in it. What’s shocking is the fact that that isn’t shocking anymore. And what’s really shocking is that we seem to have accepted it as the “new normal.” Now where did that ever come from?

How did we get here? How did we fall from the summit? Was it inexorable? Did we get soft? Did we get lazy? Did we stop caring? Well perhaps to some extent. But my sense of it is that too many of us have bought into the idea of globalization victimhood and a sort of paralysis has been allowed to set in.

Now in my opinion that’s simply not in America’s DNA. It’s about time that this nation decided not to participate in that mind set any longer. 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.

There is no doubt in my mind that open and free trade benefits the overall U.S. economy in the long run. However, companies and the families that depend on the employment therein, indeed whole communities, are adversely affected in the short run (some for extended periods) resulting in significant expenditures in public welfare and health programs, deteriorated communities and the overall lowering of America’s industrial output.

But here’s the kicker: programs that can respond effectively already exist. Three of them are domiciled in our Department of Commerce and one in our Department of Labor:

  • Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (Commerce)
  • The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Commerce)
  • Economic Adjustment for Communities (Commerce)
  • Trade Adjustment Assistance for Displaced Workers (Labor)

This Article, however, is focused on making US companies competitive again and the first two programs do just that, especially for smaller companies.  Specific federal support for trade adjustment programs, however, has been legislatively restrictive, bureaucratically hampered, organizationally disjointed, and substantially under-funded.

The lessons of history are clear. In the 1990’s, after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the federal government reduced defense industry procurements and closed military facilities. In response, a multi-agency, multi-year effort to assist adversely affected defense industries, their workers, and communities facing base closures were activated. Although successes usually required years of effort and follow on funding from agencies of proven approaches (for example the reinvention of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard into a center for innovation and vibrant commercial activities), there was a general sense that the federal government was actively responding to a felt need at the local level.

A similar multi-agency response has been developed in the event of natural disasters, i.e., floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Dimensions of the problem are identified, an appropriate expenditure level for a fixed period of time is authorized and the funds are deployed as needed through FEMA, SBA and other relevant agencies such as EDA.

The analogy to trade policy is powerful.  When the US Government enters into Trade Agreements, such as the TPP, Government action changes the market place.  All of a sudden US companies can be faced, not with a Tidal Wave, but a series of flash floods of foreign competition and imports that can simply wipe out US companies.

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 amount of matching funds for US companies has not changed since the 1980s. 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 MidAtlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center in this video at http://mataac.org/howitworks/ describes in detail how the program works and why it is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with specific adjustment plans 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 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 White Paper, taaf-2-0-white-paper, prepares to show to expand TAA for Firms/Companies and take it to the next level above $50 million, which can be used to help larger companies adjust to import competition.  The White Paper also rebuts the common arguments against TAA for Firms/Companies.

ALUMINUM FOIL FROM CHINA, RISE IN ANTIDUMPING CASES PUSHED BY COMMERCE AND ITC

On August 22, 2016, the Wall Street Journal published an article on how the sharp rise of aluminum foil imports, mostly from China, has led to the shutdown of US U.S. aluminum foil producers.  Articles, such as this one, often signal that an antidumping case is coming in the near future.

Recently, there have been several articles about the sharp rise in antidumping and countervailing duty/trade remedy cases in the last year.  By the second half of 2016, the US Government has reported that twice as many antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) case have been initiated in 2015-2016 as in 2009.

China is not the only target.  AD cases have been recently filed against steel imports from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey; Steel Flanges from India, Italy and Spain; Chemicals from Korea and China, and Rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico and Poland.

The potential Aluminum Foil case may not be filed only against China.  In addition to China, the case could also be filed against a number of foreign exporters of aluminum foil to the United States.

Under US law Commerce determines whether dumping is taking place.  Dumping is defined as selling imported goods at less than fair value or less than normal value, which in general terms means lower than prices in the home/foreign market or below the fully allocated cost of production.  Antidumping duties are levied to remedy the unfair act by raising the US price so that the products are fairly traded.

Commerce also imposes Countervailing Duties to offset any foreign subsidies provided by foreign governments so as to raise the price of the subsidized imports.

AD and CVD duties can only be imposed if there is injury to the US industry, which is determined by the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  But in determining injury, the law directs the ITC to cumulate, that is add together all the imports of the same product from the various foreign exporters.  Thus if a number of countries are exporting aluminum foil in addition to China, there is a real incentive for the US aluminum foil industry to file a case against all the other countries too.

There are several reasons for the sharp rise in AD and CVD cases.  One is the state of the economy and the sharp rise in imports.  In bad economic times, the two lawyers that do the best are bankruptcy and international trade lawyers.  Chinese overcapacity can also result in numerous AD and CVD cases being filed not only in the United States but around the World.

Although the recent passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 has made it marginally better to bring an injury case at the ITC, a major reason for the continued rise in AD and CVD cases is the Commerce and ITC determinations in these cases.  Bringing an AD case, especially against China, is like the old country saying, shooting fish in a barrel.

By its own regulation, Commerce finds dumping and subsidization in almost every case, and the ITC in Sunset Review Investigations leaves antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place for as long as 20 to 30 years, often to protect single company US industries, resulting in permanent barriers to imports and the creation of monopolies.

Many readers may ask why should people care if prices go up a few dollars at WalMart for US consumers?  Jobs remain.  Out of the 130 plus AD and CVD orders against China, more than 80 of the orders are against raw materials, chemicals, metals and steel, that go directly into downstream US production.  AD orders have led to the closure of downstream US factories.

Commerce has defined dumping so that 95% of the products imported into the United States are dumped.  Pursuant to the US Antidumping Law, Commerce chooses mandatory respondent companies to individually respond to the AD questionnaire.  Commerce generally picks only two or three companies out of tens, if not hundreds, of respondent companies.

Only mandatory companies in an AD case have the right to get zero, no dumping margins.  Only those mandatory respondent companies have the right to show that they are not dumping.  If a company gets a 0 percent, no dumping determination, in the initial investigation, the antidumping order does not apply to that company.

Pursuant to the AD law, for the non-mandatory companies, the Commerce Department may use any other reasonable method to calculate antidumping rates, which means weight averaging the rates individually calculated for the mandatory respondents, not including 0 rates.  If all mandatory companies receive a 0% rate, Commerce will use any other reasonable method to determine a positive AD rate, not including 0% rates.

So if there are more than two or three respondent companies in an AD case, which is the reality in most cases, by its own law and practice, Commerce will reach an affirmative dumping determination.  All three mandatory companies may get 0% dumping rates, but all other companies get a positive dumping rate.  Thus almost all imports are by the Commerce Department’s definition dumped.

Under the Commerce Department’s methodology all foreign companies are guilty of dumping and subsidization until they prove their innocence, and almost all foreign companies never have the chance to prove their innocence.

Commerce also has a number of other methodologies to increase antidumping rates.  In AD cases against China, Commerce treats China as a nonmarket economy country and, therefore, refuses to use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping, which makes it very easy for Commerce to find very high dumping rates.

In market economy cases, such as cases against EU and South American countries, Commerce has used zeroing or targeted dumping to create antidumping rates, even though the WTO has found such practices to be contrary to the AD Agreement.

The impact of the Commerce Department’s artificial methodology is further exaggerated by the ITC.  Although in the initial investigation, the ITC will go negative, no injury, in 30 to 40% of the cases, once the antidumping order is in place it is almost impossible to persuade the ITC to lift the antidumping order in Sunset Review investigations.

So antidumping orders, such as Pressure Sensitive Tape from Italy (1977), Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan (1978), Potassium Permanganate from China (1984), Cholopicrin from China (1984), and Porcelain on Steel Cookware from China (1986), have been in place for more than 30 years.  In 1987 when I was at the Commerce Department, an antidumping case was filed against Urea from the entire Soviet Union.  Antidumping orders from that case against Russia and Ukraine are still in place today.

In addition, many of these antidumping orders, such as Potassium Permanganate, Magnesium, Porcelain on Steel Cookware, and Sulfanilic Acid, are in place to protect one company US industries, creating little monopolies in the United States.

Under the Sunset Review methodology, the ITC never sunsets AD and CVD orders unless the US industry no longer exists.

By defining dumping the way it does, both Commerce and the ITC perpetuate the myth of Globalization victimhood.  We US companies and workers simply cannot compete against imports because all imports are dumped or subsidized.  But is strangling downstream industries to protect one company US industries truly good trade policy?  Does keeping AD orders in place for 20 to 30 years really save the US industry and make the US companies more competitive?  The answer simply is no.

Protectionism does not work but it does destroy downstream industries and jobs.  Protectionism is destructionism. It costs jobs.

US MISSING $2 BILLION IN ANTIDUMPING DUTIES, MANY ON CHINESE PRODUCTS

According to the attached recent report by the General Accounting Office, gao-report-ad-cvd-missing-duties, the US government is missing about $2.3 billion in unpaid anti-dumping and countervailing duties, two-thirds of which will probably never be paid.

The United States is the only country in the World that has retroactive liability for US importers.  When rates go up, US importers are liable for the difference plus interest.  But the actual determination of the amount owed by the US imports can take place many years after the import was actually made into the US.

The GAO found that billing errors and delays in final duty assessments were major factors in the unpaid bills, with many of the importers with the largest debts leaving the import business before they received their bill.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it does not expect to collect most of that debt”.  Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) anticipates that about $1.6 billion of the total will never be paid.

As the GAO report states:

elements of the U.S. system for determining and collecting AD/CV duties create an inherent risk that some importers will not pay the full amount they owe in AD/CV duties. . . . three related factors create a heightened risk of AD/CV duty nonpayment: (1) The U.S. system for determining such duties involves the setting of an initial estimated duty rate upon the entry of goods, followed by the retrospective assessment of a final duty rate; (2) the amount of AD/CV duties for which an importer may be ultimately billed can significantly exceed what the importer pays when the goods enter the country; and (3) the assessment of final AD/CV duties can occur up to several years after an importer enters goods into the United States, during which time the importer may cease operations or become unable to pay additional duties.

The vast majority of the missing duties, 89%, were clustered around the following products from China: Fresh Garlic ($577 million), Wooden Bedroom Furniture ($505 million), Preserved Mushrooms ($459 million), crawfish tail meat ($210 million), Pure Magnesium ($170 million), and Honey ($158 million).

The GAO Report concludes at page 56-47:

We estimate the amount of uncollected duties on entries from fiscal year 2001 through 2014 to be $2.3 billion. While CBP collects on most AD/CV duty bills it issues, it only collects, on average, about 31 percent of the dollar amount owed. The large amount of uncollected duties is due in part to the long lag time between entry and billing in the U.S. retrospective AD/CV duty collection system, with an average of about 2-and-a-half years between the time goods enter the United States and the date a bill may be issued. Large differences between the initial estimated duty rate and the final duty rate assessed also contribute to unpaid bills, as importers receiving a large bill long after an entry is made may be unwilling or unable to pay. In 2015, CBP estimated that about $1.6 billion in duties owed was uncollectible. By not fully collecting unpaid AD/CV duty bills, the U.S. government loses a substantial amount of revenue and compromises its efforts to deter and remedy unfair and injurious trade practices.

But with all these missing duties, why doesn’t the US simply move to a prospective methodology, where the importer pays the dumping rate calculated by Commerce and the rate only goes up for future imports after the new rate is published.

Simple answer—the In Terrorem, trade chilling, effect of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders—the legal threat that the US importers will owe millions in the future, which could jeopardize the entire import company.  As a result, over time imports from China and other countries covered by AD and CVD order often decline to 0 because established importers are simply too scared to take the risk of importing under an AD and CVD order.

CUTSOMS NEW LAW AGAINST TRANSSHIPMENT AROUND AD AND CVD ORDERS; ONE MORE LEGAL PROCEDURE FOR US IMPORTERS AND FOREIGN EXPORTERS TO BE WARY OF

By Adams Lee, Trade and Customs Partner, Harris Moure.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued new attached regulations, customs-regs-antidumping, that establish a new administrative procedure for CBP to investigate AD and CVD duty evasion.  81 FR 56477 (Aug. 22, 2016). Importers of any product that could remotely be considered merchandise subject to an AD/CVD order now face an increased likelihood of being investigated for AD/CVD duty evasion. The new CBP AD/CVD duty evasion investigations are the latest legal procedure, together with CBP Section 1592 penalty actions (19 USC 1592), CBP criminal prosecutions (18 USC 542, 545), and “qui tam” actions under the False Claims Act, aimed at ensnaring US importers and their foreign suppliers in burdensome and time-consuming proceedings that can result in significant financial expense or even criminal charges.

The following are key points from these new regulations:

  • CBP now has a new option to pursue and shut down AD/CVD duty evasion schemes.
  • CBP will have broad discretion to issue questions and conduct on-site verifications.
  • CBP investigations may result in interim measures that could significantly affect importers.
  • CBP’s interim measures may effectively establish a presumption of the importer’s guilt until proven innocent.
  • Other interested parties, including competing importers, can chime in to support CBP investigations against accused importers.
  • Both petitioners and respondents will have the opportunity to submit information and arguments.
  • Failure to cooperate and comply with CBP requests may result in CBP applying an adverse inference against the accused party.
  • Failing to respond adequately may result in CBP determining AD/CVD evasion has occurred.

The new CBP regulations (19 CFR Part 165) establish a formal process for how it will consider allegations of AD/CVD evasion. These new regulations are intended to address complaints from US manufacturers that CBP was not doing enough to address AD/CVD evasion schemes and that their investigations were neither transparent nor effective.

AD/CVD duty evasion schemes typically involve falsely declaring the country of origin or misclassifying the product (e.g., “widget from China” could be misreported as “widget from Malaysia” or “wadget from China”).

Petitions filed by domestic manufacturers trigger concurrent investigations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to determine whether AD/CVD orders should be issued to impose duties on covered imports. The DOC determines if imports have been dumped or subsidized and sets the initial AD/CVD rates.  CBP then has the responsibility to collect AD/CVD duty deposits and to assess the final amount of AD/CVD duties owed at the rates determined by DOC.

US petitioners have decried U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as the weak link in enforcing US trade laws, not just because of it often being unable to collect the full amount of AD/CVD duties owed, but also because how CBP responds to allegations of AD/CVD evasion. Parties that provided CBP with information regarding evasion schemes were not allowed to participate in CBP’s investigations and were not notified of whether CBP had initiated an investigation or the results of any investigation.

CBP’s new regulations address many complaints regarding CBP’s lack of transparency in handling AD/CVD evasion allegations. The new regulations provide more details on how CBP procedures are to be conducted, the types of information that will be considered and made available to the public, and the specific timelines and deadlines in CBP investigations:

  • “Interested parties” for CBP investigations now includes not just the accused importers, but also competing importers that submit the allegations.
  • Interested parties now have access to public versions of information submitted in CBP’s investigation of AD/CVD evasion allegations.
  • After submission and receipt of a properly filed allegation, CBP has 15 business day to determine whether to initiate an investigation and 95 days to notify all interested parties of its decision. If CBP does not proceed with an investigation, CBP has five business days to notify the alleging party of that determination.
  • Within 90 days of initiating an investigation, CBP can impose interim measures if it has a “reasonable suspicion” that the importer used evasion to get products into the U.S.

Many questions remain as to how CBP will apply these regulations to actual investigations.  How exactly will parties participate in CBP investigations and what kind of comments will be accepted?  How much of the information in the investigations will be made public? How is “reasonable suspicion” defined and what kind of evidence will be considered? Is it really the case that accused Importers may be subject to interim measures (within 90 days of initiation) even before they receive notice of an investigation (within 95 days of initiation)?

These new AD/CVD duty evasion regulations further evidence the government’s plans to step up its efforts to enforce US trade laws more effectively and importers must – in turn – step up their vigilance to avoid being caught in one of these new traps.

UPCOMING DEADLINES IN SOLAR CELLS FROM CHINA ANTIDUMPING CASE—CHANCE TO GET BACK INTO THE US MARKET AGAIN

There are looming deadlines in the Solar Cells from China Antidumping (“AD”) and Countervailing Duty (“CVD”) case.  In December 2016, US producers, Chinese companies and US importers can request a review investigation in the Solar Cells case of the sales and imports that entered the United States during the review period, December 1, 2015 to November 31, 2016.

December 2016 will be a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in AD and CVD cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its AD and CVD rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the AD and CVD case is over because the initial investigation is over.  Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability.

In February 2016, while in China I found many examples of Chinese solar companies or US importers, which did not file requests for a review investigation in December 2015.  In one instance, although the Chinese company obtained a separate rate during the Solar Cells initial investigation, the Petitioner appealed to the Court.  The Chinese company did not know the case was appealed, and the importer now owe millions in antidumping duties because they failed to file a review request in December 2015.

In another instance, in the Solar Products case, the Chinese company requested a review investigation in the CVD case but then did not respond to the Commerce quantity and value questionnaire.   That could well result in a determination of All Facts Available giving the Chinese company the highest CVD China rate of more than 50%.

The worst catastrophe in CVD cases was Aluminum Extrusions from China where the failure of mandatory companies to respond led to a CVD rate of 374%.  In the first review investigation, a Chinese company came to us because Customs had just ruled their auto part to be covered by the Aluminum Extrusions order.  To make matters worse, an importer requested a CVD review of the Chinese company, but did not tell the company and they did not realize that a quantity and value questionnaire had been sent to them.  We immediately filed a QV response just the day before Commerce’s preliminary determination.

Too late and Commerce gave the Chinese company an AFA rate of 121% by literally assigning the Chinese company every single subsidy in every single province and city in China, even though the Chinese company was located in Guangzhou.  Through a Court appeal, we reduced the rate to 79%, but it was still a high rate, so it is very important for companies to keep close watch on review investigations.

The real question many Chinese solar companies may have is how can AD and CVD rates be reduced so that we can start exporting to the US again.  In the Solar Cells case, the CVD China wide rate is only 15%.  The real barrier to entry is the China wide AD rate of 249%

US AD and CVD laws, however, are considered remedial, not punitive statutes.  Thus, every year in the month in which the AD or CVD order was issued, Commerce gives the parties, including the domestic producers, foreign producers and US importers, the right to request a review investigation based on sales of imports that entered the US in the preceding year.

Thus, the AD order on Solar Cells from China was issued in December 2012.   In December 2016, a Chinese producer and/or US importer can request a review investigation of the Chinese solar cells that were entered, actually imported into, the US during the period December 1, 2015 to November 31, 2016.

Chinese companies may ask that it is too difficult and too expensive to export may solar cells to the US, requesting a nonaffiliated importer to put up an AD of 298%, which can require a payment of well over $1 million USD.  The US AD and CVD law is retrospective.  Thus the importer posts a cash deposit when it imports products under an AD or CVD order, and the importer will get back the difference plus interest at the end of the review investigation.

More importantly, through a series of cases, Commerce has let foreign producers export smaller quantities of the product to use as a test sale in a review investigation if all other aspects of the sale are normal.  Thus in a Solar Cells review investigation, we had the exporter make a small sale of several panels along with other products and that small sale served as the test sale to establish the new AD rate.

How successful can companies be in reviews?  In a recent Solar Cells review investigation, we dropped a dumping rate of 249% to 8.52%, allowing the Chinese Solar Cell companies to begin to export to the US again.

Playing the AD and CVD game in review investigations can significantly reduce AD and CVD rates and get the Chinese company back in the US market again

SOLAR CELLS FROM CHINA CHINESE VERSION OF THE ARTICLE

中国进口太阳能电池反倾销案即将到来的最后期限重返美国市场的机会

针对原产自中国的太阳能电池反倾销(“AD”)和反补贴税(“CVD”)案的期限迫在眉睫。2016年12月,美国制造商、中国公司和美国进口商可以要求当局复审调查于2015年12月1日至2016年11月31日的审查期间进口并在美国销售的太阳能电池案例。

2016年12月将会是美国进口商的一个重要月份,因为行政复审将决定美国进口商在AD和CVD案中的实际欠款。一般上,美国业者会要求当局对所有中国公司进行复审。如果一家中国公司没有对商务部的行政复审做出回应,它很可能被征收最高的AD和CVD税率,美国进口商也将被追溯征收特定进口产品的差额及利息。

就我的经验而言,许多美国进口商并没有意识到行政复审调查的重要性。他们认为初步调查结束后,AD和CVD案也就此结束。许多进口商因为其中国供应商没有对行政复审做出回应,导致他们本身背负数百万美元的追溯性责任而因此措手不及。

2016年2月,我在中国期间发现很多中国太阳能公司或美国进口商没有在2015年12月提出复审调查请求。在其中一个例子中,某中国公司虽然在太阳能电池初步调查期间获得了单独税率,但是申请人向法庭提出了上诉。该中国公司并不知道有关的上诉案,结果进口商由于无法在2015年12月提出复审要求,现在欠下了数百万美元的反倾销税。

在另一个与太阳能产品有关的案例中,某中国公司针对CVD案提出了复审调查的要求,却没有对商务部的数量和价值问卷做出回应。这很可能导致当局根据“所有可得的事实”(All Facts Available)来向该中国公司征收超过50%的最高对华CVD税率。

在众多的CVD案例中,中国进口的铝合金型材所面对的局面最糟糕,受强制调查的公司若无法做出相关回应可被征收374%的CVD税率。一家中国公司在首个复审调查时联系上我们,因为海关刚裁定他们的汽车零部件属于铝合金型材生产项目。更糟的是,一家进口商在没有通知该中国公司的情况下,要求当局对其进行CVD审查,而他们也不晓得当局已经向他们发出一份数量和价值问卷。我们立即在初审的前一天提交了QV做出了回应。

可是这一切都已经太迟了,虽然该中国公司位于广州,商务部却逐一地根据中国的每一个省份和城市的补贴,向该中国公司征收了121%的AFA税率。我们通过向法庭提出上诉,将税率减少到了79%,可是这一税率还是很高,因此所有公司都有必要仔细地关注复审调查。

很多中国太阳能产品企业最想知道的,是如何降低AD和CVD税率,好让我们能再次将产品进口到美国。以太阳能电池的案例来看,当局向中国征收的统一性CVD税率仅为15%。当局向中国征收的统一性AD税率高达249%,这才是真正的入市门槛。

不过,美国的AD和CVD法律被认为是补救性而不是惩罚性法规,所以商务部每年在颁布AD或CVD令后,会在该月份允许包括美国国内生厂商、外国生厂商和美国进口商在内的各方,对上一年在美国销售的进口产品提出复审调查的要求。

因此,针对中国进口的太阳能电池的AD令是在2012年12月颁布的。一家中国生厂商和/或美国进口商可以在2016年12月,要求当局对从2015年12月1日至2016年11月31日期间进口到美国的中国太阳能电池进行复审调查。

中国公司或许会问,要求一家无关联的进口商承担298%的AD税,也就是支付超过1百万美元的费用,以便进口大批的太阳能电池到美国,是否太困难也太贵了。美国的AD和CVD法律是有追溯力的。因此,在AD或CVD令下,进口商在进口产品时会支付现款押金,并在复审调查结束后取回差额加上利息。

更重要的是,在一系列的案例中,商务部已经允许外国生厂商在其它销售方面都正常的情况下,出口少量产品作为试销用途。所以在一宗太阳能电池的复审调查案中,我们让出口商在销售其它产品的同时,出售少量的电池板作为试销用途以建立新的AD税率。

公司在复审案中的成功率有多大?在最近的一宗太阳能电池复审调查案中,我们将倾销率从249%下降到8.52%,协助中国太阳能电池公司重新进口产品到美国。

在复审调查期间了解如何应对并采取正确的策略,可以大幅度降低AD和CVD税率,并让中国公司重返美国市场。

STEEL TRADE CASES

HOT ROLLED STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS

On August 5, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-multiple-hot-rolled-steel-flat-products-ad-cvd-final-080816, Commerce issued final dumping determinations in Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom cases, and a final countervailing duty determination of Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, Korea, and Turkey.

Other than Brazil, Australia and the United Kingdom, most antidumping rates were in the single digits.

In the Countervailing duty case, most companies got rates in single digits, except for POSCO in Korea, which received a CVD rate of 57%.

SEPTEMBER ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On September 8, 2016, Commerce published the attached Federal Register notice, pdf-published-fed-reg-notice-oppty, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of September. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Crawfish Tailmeat, Foundry Coke, Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Lined Paper Products, Magnesia Carbon Bricks, Narrow Woven Ribbons, Off the Road Tires, Flexible Magnets, and Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars.   The specific countervailing duty cases are: Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Narrow Woven Ribbons, Off the Road Tires, Flexible Magnets, and Magnesia Carbon Bricks.

For those US import companies that imported : Crawfish Tailmeat, Foundry Coke, Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Lined Paper Products, Magnesia Carbon Bricks, Narrow Woven Ribbons, Off the Road Tires, Flexible Magnets, and Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars during the antidumping period September 1, 2015-August 31, 2016 or the countervailing duty period of review, calendar year 2015, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in AD and CVD cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

STOP IP INFRINGING PRODUCTS FROM CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES USING CUSTOMS AND SECTION 337 CASES

With Amazon and Ebay having increased their efforts at bringing in Chinese sellers and with more and more Chinese manufacturers branching out and making their own products, the number of companies contacting our China lawyers here at Harris Moure about problems with counterfeit products and knockoffs has soared. If the problem involves infringing products being imported into the United States, powerful remedies are available to companies with US IP rights if the infringing imports are products coming across the US border.

If the IP holder has a registered trademark or copyright, the individual or company holding the trademark or copyright can go directly to Customs and record the trademark under 19 CFR 133.1 or the copyright under 19 CFR 133.31.  See https://iprr.cbp.gov/.

Many years ago a US floor tile company was having massive problems with imports infringing its copyrights on its tile designs.  Initially, we looked at a Section 337 case as described below, but the more we dug down into the facts, we discovered that the company simply failed to register its copyrights with US Customs.

Once the trademarks and copyrights are registered, however, it is very important for the company to continually police the situation and educate the various Customs ports in the United States about the registered trademarks and copyrights and the infringing imports coming into the US.  Such a campaign can help educate the Customs officers as to what they should be looking out for when it comes to identifying which imports infringe the trademarks and copyrights in question.  The US recording industry many years ago had a very successful campaign at US Customs to stop infringing imports.

For those companies with problems from Chinese infringing imports, another alternative is to go to Chinese Customs to stop the export of infringing products from China.  The owner of Beanie Babies did this very successfully having Chinese Customs stop the export of the infringing Beanie Babies out of China.

One of the most powerful remedies is a Section 337 case, which can block infringing products, regardless of their origin, from entering the U.S.  A Section 337 action (the name comes from the implementing statute, 19 U.S.C. 1337) is available against imported goods that infringe a copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secret. But because other actions are usually readily available to owners of registered trademarks and copyrights, Section 337 actions are particularly effective for owners of patents, unregistered trademarks, and trade secrets. Although generally limited to IP rights, in the ongoing Section 337 steel case, US Steel has been attempting to expand the definition of unfair acts to include hacking into computer systems and antitrust violations.

The starting point is a section 337 investigation at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  If the ITC finds certain imports infringe a specific intellectual property right, it can issue an exclusion order and U.S. Customs will then keep out all the infringing imports at the border.

Section 337 cases have been brought and exclusion orders issued against a vast range of different products: from toys (Rubik’s Cube Puzzles, Cabbage Patch Dolls) to footwear (Converse sneakers) to large machinery (paper-making machines) to consumer products (caskets, auto parts, electronic cigarettes and hair irons) to high tech products (computers, cell phones, and semiconductor chips).

Section 337 is a hybrid IP and trade statute, which requires a showing of injury to a US industry. The injury requirement is very low and can nearly always be met–a few lost sales will suffice to show injury. The US industry requirement can be a sticking point. The US industry is usually the one company that holds the intellectual property right in question. If the IP right is a registered trademark, copyright or patent, the US industry requirement has been expanded to not only include significant US investment in plant and equipment, labor or capital to substantial investment in the exploitation of the IP right, including engineering, research and development or licensing.  Recently, however, the ITC has raised the US industry requirement to make it harder for patent “trolls” or Non Practicing Entities to bring 337 cases.

Section 337 cases, however, are directed at truly unfair acts.  Patents and Copyrights are protected by the US Constitution so in contrast to antidumping and countervailing duty cases, respondents in these cases get more due process protection.  The Administrative Procedures Act is applied to Section 337 cases with a full trial before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), extended full discovery, a long trial type hearing, but on a very expedited time frame.

Section 337 actions, in fact, are the bullet train of IP litigation, fast, intense litigation in front of an ALJ.  The typical section 337 case takes only 12-15 months. Once a 337 petition is filed, the ITC has 30 days to determine whether or not to institute the case. After institution, the ITC will serve the complaint and notice of investigation on the respondents. Foreign respondents have 30 days to respond to the complaint; US respondents have only 20 days. If the importers or foreign respondents do not respond to the complaint, the ITC can find the companies in default and issue an exclusion order.

The ITC’s jurisdiction in 337 cases is “in rem,” which means it is over the product being imported into the US. This makes sense: the ITC has no power over the foreign companies themselves, but it does have power over the imports. What this means in everyday terms is that unlike most regular litigation, a Section 337 case can be effectively won against a Chinese company that 1) is impossible to serve, 2) fails to show up at the hearing, and 3) is impossible to collect any money from.

The remedy in section 337 cases is an exclusion order excluding the respondent’s infringing products from entering the United States. In special situations, however, where it is very easy to manufacture a product, the ITC can issue a general exclusion order against the World.  In the Rubik’s Cube puzzle case, which was my case at the ITC, Ideal (the claimant) named over 400 Taiwan companies as respondents infringing its common law trademark. The ITC issued a General Exclusion Order in 1983 and it is still in force today, blocking Rubik’s Cube not made by Ideal from entering the United States. In addition to exclusion orders, the ITC can issue cease and desist orders prohibiting US importers from selling products in inventory that infringe the IP rights in question

Section 337 cases can also be privately settled, but the settlement agreement is subject to ITC review. We frequently work with our respondent clients to settle 337 cases early to minimize their legal fees. In the early 1990s, RCA filed a section 337 case against TVs from China. The Chinese companies all quickly settled the case by signing a license agreement with RCA.

Respondents caught in section 337 cases often can modify their designs to avoid the IP right in question. John Deere brought a famous 337 case aimed at Chinese companies that painted their tractors green and yellow infringing John Deere’s trademark. Most of the Chinese respondents settled the case and painted their tractors different colors, such as blue and red.

Bottom Line: Section 337 cases are intense litigation before the ITC, and should be considered by U.S. companies as a tool for fighting against infringing products entering the United States. On the flip side, US importers and foreign respondents named in these cases should take them very seriously and respond quickly because exclusion orders can stay in place for years.

 

If you have any questions about these cases or about the antidumping or countervailing duty law, US trade policy, trade adjustment assistance, customs, or 337 IP/patent law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–Trump, Trade Policy, NME, TPP, Trade, Customs, False Claims, Products Liability, Antitrust and Securities

Jefferson Memorial and Tidal Basin Evening at Cherry Blossom TimTRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR MARCH 11, 2016

MOVING TO NEW LAW FIRM, HARRIS MOURE

Dear Friends,

Have not been able to send out a new newsletter in April because we are in the process of moving to a new law firm.  As of May 1, 2016, I will no longer be at the Dorsey law firm. Dorsey will continue to represent clients in international trade and customs matters but will no longer be handling antidumping, countervailing duty, section 201, escape clause and other similar trade regulation cases.

My new law firm is Harris Moure, here in Seattle and my new e-mail address is bill@harrismoure.com.  The US China Trade War blog and newsletter will be coming with me, but coming from my new firm.

Although will miss my Dorsey friends, I am looking forward to Harris Moure, which can be found at http://www.harrismoure.com/.  With a Beijing office and lawyers that can speak fluent Chinese, the Harris firm is well known for helping US and other foreign companies move to China to set up manufacturing operations.  Dan Harris has a very famous blog, http://www.chinalawblog.com/, which is followed by many companies that are interested in doing business in and with China.

In addition, set forth are two major developments involving trade litigation against Chinese companies.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at this Dorsey e-mail address until April 30th and then after that at bill@harrismoure.com.

Bill Perry

TRADE UPDATES

NEW SECTION 337 UNFAIR TRADE CASE AGAINST ALL CHINESE CARBON ALLOY STEEL COMPANIES AND ALL STEEL PRODUCTS FROM CHINA

On April 26, 2016, US Steel Corp filed a major 337 unfair trade case against all the Chinese steel companies seeking an exclusion order to bar all imports of carbon and alloy steel from China.  See the ITC notice below. U.S. Steel Corp. is accusing Chinese steel producers and their distributors of conspiring to fix prices, stealing trade secrets and false labeling to avoid trade duties.  It is asking the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to issue an exclusion order baring all the Chinese steel from the US market and also cease and desist orders prohibiting importers from selling any imported Chinese steel that has already been imported into the United States.

The petition alleges that the Chinese companies:

work together to injure U.S. competitors, including U.S. Steel. Through their cartel, the China Iron and Steel Association (“CISA”), Proposed Manufacturer Respondents conspire to control raw material input prices, share cost and capacity information, and regulate production and prices for steel products exported to the United States. Proposed Manufacturer Respondents also share production schedules and time the release of products across multiple companies. This enables them to coordinate exports of new products to flood the U.S. market and destroy competitors.

4. Some of the Proposed Manufacturer Respondents have used valuable trade secrets stolen from U.S. Steel to produce advanced high-strength steel that no Chinese manufacturer had been able to commercialize before the theft. In January 2011, the Chinese government hacked U.S. Steel’s research computers and equipment, stealing proprietary methods for manufacturing these products. Soon thereafter, the Baosteel Respondents began producing and exporting the very highest grades of advanced high-strength steel, even though they had previously been unable to do so. Chinese imports created with U.S. Steel’s stolen trade secrets compete against and undercut U.S. Steel’s own products.

5.        Proposed Respondents create documentation showing false countries of origin and false manufacturers for Chinese steel products. They also transship them through third countries to disguise their country of origin, circumvent anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, and deceive steel consumers about the origin of Chinese steel.

Having worked at the ITC on 337 cases and later in private practice, section 337 is generally aimed at imports that infringe intellectual property rights, such as patents, trademarks or copyrights.  Moreover, one provision of section 337(b)(3) provides that when any aspect of a section 337 case relates to questions of dumping or subsidization, the Commission is to terminate the case immediately and refer the question to Commerce.

Also in the past when section 337 was used to bring antitrust cases, there was intense push back by the Justice Department.  Customs and Border Protection also may not be happy with the use of section 337 to enforce US Custom law.

But section 337 cases are not antidumping and countervailing duty cases.  There are no mandatory companies and lesser targets.  All the Chinese steel companies are targets, and this will be intense litigation with very tight deadlines.  If the individual Chinese steel companies do not respond to the complaint, their steel exports could be excluded in 70 days to six months.  Section 337 cases are hard- nosed litigation on a very fast track.

If you are interested in a copy of the complaint, please feel free to contact me.

The ITC notice is as follows:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Commodity: Carbon and Alloy Steel Products

Pending Institution

Filed By: Paul F. Brinkman

Firm/Organization: Quinn Emanuel Urrquhart & Sullivan LLP

Behalf Of: United States Steel Corporation

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 Carbon and Alloy Steel Products. The proposed respondents are: Hebei Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., China; Hebei Iron & Steel Group Hengshui Strip Rolling Co., Ltd., China; Hebei Iron & Steel (Hong Kong) International Trade Co., Ltd., China; Shanghai Baosteel Group Corporation,China; Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., China; Baosteel America Inc., Montvale, New Jersey; Jiangsu Shagang Group, China; Jiangsu Shagang International Trade Co, Ltd., China; Anshan Iron and Steel Group, China; Angang Group International Trade Corporation, China; Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd., China; Wuhan Iron and Steel Group Corp., China; Wuhan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., China; WISCO America Co., Ltd., Newport Beach, California; Shougang Group, China; China Shougang International Trade & Engineering Corporation, China; Shandong Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd, China; Shandong Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., China; Jigang Hong Kong Holdings Co., Ltd., China; Jinan Steel International Trade Co., Ltd., China; Magang Group Holding Co. Ltd, China; Maanshan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., China; Bohai Iron and Steel Group, China; Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation, China; Tianjin Pipe International Economic & Trading Corporation, China; TPCO Enterprise Inc., Houston, Texas; TPCO America Corporation, Gregory, Texas; Benxi Steel (Group) Co., Ltd., China; Benxi Iron and Steel (Group) International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., China; Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd., China; Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., China; Tianjin Tiangang Guanye Co., Ltd., China; Wuxi Sunny Xin Rui Science and Technology Co., Ltd., China; Taian JNC Industrial Co., Ltd., China; EQ Metal (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., China; Kunshan Xinbei International Trade Co., Ltd, China; Tianjin Xinhai Trade Co., Ltd., China; Tianjin Xinlianxin Steel Pipe Co. Ltd, China; Tianjin Xinyue Industrial and Trade Co., Ltd., China; and Xian Linkun Materials (Steel Pipe Supplies) Co., Ltd., China.

UNION FILES SECTION 201 CASE ON ALUMINUM, BUT THEN WITHDRAWS IT

On April 18, 2016 the United Steelworkers Union filed a section 201 safeguard case against imports of aluminum from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Although the target appeared to be China because its overcapacity has affected the World aluminum market, in fact, not so much.   China has an export tax in place to prevent exports of primary aluminum.  The real targets were Canada and Russia.  Canada exports about $4 billion in aluminum to the US, and Russia exports about $1 billion.

But after intense pressure from the US Aluminum producers, on April 22th the Union withdrew the petition.  Apparently, the US Aluminum producers have production facilities in Canada and also part of the Union was in Canada and not happy with the case.

Moreover, at the request of Congress, the ITC is conducting a fact-finding investigation on the US aluminum industry. The report is due out June 24, 2017.  The Union may have decided to wait until the ITC issues the fact-finding report in June and then it will refile the 201 case.

But there are reports that as a result of the case the Canadian and US governments are discussing the aluminum trade problem, which may result in a settlement down the road.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade policy, trade adjustment assistance, customs, 337, IP/patent, products liability, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

Dear Friends,

On March 21, 2016 and March 17, 2016, after this post was sent out, I was interviewed on Donald Trump and the US China Trade War by the World Finance, a bi-monthly print and web outlet on the financial industry.

To see the video on the impact of Donald Trump on International Trade policy, please see  Could Trump Take the US Back to the Great Depression, http://www.worldfinance.com/inward-investment/asia-and-australasia/could-trump-take-the-us-back-to-the-great-depression

To see the video on the US China Trade War, click on the following link

http://www.worldfinance.com/inward-investment/asia-and-australasia/the-us-china-trade-war-explained

For more information on the specific points made in the two videos on the US China Trade War and Donald Trump, please see the lead article below on the Trump Impact on International Trade policy.

March 11 Blog Post

After returning from a two week trip to China to work on the Solar Cells case, this March blog post will cover trade policy, including Trump’s impact on Trade Policy, trade, Customs, False Claims Act, the recent ZTE Export Control debacle, 337, patents/IP, criminal IP cases, products liability, antitrust and securities. There are significant developments in the US antitrust area.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

THE TRUMP IMPACT ON US TRADE POLICY

As stated in numerous past blog posts, one of the major reasons the Trans Pacific Partnership is running into problems in Congress along with a number of other trade issues, such as market economy for China, is the impact of the Presidential elections, especially the rise of Donald Trump. After Super Tuesday on March 1, 2016 and the Trump victories in seven different states many Republican pundits believe the game is over and Trump has won the Republican primary and will be the party’s nominee.

Thus Ed Rollins, who worked in the Reagan Administration and is a highly respected expert on the Republican party, published an article on March 2, 2016 on the Fox News website stating, “Trump is now unstoppable. It’s game over for Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson.” Rollins goes on to state:

Game over! This was a rout, America. Winning seven states and the vast majority of delegates is a landslide. Donald Trump and the millions of his supporters have changed American politics and the Republican Party for the foreseeable future. . . .

Trump, who is an unconventional candidate, to say the least, has tapped into the anger and frustration across America and has mobilized voters to turn out in record numbers.

Love him or hate him, be inspired by him or be appalled by him, Trump has totally dominated a political cycle like no other politician I’ve seen in decades.

I admit I was a total skeptic, like many others. At first, I didn’t think he would run. Then I thought there was no way he could beat the all-star cast of elected officials running against him.

Then I underestimated his lack of substance and trite answers in the debates. Then I underestimated his lack of a real campaign.

Then I was convinced the political establishment was going to spend millions and take him out. And like the Energizer bunny he just keeps going and winning!

Trump is getting stronger by the day and his supporters are locked in and not going away. And no one has mastered the media like this since Teddy Roosevelt and his rough riders.

What’s ahead is a Republican Party that either becomes part of his movement or splinters into many pieces. No matter what Trump does or says, the nomination is his for the taking.

For the full article, see http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/02/trump-is-now-unstoppable-its-game-over-for-cruz-rubio-kasich-and-carson.html?intcmp=hpbt2#

At most, there is only a 30% chance that some other Republican candidate can beat Trump, but with a 70% chance that Trump will be the Republican nominee, the question is can Trump beat Hilary Clinton? Many facts indicate that Trump could win and become the next President.

On February 29, 2016, the Boston Herald reported that my childhood state, Massachusetts, which is very liberal and very Democratic, is seeing a surge in Democratic voters switching parties to vote Republican for Trump. As the Boston Herald reported on February 29, 2016, “Amid Trump surge, nearly 20,000 Mass. voters quit Democratic party”. The Article goes on to state:

The primary reason? [Secretary of State Galvin said his “guess” is simple: “The Trump phenomenon” . . . . Galvin said the state could see as many as 700,000 voting in tomorrow’s Republican primary, a significant number given just 468,000 people are actually registered Republicans. In Massachusetts. unenrolled — otherwise known as independent — voters can cast a ballot in the primary of any party.

For full article see http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_tru… 3/1/2016

On February 29, 2016, Buck Fox in Investors Business Daily, one of the more well- known financial newspapers in the US, predicted that Trump would win the Presidency:

Let’s take a rare journalistic moment to answer definitively: Will Donald Trump win the presidency? Yes.

Good. Got that out of the way. No dialing a focus group. Tell it straight. … Answers. Trump rattles them off fearlessly. He doesn’t consult pollsters. He goes with his gut.

Which is one reason he’s wildly popular — dominating the Drudge debate poll with 57% — and on the way to delivering the inaugural address on Jan. 20, 2017, as the 45th president.

As Ann Coulter says, President Trump will be halfway through that speech as the Republican Party keeps debating his viability.

Don’t limit that hedge to GOP bureaucrats. Throw in 99% of TV pundits: Karl Rove, Brit Hume, George Will, Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, Steve Hayes, Charles Krauthammer, S.E. Cupp, Mike Smerconish, Ben Ferguson, Jeff Toobin.

They share a maddening trait — smug, glib and handsomely paid while belittling Trump’s odds of winning. Even though that’s all he’s done while building a titanic real estate empire. . . .

The smart ones see a runaway Trump Train, with Los Angeles radio host Doug McIntyre —hardly a Don fan — conceding after Nevada’s rout, “Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination.”

No “maybe.” No “very well could.” Trump will claim the GOP trophy in July in Cleveland. And win it all in November. Why?

  1. Issues. Trump owns immigration, trade, Muslim terror, self-funding his campaign to ignore special interests. . . . .

For full article, see http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/trump-towers-over-the-presidential-field/[2/29/2016 12:29:13 PM]

On March 1, 2016, Politico published an article “The media’s Trump reckoning: ‘Everyone was wrong’ From the New Yorker to FiveThirtyEight, outlets across the spectrum failed to grasp the Trump phenomenon.”

In a March 3, 2016 article, John Brinkley of Forbes asks “Why Is Trade Such A Big Deal In The Election Campaign?”, stating in part:

Did you ever think you’d see a day when international trade was a central issue in a U.S. presidential election?

That’s where we are in 2016. For one reason or another, all the presidential candidates have felt the need to stake out positions on trade.

Let’s look at the last half-century. Issues that animated presidential campaigns were the Cold War, civil rights, the Vietnam War, Watergate, nuclear weapons, inflation, budget deficits, health care costs, terrorism, national security, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a financial crisis, illegal immigration. But never trade.

Well, almost never. While running for president in 1992, Ross Perot warned that NAFTA would cause “a giant sucking sound” from Mexico, but he wasn’t able to elevate NAFTA to a prominent position in that year’s election debates.

This year the Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who says he knows a lot about trade, but has proven that he doesn’t, says he’ll repeal NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it takes effect before he becomes president.

He also says he wants to slap a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports. It’s been pointed out that this would get us into a trade war. The Trump camp’s fatuous response is that we’re already in a trade war with China. That’s like saying your house is in fire, so let’s spray gasoline on it.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had a realistic shot at the Democratic nomination until Super Tuesday, has ranted and raved about free trade agreements throughout his campaign. He says they have cost millions of Americans their jobs, although there is no empirical evidence of that.

In her inimical please-all-the-people-all-the-time style, Democratic frontrunner Hilary Clinton says she doesn’t like the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its present form, but might change her mind if certain changes are made. She obviously thinks trade is important enough as a political issue that she has to bob and weave rather than take an unambiguous yes-or-no position. . . .

Why is trade such a volatile issue this year?

An obvious reason is that the Obama administration has negotiated and signed the most mammoth trade agreement in the history of the universe.

The TPP encompasses 12 countries and 40 percent of the world’s economy. . . .

And a third we can call The Trump Factor: the other GOP candidates are so scared of Trump that they feel they have to respond to everything he says, just to show that they’re not like him (which hardly seems necessary). . . .

Keeler said the prominence of trade in the 2016 presidential campaign “is surprising in the same way that everything about Donald Trump is surprising.”

For the full article, see

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2016/03/03/why-is-trade-such-a-big-deal-in-the-election-campaign/print/.

Why is trade policy so important in this election? It is not because Trump says it is so.  Instead, it is the reason Trump is doing so well in the Republican primary—his appeal to a large constituency that is being hammered by illegal immigration, hurt by trade and afraid of losing their jobs.  Several pundits have tried to explain what this election is really about and the reason for Trump’s rise:

Hundreds of workers in Indiana, who just saw their jobs heading to Mexico;

Disney employees being fired and forced to retrain foreign replacements;

and finally the systematic invasion of the country by illegal immigrants, who take American jobs away.

Middle class and lower middle class people are afraid of losing their jobs and their livelihood and are flocking to Trump.

In two word, this is economic nationalism.

One central core of Donald Trump’s strategy is the argument that the United States has been soft on trade and “does not win any more.” Trump specifically points to China as one of the biggest winners saying that China, Mexico and Japan all beat the US in trade.

Moreover, the Core Constituency of Trump, his followers, are blue collar workers, many without a college education, so-called Reagan Democrats, that work in companies, factories, service industries and often are in labor unions. These workers are in regular 9 to 5 jobs on a set salary, in the lower middle and middle class, who are not privileged and not protected, feel their livelihoods threatened by illegal immigration and trade deals that give other countries access to US markets.  These blue collar workers are white, black, and Hispanic, such as in the Nevada primary where many Hispanics voted for Trump.  These workers would normally vote Democratic, but they firmly believe that no party be it Democratic or Republican truly represents their interests and are willing to protect their jobs and way of life.  Along comes Donald Trump stating that he will stop illegal immigrants at the border, do away with trade agreements and stop imports from China saving their jobs.  He will make America great again.  For many, many workers this argument makes them solid Trump supporters.

In a March 2 article entitled Eight Reasons we need to start preparing for President Trump, Geoff Earle writing for the NY Post states

Reason 5:

Trump’s main demographic strength — working-class men and white voters — matches up well against one of Hillary Clinton’s chief weaknesses. He could go after Clinton in must-win Ohio, where “Trump’s rhetoric appeals to those blue-collar Democrats,” said GOP strategist Brian Walsh.

For full article, see http://nypost.com/2016/03/02/8-reasons-we-need-to-start-preparing-for-president-trump.

In listening to Donald Trump’s victory speech on Super Tuesday, he stated that he wants to be a unifier and that he will reduce corporate taxes and make it easier for US companies to repatriate profits and set up manufacturing in the US. No one has problems with Trump’s idea of using carrots to bring back US manufacturing.  The problem is with Trump’s idea of using trade sticks to force manufacturing back to the US by setting up high protectionist walls.

On February 29, 2016, The Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled, “Making Depressions Great Again — The U.S. may renounce its trade leadership at a dangerous economic moment,” expressed its real concern that by using the Trade/Tariff sticks Trump could take the United States back to the 1930s and the Smoot Hawley Tariff that created the Great Depression:

Reviving trade is crucial to driving faster growth, yet the paradox of trade politics is that it is least popular when economic anxiety is high and thus trade is most crucial.

And so it is now: Four of the remaining U.S. candidates claim to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Congress now lacks the votes to pass it.

The loudest voice of America’s new antitrade populism is Mr. Trump, who has endorsed 45% tariffs on Chinese and Japanese imports and promises to punish U.S. companies that make cookies and cars in Mexico. When Mr. Trump visited the Journal in November, he couldn’t name a single trade deal he supported, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

He says he’s a free trader but that recent Administrations have been staffed by pathetic losers, so as President he would make deals more favorable to the U.S., and foreigners would bow before his threats. “I don’t mind trade wars,” he said at Thursday’s debate.

He should be careful what he wishes. Trade brinksmanship is always hazardous, especially when the world economy is so weak. A trade crash could trigger a new recession that would take years to repair, and these conflicts are unpredictable and can escalate into far greater damage.

The tragic historic precedent is the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, signed reluctantly by Herbert Hoover. In that era the GOP was the party of tariffs, which economist Joseph Schumpeter called the Republican “household remedy.” Smoot-Hawley was intended to protect U.S. jobs and farmers from foreign competition, but it enraged U.S. trading partners like Canada, Britain and France.

As economic historian Charles Kindleberger shows in his classic, “The World in Depression, 1929-1939,” the U.S. tariff cascaded into a global war of beggar-thy-neighbor tariff reprisals and currency devaluation to gain a trading advantage. Each country’s search for a protectionist advantage became a disaster for all as trade volumes shrank and deepened the Great Depression.

Kindleberger blames the Depression in large part on a failure of leadership, especially by a U.S. that was unwilling to defend open markets in a period of distress. “For the world economy to be stabilized, there has to be a stabilizer—one stabilizer,” he wrote. Britain had played that role for two centuries but was then too weak. The U.S. failed to pick up the mantle. . . .

Once the President recovered his trade bearings, Mitt Romney promised in 2012 to sanction China for currency manipulation and even ran TV ads claiming that “for the first time, China is beating us.”

Mr. Trump is now escalating this line into the centerpiece of his economic agenda—protectionism you can believe in. And what markets and the public should understand is that as President he would have enormous unilateral power to follow through. Congress has handed the President more power over the years to impose punitive tariffs, in large part so Members can blame someone else when antitrade populism runs hot. . . .

In an exchange with Bill O’Reilly on Feb. 10, Mr. Trump said that’s exactly what he plans to do. The Fox News host suggested a trade war is “going to be bloody.” Mr. Trump replied that Americans needn’t worry because the Chinese “will crash their economy,” adding that “they will have a depression, the likes of which you have never seen” in a trade war. He might be right about China, but the U.S. wouldn’t be spared.

The Trump candidacy thus introduces a new and dangerous element of economic risk to a world still struggling to emerge from the 2008 panic and the failed progressive policy response. A trade war would compound the potential to make depressions great again.

For the full editorial see http://www.wsj.com/articles/making-depressions-great-again-1456790200 3/1/2016.

President Ronald Reagan, who lived through the Great Depression and knew about the impact of the Smoot Hawley tariff on his generation, was a solid free trader stating on June 28, 1986 in the attached speech on international trade, BETTER COPY REAGAN IT SPEECH:

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.

Ronald Reagan was a true free trader; Donald Trump is not.

But Trump’s rhetoric along with the strong positions of Bernie Sanders, have already had an impact on US trade policy.

Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”)

On February 22, 2016, despite strong opposition from Republican lawmakers and many Democratic Senators and Congressmen, in a speech before the National Governors Association, President Obama stated that he was cautiously optimistic that Congress would pass the TPP before he leaves office. President Obama specifically stated:

“I am cautiously optimistic that we can still get it done. Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan both have been supportive of this trade deal.  We’re going to … enter this agreement, present it formally with some sort of implementation documents to Congress at some point this year and my hope is that we can get votes.”

But President Obama admitted that selling the TPP is not easy with the opposition of four of the top five candidates for the presidency — Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas. He further stated:

“The presidential campaigns have created some noise within and roiled things a little bit within the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party around this issue. I think we should just have a good, solid, healthy debate about it.  What all of you can do to help is to talk to your Congressional delegations and let them know this is really important.  All of you, though, can really lift up the benefits for your states, and talk to your congressional delegations directly.”

Obama can only submit legislation to implement the TPP to Congress after the U.S. International Trade Commission releases an extensive report on the agreement’s economic impact in mid-May.

As reported in my last newsletter, on February 5, 2016, in the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton stated that she could support the TPP if the deal is changed, but also stated afterwards that she opposes the deal as currently written.  Meanwhile there is intense pressure on Clinton to stay opposed to the TPP as the labor unions have increased pressure on those Democratic Congressmen and Senators that voted in favor of the Trade Promotion Authority and were put on labor’s hit list.  On February 29, 2016, it was reported that labor unions were now targeting 28 moderate Democrats who supported “fast-track” trade promotion legislation.

California Rep. Scott Peters estimates his reelection campaign is likely to see a $200,000 to $300,000 drop in labor donations — about a seventh of his total contributions so far — and fewer ground volunteers knocking on doors unless he changes his trade stance. The two-term lawmaker, who won reelection by 3 percent of the vote, is likely to face ad buys, call-in campaigns and protests outside his office. As Peters further stated:

“We’ve lost some pretty important labor support as a result on the vote on TPA, and that’s painful … There’s no doubt there has been a political price.”

Labor’s attacks on the free traders could also be decisive in the reelection bids of California Rep. Ami Bera and New York Rep. Kathleen Rice. The White House has sought to counter the labor attacks by early endorsements, raised campaign funds and deployed Cabinet officials to praise members in their districts.

This makes passage of the TPP very doubtful in Congress. As Texas Rep Eddie Bernice Johnson said of the loss of the AFL-CIO backing:

“It gets your attention,” adding that trade is an “economic engine” for her Dallas district. “But I cannot neglect the stance and conditions of my district that I pledged heartily to represent.”

There’s a chance a TPP vote could get delayed until the Lame Duck session or the next administration and the next Congress, but AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has stated:

“So they want to put it after the election because they think we’ll forget. Well, we’re not going to forget, and we’re not going to let the American worker forget, and we think they’ll have a tough time explaining their vote to workers who have lost jobs”

During a meeting with labor and trade protectionists, Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer reportedly slammed a notepad down on a table at the height of the debate, telling the group he was frustrated with the constant calls and picketing outside his home and district office. Blumenauer went on to state:

“I have a community that is very trade-dependent, but we also have people who are trade skeptics. So I’m just going to let the chips fall where they may.”

On March 7, 2016, former Congressman Don Bonker wrote the following article for the Seattle Times about the developments in the Trade area:

Trump’s trade rhetoric threatens U.S. economy, global standing, Trump’s fear tactics combined with viral protectionism spreading across the country is a monkey wrench for passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Donald Trump’s political rhetoric, however absurd, is boastfully driving the debate among Republicans on issues such as immigration, but it’s his relentless jabs at U.S. trade policy that is more alarming.

Threatening to slap a 35 percent tariff on all imports from China definitely resonates with his support base, but it could undermine America’s leadership globally and also prove harmful in the Puget Sound area, given that such arbitrary tariffs are imposed on American importers, not Chinese suppliers, then passed on to distributors and ultimately result in higher consumer prices.

Trump, ever boastful of his business savvy, should also expect the Chinese to retaliate, as they predictably will, to restrict U.S. exports from Washington state and beyond.

Not surprisingly, Trump wants it both ways, asserting that free trade is terrible because we have “stupid” officials doing the negotiating, yet it could be wonderful if he calls the shots and has the final word (someone should inform him about the Constitution, which clearly states that “Congress shall regulate interstate and foreign commerce.”)

This may be how he cuts backroom business deals, but Trump’s approach would be unacceptable as leader of the world’s No. 1 economy.

Such fear tactics combined with viral protectionism spreading across the country, tapped into by Bernie Sanders and now Hillary Clinton switching her position on Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is alarming to other nations who depend on America leadership in today’s global economy.

Using Trump’s words, “to make America great again,” our president must be a strong leader in today’s global economy, which Barack Obama has attempted to do with initiatives such as TPP. The partnership would give the U.S. a stronger presence in the Pacific Rim and provide a protective shield for Asian countries threatened by China’s enormous growth and influence in the region.

The TPP is destined for burial thanks to Trump’ rhetoric and growing protectionism among Democrats in Congress. It will be to China’s advantage given their own trade negotiations with the same countries.

If Trump is elected, will it put us in a trade war with China? In the 1928 presidential election, Herbert Hoover was less pompous than Trump but nonetheless called for higher tariffs that set the stage for a Republican Congress poised to run amok on limiting imports.

Shortly after the elections, hundreds of trade associations were formed that triggered an unbridled frenzy of logrolling, jockeying for maximum protection for commodity and industry producers leading to enactment of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that hiked import fees up to 100 percent on over 20,000 imported products.

On the Senate side, another 1,200 amendments were added that proved so egregious, prompting Democrat Senator Thaedeus H. Caraway of Arkansas to declare that, “I might suggest that we have taxed everything in this bill except gall,” to which Senator Carter Glass of Virginia responded, “Yes, and a tax on that would bring considerable revenue.”

What Congress sent to the president proved so alarming it prompted 1,000 of nation’s leading economists to sign a petition urging President Hoover to veto the Smoot-Hawley Act, while The New York Times printed an ad that listed 46 states and 179 universities warning that signing the bill may prompt a fierce reaction.

Indeed within a few months, America’s leading trade partners — Canada, France, Mexico, Italy, 26 countries in all — retaliated, causing the world trade to plummet by more than half of the pre-1929 totals, one of several factors that precipitated the Great Depression.

Based on his campaign rhetoric, a Trump presidency would have plenty of gall, to be sure but it is certainly not what is needed to make America great again.

On March 9, I attended a reception here in Seattle with Congressman Dave Reichert, Chairman Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means. Congressman Reichert stated that he is the first Washington State Congressman to become Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.  He also stated that he is dedicated and personally committed to passing the TPP through Congress no matter how long it takes because of its importance for the economies of Washington State and the entire United States.

On March 10, 2016, however, the Wall Street Journal had a front page headline entitled, “Free Trade Loses Political Favor, Republican backing fades as voters voice surprising skepticism; Pacific pact seen at risk”. The Article states in part:

After decades in which successive Republican and Democratic presidents have pushed to open U.S. and global markets, resentment toward free trade now appears to have the upper hand in both parties, making passage this year of a sweeping Pacific trade deal far less likely and clouding the longer-term outlook for international economic exchange.

Many Democrats have long blamed free-trade deals for big job losses and depressed wages, especially in the industrialized Midwest, which has been battered over the years by competition from lower-cost manufacturing centers in countries like Japan, Mexico and China. . . .

But one big surprise Tuesday was how loudly trade fears reverberated among Republican voters in the primary contests in Michigan and Mississippi—evidence, many observers say, of a widening undercurrent of skepticism on the right about who reaps the benefits from loosened trade restrictions.

CHINA

Despite arguments by the Federalist Society in the attached article, Everything Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong, that Donald Trump’s arguments against China are simply wrong, Trump’s strong position and Hilary Clinton’s desire to keep Union support has forced her to take a much tougher stand on trade with China and the TPP. On February 23rd, 2016 in the attached commentary to the  Maine Press Herald, CLINTON ARTICLE CHINA, entitled “If elected president, I’ll level the playing field on global trade,” Hilary Clinton stated:

At the same time, China and other countries are using underhanded and unfair trade practices to tilt the playing field against American workers and businesses.

When they dump cheap products in our markets, subsidize state-owned enterprises, manipulate currencies and discriminate against American companies, our middle class pays the price. That has to stop.

Ninety-five percent of America’s potential customers live overseas, so closing ourselves off to trade is not a solution. . . .

As President, my goal will be to win the global competition for the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future.

  • First, we have to strongly enforce trade rules to ensure American workers aren’t being cheated. Too often, the federal government has put the burden of initiating trade cases on workers and unions, and failed to take action until after the damage is done and workers have been laid off.

That’s backward: The government should be enforcing the law from the beginning, and workers should be able to focus on doing their jobs. To make sure it gets done, we should establish and empower a new chief trade prosecutor reporting directly to the president, triple the number of trade enforcement officers and build new early-warning systems so we can intervene before trade violations cost American jobs.

We should also hold other countries accountable for meeting internationally sanctioned labor standards – fighting against child and slave labor and for the basic rights of workers to organize around the world.

Second, we have to stand up to Chinese abuses. Right now, Washington is considering Beijing’s request for “market economy” status. That sounds pretty obscure. But here’s the rub – if they get market economy status, it would defang our anti-dumping laws and let cheap products flood into our markets. So we should reply with only one word: No.;

With thousands of state-owned enterprises; massive subsidies for domestic industry; systematic, state-sponsored efforts to steal business secrets; and blatant refusal to play by the rules, China is far from a market economy. If China wants to be treated like a market economy, it needs to act like one.

Third, we need to crack down on currency manipulation – which can be destructive for American workers. China, Japan and other Asian economies kept their goods artificially cheap for years by holding down the value of their currencies.;

I’ve fought against these unfair practices before, and I will do it again. Tough new surveillance, transparency and monitoring regimes are part of the answer – but only part. We need to expand our toolbox to include effective new remedies, such as duties or tariffs and other measures.

Fourth, we need to stop rewarding U.S. companies for shipping jobs overseas by closing loopholes and ending tax write-offs – and encouraging “in-sourcing” here in America instead. Two HVAC plants in Indiana recently decided to move abroad, costing 2,100 jobs – and likely pocketing a tax deduction.

They’re not just turning their back on the workers and community that supported them for years, they’re turning their back on America. As President, I’ll also end so-called “inversions” that allow multinational businesses to avoid paying U.S. taxes by moving overseas in name only.

Fifth, we have to set a high bar for any new trade agreements, and only support them if they will create good jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. I opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership when it failed to meet those tests, and would oppose future agreements if they failed to meet that bar.;

America spent generations working with partners to develop strong and fair rules of the road for the global economy – but those rules only work if we enforce them. Tough enforcement and other smart policies to support a manufacturing renaissance are the only way we can ensure that trade helps American workers. If I’m elected President, that’s what I’ll do.

THE REASON TRADE IS AT THE CENTER OF THE DEBATE AND THE REAL TRADE ANSWER—TAA FOR COMPANIES

THE REASON

What is the reason that trade is the center of the Presidential debate? I believe at its core there are two fundamental reasons—failure to educate the general populace on the benefits of trade so that they understand how manufacturing in the US is connected in global supply chain with raw material inputs from abroad.

The second reason is the toxic domestic raw material heavy industry/Labor Union attack based on false arguments that all trade competition is caused by unfair trade and that companies can be saved by bringing trade remedy cases. This rhetoric has generated a Globalization victimhood way of thinking that all imports are unfairly traded, especially from China. This is despite the fact that 80 of the outstanding 120 antidumping orders against China are directed at raw materials, chemicals, metal and steel, which goes directly into downstream US production. Restrictions on raw material inputs hurts downstream US industries, which have no standing under US antidumping and countervailing duty laws to argue against the restrictions and have their arguments have any weight in the determination.

Years ago a United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) in the W Bush Administration spoke in Seattle and said that in the Trade area the major failure has been to educate the American public on the benefits of trade. Washington State, which is dependent on imports and exports, certainly knows the benefits of trade. The Ports in Washington State are incredibly important for the economic health of the State. Our largest trading partner is China to which Washington exports $20 billion every year. Thus the Washington Council for International Trade is pushing hard for the Trans Pacific Partnership. See http://wcit.freeenterpriseaction.com/v9xpssZ

But that is not true in many other states, especially in the Midwest and on the East Coast, which have adopted the trade victimization ideology. In addition, the Steel Industry and Labor Unions make three attacks against China—currency manipulation, cyber hacking and antidumping. When one looks deeper at these arguments, however, they fall apart.

CURRENCY MANIPULATION

Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton have been screaming about currency manipulation. But on May 22, 2015, on the Senate floor during the debate on Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) Senator Hatch made a very strong argument against the Stabenow and Portman Currency Amendment, which would have included tough provisions and sanctions, against currency manipulation. Senator Hatch clearly stated that the reason he opposed the Amendment was because President Obama under pressure from Treasury Secretary Lew stated that if the currency amendment was included, he would veto the TPA bill.

Why were President Obama and Treasury Secretary Lew opposed to tough sanctions against currency manipulation? Because those sanctions could be used against the United States. See Testimony of Senators Wyden and Hatch at http://www.c-span.org/video/?326202-1/us-senate-debate-trade-promotion-authority&live. As Senator Hatch stated:

I think I can boil this very complicated issue down to a single point: The Portman-Stabenow Amendment will kill TPA.

I’m not just saying that, Mr. President. It is, at this point, a verifiable fact.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Lew outlining the Obama Administration’s opposition to this amendment. . . . most importantly, at the end of the letter, Secretary Lew stated very plainly that he would recommend that the President veto a TPA bill that included this amendment.

That’s pretty clear, Mr. President. It doesn’t leave much room for interpretation or speculation. No TPA bill that contains the language of the Portman-Stabenow Amendment stands a chance of becoming law. . . .

We know this is the case, Mr. President. Virtually all of our major negotiating partners, most notably Japan, have already made clear that they will not agree to an enforceable provisions like the one required by the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. No country that I am aware of, including the United States, has ever shown the willingness to have their monetary policies subject to potential trade sanctions. . . .

Second, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment would put at risk the Federal Reserve’s independence in its ability to formulate and execute monetary policies designed to protect and stabilize the U.S. economy. While some in this chamber have made decrees that our domestic monetary policies do not constitute currency manipulation, we know that not all of our trading partners see it that way. . . .

If the Portman-Stabenow language is adopted into TPA and these rules become part of our trade agreements, how long do you think it will take for our trading partners to enter disputes and seek remedies against Federal Reserve quantitative easing policies? Not long, I’d imagine.

If the Portman-Stabenow objective becomes part of our trade agreements, we will undoubtedly see formal actions to impose sanctions on U.S. trade, under the guise that the Federal Reserve has manipulated our currency for trade advantage. We’ll also be hearing from other countries that Fed policy is causing instability in their financial markets and economies and, unless the Fed takes a different path, those countries could argue for relief or justify their own exchange-rate policies to gain some trade advantage for themselves.

CYBER HACKING

The trade critics also attack China for Cyber Hacking, but 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 1hour 8 minutes to 10 minutes.

In response to a specific 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.  

Thus, the United States itself does not want to clearly define Cyber Hacking as unacceptable because it is state espionage and we the United States do it too and are pretty good at it.

DUMPING

As indicated in numerous past blog posts, more dumping and countervailing duty cases, some against China based on faked numbers, does not solve the trade problem. For over 40 years the Commerce Department has refused to use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping resulting in antidumping and countervailing duty orders blocking about $30 billion in Chinese imports.  In doing so, however, China is treated worse the Iran, Russia, Syria and many other countries under the US antidumping law.

As indicated below, that issue comes to a boil on December 11, 2016 when pursuant to the China WTO Agreement, China is supposed to be treated as a market economy country. But Hilary Clinton states that if market economy treatment were given to China so they could be treated like Iran, we would “defang our antidumping laws.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Having worked at the Commerce Department, I am convinced that if China were to become a market economy, Commerce would still find very large dumping rates against China.

More importantly, the antidumping, countervailing duty and other trade laws do not work. They do not save US companies and industries.  We have a poster child to prove this point—The US Steel Industry.  After forty years of trade cases and protection from steel imports, where is the US steel industry today?

Many of the major steel companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, Lone Star Steel and Jones & Laughlin, have become green fields. The total employment of the US Steel industry now is less than one high tech company. A failure caused not because of the lack of  antidumping and countervailing duty protection covering billions of dollars in imports, but because as President Reagan stated back in 1986, protectionism does not work.  It does not save the companies, because these cases do not get at the root causes of the company’s and industry’s decline.

Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton have pointed to the closure of manufacturing plants in the US and their move to Mexico. But why did the factories close?

On March 4, 2016, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled Trump on Ford and Nabisco The real reasons the companies left the U.S. for Mexico” clearly set out the reasons some of these companies left the United State to move to Mexico—Wages demands as high as $60 an hour from the Labor Unions coupled with sky high taxes to support public workers in Illinois.  As the Journal stated:

“Last summer, Deerfield, Illinois-based Mondelez, which owns Nabisco, announced that it would close nine production lines at its plant in Chicago—the largest bakery in the world—while investing in new technology at a facility in Salinas, Mexico. Mondelez made the decision after asking its unions for $46 million in concessions to match the annual savings it would achieve from shifting production to Mexico. . . .

Operating in Chicago is particularly expensive since Illinois has among the nation’s highest corporate and property taxes—which are soaring to pay for city employee pensions—and workers’ compensation premiums. Last year Illinois lost 56 manufacturing jobs per work day while employment increased in most other Midwest states including Wisconsin (18 a day), Indiana (20), Ohio (58) and Michigan (74).

As for Ford, Mr. Trump flogged the auto maker’s $2.5 billion investment in two new engine and transmission plants in Mexico. . . . One impetus behind Detroit’s Mexico expansion is the United Auto Workers new collective-bargaining agreement, which raises hourly labor and benefit costs to $60 in 2019—about $10 more than foreign auto makers with plants in the U.S.—from the current $57 for Ford and $55 for GM. The increasing wages make it less economical to produce low-margin cars.

Foreign car manufacturers including BMW, Honda, Volkswagen, Kia, Nissan and Mazda have also recently announced new investments in Mexico. Besides lower labor costs, one reason they give is Mexico’s free-trade agreements, which allow access to 60% of world markets. Mexico has 10 free-trade agreements with 45 countries including Japan and the European Union whereas the U.S. has only 14 deals with 20 countries.”

Companies have to be competitive with foreign competition, and labor unions must work with management to stay competitive with the rest of the World. The “More” statement of the famous US labor leader John L. Lewis no longer works if the labor union’s more leads to the closure of the US manufacturing company, which employs the workers in question.

THE ANSWER

Not only must US Companies be competitive, but countries, including the United States, must also be competitive and be willing to meet the competition from other countries. A major reason for the rise of Donald Trump is the failure of the US Congress to formulate a trade policy that works and promote the only US trade program that truly saves import injured manufacturing companies by helping them adjust to import competition—the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Firms/Companies program.  As stated in prior blog posts, because of ideological purity among many Republican conservatives in Congress and the Senate, the TAA for Companies program has been cut to the bone to $12.5 million nationwide.  This cut is despite the fact that since 1984 here in the Northwest, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”) has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program.

To understand the transformative power of TAA for Companies, see the TAA video from Mid-Atlantic TAAC at http://mataac.org/howitworks/ , which describes in detail how four import injured companies used the program to change and turn their company around and make it profitable.  One of the companies was using steel as an input, and was getting smashed by Chinese imports.  After getting into the program, not only did the company become prosperous and profitable, it is now exporting products to China.

This cut back to $12. 5 million nationwide from $50 million makes it impossible for the TAA for Companies program to work with medium or larger US companies, which have been injured by imports. TAA for Companies is hamstrung by neglect with a maximum technical assistance per firm level that has not changed in at least 30 years.

In case you don’t know about TAAF, this is a program that offers a one-time, highly targeted benefit to domestic companies hurt by trade. The benefit is not paid to the companies, but to consultants, who help the company adjust to import competition.   To put that in context, the very much larger TAA for Worker Program’s appropriation for FY 2015 was $711 million to retrain workers for jobs that may not exist after the company has closed.

Congress needs to find a cure to the trade problem, and it is not more trade cases, which do not save US companies and the jobs that go with them. TAA for Companies works, but because of politics, ideology and the resulting Congressional cuts, TAA has been so reduced it is now marginalized and cannot do the job it was set up to do.

Both Republicans and Democrats have failed to formulate a trade policy that will help US companies injured by imports truly adjust to import competition and become competitive in the World again. This failure has created Donald Trump and possibly a new dangerous protectionist era in US politics, which could have a disastrous impact on the US economy.

TPP TEXT AND TRADE ADVISORY REPORTS

On November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”).  This is an enormous trade agreement covering 12 countries, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, and covers 40% of the World’s economy. To read more about the TPP and the political negotiations behind the Agreement see past newsletters and my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com.

The attached text of the Agreement is over 6,000 pages.Chapters 3 – 30 – Bates 4116 – 5135 Chapters 1 – 2 – Bates 1 – 4115 Annex 1 – 4 – Bates A-1-1074

On November 5th, the Treasury Department released the text of the Currency Manipulation side deal, Press Release – 12 Nation Statement on Joint Declaration Press Release – Joint Declaration Fact Sheet TPP_Currency_November 2015.

On December 2nd and 3rd, 2015 various trade advisory groups operating under the umbrella of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) Group issued reports on the impact of the TPP on various industries and legal areas. All the reports can be found at https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/advisory-group-reports-TPP and attached are many of the reports, ITAC-2-Automobile-Equipment-and-Capital-Goods, ITAC-12-Steel ITAC-11-Small-and-Minority-Business, ITAC-9-Building-Materials-Construction-and-Non-Ferrous-Metals ITAC-10-Services-and-Finance-Industries ITAC-6-Energy-and-Energy-Services ITAC-2-Automobile-Equipment-and-Capital-Goods ITAC-3-Chemicals-Pharmaceuticals-Health-Science-Products-and-Services ITAC-5-Distribution-Services ITAC-8-Information-and-Communication-Technologies-Services-and-Electronic-Commerce.  Almost all of the reports are favorable, except for the Steel Report, which takes no position, and the Labor Advisory Report, which is opposed because it is the position of the Unions.

NEW TRADE AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT BILL

President Obama signed the bipartisan Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTE) on February 24. A copy of the bill, the conference report and summary of the bill are attached,  JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE CONFERENCE REPORT TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 20152 Summary of TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015 Trade-and-Environment-Policy-Advisory-Committee.pdf.

The bill makes many changes to the Customs and Trade laws with a specific focus on enforcement, particularly of the Trade laws. One of the provisions focuses on concerns surrounding non-resident, small “fly-by-night” importers of record.  The TFTE authorizes the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to set up an importer-of-record program.  Through the program, CBP must establish criteria that importers must meet to obtain an importer-of-record number.

In addition, CBP is to establish an importer risk assessment program to review the risk associated with certain importers, particularly new importers and nonresident importers, to determine whether to adjust an importer’s bond or increase screening for an importer’s entries.   Specifically, Section 115(a) of the law provides:

Not later than the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall establish a program that directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to adjust bond amounts for importers, including new importers and nonresident importers, based on risk assessments of such importers conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in order to protect the revenue of the Federal Government.

Title IV of the Act, Prevention of Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, sets up a new remedy for companies that believe that antidumping and countervailing duty orders are being evaded by shipping through a third country or misclassification or some other means.  The Act creates the Trade Remedy Enforcement Division within Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with developing and administering policies to prevent evasion of US antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The Secretary of Treasury is also authorized to enter into agreements with foreign nations to enforce the trade remedy laws.

On Aug. 23, 2016, CBP must begin investigating allegations of trade remedy evasion according to established procedures.   Those procedures include that CBP must initiate an investigation within 15 business days of receiving an allegation from an interested party and then has 300 days to determine whether the merchandise was entered through evasion. If CBP finds that there is a reasonable suspicion that merchandise entered the U.S. through evasion, CBP is directed to suspend the liquidation of each unliquidated entry of such covered merchandise.

Any CBP evasion decision is subject to judicial review by the Court of International Trade. The act also provides an expanded range of penalties where evasion is found to have occurred, including the imposition of additional duties and referrals to other agencies for other civil or criminal investigations.

Section 433 of the Act also eliminates the ability of an importer of a new shipper’s merchandise to post a bond or security instead of a cash deposit. This provision will prevent a company from importing substantial quantities of merchandise covered by an antidumping and/or countervailing duty order and then fail to pay the appropriate duty.

Finally, section 701 of the act, Enhancement of Engagement on Currency Exchange Rate and Economic Policies with Certain Major Trading Partners of the United States, establishes a procedure for identifying trade partners that are suspected of currency manipulation and conducting a macroeconomic analysis of those partners. The key finding is under section 701(2)(B), where the Treasury Secretary is to publicly describe the factors used to assess under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) whether a country has a significant bilateral trade surplus with the United States, has a material current account surplus, and has engaged in persistent one-sided intervention in the foreign exchange market.

If the Treasury Secretary is unable to address currency manipulation issues with a trading partner, the act authorizes the President to take additional steps to prevent and remedy further manipulation. For instance, the president may prohibit the approval of new financing products, which can be waived only upon a finding of adverse impact on the U.S. economy or serious harm to national security.

ZTE EXPORT LAW VIOLATIONS—MORE FUEL ON THE FIRE OF THE US CHINA TRADE WAR

On March 8, 2015, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) published the attached Federal Register notice, ZTE FED REG NOTICE, announcing that China based mega corporation ZTE and three of its affiliated companies have been added to the Entity List, which requires an export license before US made products can be exported to those companies. As China’s second largest telecommunications company, ZTE is also the world’s seventh largest producer of smartphones and has operations in the US and more than 160 other countries.

The Federal Register notice states:

The End-User Review Committee (“ERC”) composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy, and, where appropriate, the Treasury has determined:

to add four entities—three in China and one in Iran—to the Entity List under the authority of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. . . .

The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to list these four entities. Under that paragraph, entities and other persons for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States . . . .

Pursuant to § 744.11 of the EAR, the ERC determined that Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation (‘‘ZTE Corporation’’) . . . be added to the Entity List under the destination of China for actions contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, the ZTE Corporation document ‘‘Report Regarding Comprehensive Reorganization and Standardization of the Company Export Control Related Matters’’ (available at http://www.bis.doc.gov) indicates that ZTE Corporation has reexported controlled items to sanctioned countries contrary to United States law. The ZTE Corporation document ‘‘Proposal for Import and Export Control Risk Avoidance’’ (available at http://www.bis.doc.gov) describes how ZTE Corporation also planned and organized a scheme to establish, control, and use a series of ‘‘detached’’ (i.e., shell) companies to illicitly re-export controlled items to Iran in violation of U.S. export control laws.

Having looked at the internal confidential ZTE report, which Commerce in a very unusual situation has published as a public document on its website, ZTE truly has been caught red handed. The ZTE Report lays out a detailed scheme to evade US Export Control laws.  No country, including the United States or China, would tolerate such a scheme to systematically evade a country’s laws.

For more on the ZTE Action along with a link to the confidential ZTE document now posted on the Commerce Department website, see http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/08/2155724/has-the-cold-us-sino-trade-war-just-got-piping-hot/.

From the Chinese point of view, however, the Commerce Department has no credibility because its antidumping laws presently block about $30 billion in imports based on fake numbers. Because the US Government’s Import and Export Control Administration are both located in the Commerce Department, the Chinese government looks at all the Department’s decisions as US based protectionism.

The problem is that through its nonmarket economy methodology, which does not use actual costs and prices to determine dumping, Commerce has created a game, and the Chinese will play it. Sometimes Chinese companies talk to me about using the “houmen” back door and shipping products through different countries to evade US antidumping laws.  I always tell the Chinese companies that this is Customs fraud and they risk civil and criminal prosecution under US Customs and trade laws.

In fact, in the past Chinese honey suppliers that used transshipment to get around the US antidumping law were caught in the United States and hauled in front of Federal Court on criminal charges for evasion of US antidumping laws. I have heard of one Chinese company seafood executive arrested in Belgium and sent to Belgian jail on an extradition warrant for evasion of US antidumping laws.

With the enactment of the New Trade and Customs Enforcement Act, described above, the US government now has more ways of catching Chinese companies and US importers that try to evade US trade laws. As one Chinese friend told me, such actions are “too damned dangerous”.

Although US judgments are not enforceable in China, Chinese companies have to also realize, that like ZTE, they have grown up and have subsidiaries all around the World. US judgments may not be enforceable in China, but they are enforceable in Hong Kong and other countries, and every Chinese company I have ever dealt with has a Hong Kong bank account.  Through its scheme to evade US export control laws, ZTE now has major problems and those problems may now multiply worldwide.

CHINA’S NME STATUS—ANOTHER HOT TOPIC FOR 2016

As stated in prior newsletters, interest groups on both sides of the issue have increased their political attacks in the debate over China’s market economy status. On February 23, 2016, under intense pressure from the labor unions, Hilary Clinton stated that to give market economy status to China:

“would defang our anti-dumping laws and let cheap products flood into our markets. So we should reply with only one word: No.”

To summarize the issue, on December 11, 2016, pursuant to the WTO Agreement, the 15 year provision, expires. More specifically, the United States faces a looming deadline under the WTO Agreement with regard to the application of this nonmarket economy methodology to China.

Under Nonmarket economy methodology, Commerce does not use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping, but constructs a cost from consumption factors in China multiplied by surrogate values from import statistics in 5 to 10 different countries and those values can change from preliminary to final determination and review to review. Because of this methodology no Chinese company and certainly no US importer that is liable for the duties, knows whether the Chinese company is truly dumping.  Fake numbers lead to fake results.

Section 15 of the China WTO Accession Agreement, which originated from the US China WTO Accession Agreement, provides:

  • Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping . . .

(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: . . .

(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. . . .

(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member’s national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.

In other words, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, Commerce’s right to use a nonmarket economy methodology “shall expire 15 years after the date of accession”. China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 so Section 15(d) should kick in on December 11, 2016.

That provision specifies that an importing WTO member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices and costs in China to determine normal value in an AD case, if producers of a given product under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in their industry.

The question that is now being debated is whether Section 15(d) automatically ends the possibility of using a non-market economy methodology to China or if it can still be applied if petitioners can show that market conditions do not prevail for producers of the product under investigation.

As stated above, Hilary Clinton is under enormous pressure to be tough on China. On February 12th,The American Iron and Steel Industry made it clear that it wants China’s non-market economy status in antidumping cases to be at the forefront of the public debate.  Thus Thomas Gibson, AISI president and CEO, stated:

“We want to keep the issue in front of decision makers and in the public debate because there will be a new government a year from now. “

He further stated that the Obama administration has not shown any sign that it is considering treating China as a market economy in AD cases as a result of an expiring provision in the country’s accession protocol to the World Trade Organization. As Gibson further stated:

“We have not heard anyone in the administration say that they agree with China’s assertion that it is to be given market economy status automatically at the end of the year. I think the administration has heard our concerns.”

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Michael Punke also reportedly stated in early February in Geneva that there was little administration interest in treating China as a market economy:

“The issue of China’s status is not automatic. The mere change of date at the end of the year does not automatically result in a change of status for China.”

Other US government officials have informally conceded that the administration has arrived at the conclusion that no automatic change of U.S. AD methodology is needed, a position clearly articulated by the Commerce Department.

In the attached February 24, 2016 statement to the US China Economic and Security Review Commission, HUFBAUER STATE, however, Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a well-known international trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, made the opposite argument noting first that the following countries have granted China market economy status in antidumping cases: New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia. Hufbauer went on to state:

Some lawyers read the text differently. While they agree that Article 15(a)(ii) effectively disappears on December 11, 2016, they do not agree that the Protocol confines WTO members to a binary choice between MES (strict comparison of export prices with Chinese prices or costs) and NME (comparison with surrogate prices or costs). They point to the opening language in Article 15(a), which states:

…the importing WTO member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China….

To be sure, under Article 15(d), the whole of Article 15(a) disappears:

Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated….

The United States might well argue, come December 11, 2016, that China has not established that it has become, in all important respects, a market economy. The Commerce Department could modify its current surrogate practices and instead use a “mix-and-match” approach—claiming on a case-by-case basis that some Chinese prices or costs reflect market conditions and others do not. For the prices or costs that do not reflect market conditions, the Commerce Department could use surrogate prices or costs. This seems most likely in industries, such as steel, dominated by state-owned enterprises, with large losses financed by state-controlled banks.

Whether the United States takes a “mix-and-match” approach, rather than granting China blanket market economy status, will turn primarily on policy considerations, not legal parsing. The policy decision may reflect the general atmosphere of commercial relations with China late in 2016, including the evolution of the renminbi exchange rate (manipulated devaluation would inspire a harder line) and the outcome of US-China bilateral investment treaty (BIT) negotiations (success would have the opposite effect).

Assuming the United States adopts a “mix-and-match” approach, the stage will be set for China to initiate WTO litigation. In this scenario, the year 2018 seems the earliest date for a final decision by the WTO Appellate Body. My guess is that the Appellate Body would rule against the “mix-and-match” approach. Even so, China would not receive retroactive refunds for antidumping duties collected prior to the ruling.

Moreover, within China, the US denial of full-fledged MES would resonate strongly, in a negative way. Antagonism would be particularly strong if, as I expect, the European Union and other major countries accord MES in December 2016. Consequently, China would likely retaliate in opaque ways against US exporters and investors.

On balance, the United States would lose more than it gains from withholding full-fledged MES. A very large irritant would be thrown into US-China commercial relations, with a modest benefit to US industries that initiate AD proceedings. Even without the use of surrogate costs and prices, AD margins are typically high. Adding an extra 20 percent penalty, through the use of surrogate cost and price methodologies, will not do a great deal more to restrain injurious imports.

On February 25, 2016, Cecilia Malmström, the EU Commissioner for Trade, stated at a China Association Event in London that China is:

a major investment partner too. The EU has stocks of 117 billion pound sterling in the Chinese economy. And China is a growing source of foreign investment for the EU. Chinese investment in EU in 2014 is four times what it was in 2008.

And, if we just look at our exports alone, over 3 million jobs here in Europe depend on our sales in China. . . .

The second issue I want to raise is the question of changing the methodology in anti-dumping investigations concerning Chinese products, the so-called market economy status.

This is a sensitive issue. And it’s become even more so with the steel situation. That’s why the EU is conducting a thorough impact assessment and public consultation before we make up our minds on where to go.

But what is clear is that certain provisions of China’s protocol of accession to the WTO related to this issue will expire in December.

We need to be very careful how we approach this and we need to work cooperatively. We will need the constructive engagement of all Member States, including the UK.

On March 3, 2016, the executive council of the AFL-CIO labor union called on the US government to end the trade agreement TTIP negotiations if the EU makes China a market economy country.

TRADE

RAW ALUMINUM PROBLEMS

In light of the impact of the aluminum extrusions case on the US market, the import problem has now moved upstream. The next round of antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China looks like it will be on raw aluminum products.

On February 24, 2016, in a letter to the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), WAYS MEANS LETTER ALUMINUM, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady requested that the Commission conduct a section 332 fact finding investigation of the US aluminum industry. The letter specifically states:

The Committee on Ways and Means is interested in obtaining current information on relevant factors affecting the global competitiveness of the U.S. aluminum industry. The U.S. aluminum industry remains a globally successful producer of aluminum products. A healthy and growing aluminum industry is not only important to our economy, but is also vital for our national defense. ·

In order to better assess the current market conditions confronting the U.S. industry, we request that the U.S. International Trade Commission conduct an investigation under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U.S.C. !332(g)), and provide a report setting forth the results of the investigation. The investigation should cover unwrought (e.g., primary and secondary) and wrought (e.g., semi-finished) aluminum products

To the extent that information is available, the report should contain:

  • an overview of the aluminum industry in the United States and other major global producing and exporting countries, including production, production capacity, capacity utilization, employment, wages, inventories, supply chains, domestic demand, and exports;

information on recent trade trends and developments in the global market for aluminum, including U.S. and other major foreign producer imports and exports, and trade flows through third countries for further processing and subsequent exports;

  • a comparison of the competitive strengths and weaknesses of aluminum production and exports in the United States and other major producing and exporting countries, including such factors as producer revenue and production costs, industry structure, input prices and availability, energy costs and sources, production technology, product in novation, exchange rates, and pricing, as well as government policies and programs that directly or indirectly affect aluminum production and exporting in these countries;
  • in countries where unwrought aluminum capacity has significantly increased, identify factors driving those capacity and related production changes; and
  • a qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative assessment of the impact of government policies and programs in major foreign aluminum producing and exporting countries on their aluminum production, exports, consumption, and domestic prices, as well as on the U.S. aluminum industry and on aluminum markets worldwide.

The report should focus primarily on the 2011-2015 time period, but examine longer term trends since 2011. To develop detailed information on the domestic aluminum market and industry, it is anticipated that the Commission will need to collect primary data from market participants through questionnaires. The Committee requests that the Commission transmit its report to Congress no later than 16 months following the receipt of this request. . . .

One major purpose of the investigation is to assess how China policies have affected the US aluminum industry.

President Heidi Brock of the US Aluminum Association, which represents the US aluminum industry, applauded the Ways and Means request for an ITC investigation:

“An investigation by the [ITC] will help us address ongoing issues in the global aluminum industry that are hurting the domestic market and leading to curtailments, closures and job losses. I am pleased that the Congress recognizes the continued economic importance of this vital industry and I applaud Chairman Brady’s leadership to move this issue forward.”

Recently, the U.S. industry has curtailed or closed 65 percent of U.S. aluminum capacity with many job losses for U.S. workers

The information collected by the ITC could be used as the basis for trade cases against China and other countries.

THE ONGOING STEEL CASES

Many companies have been asking me about the ongoing Steel antidumping and countervailing duty cases so this section will address the Steel cases in more detail.

As happened in the OCTG cases, where Chinese OCTG was simply replaced by imports from Korea, India, Taiwan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Thailand and Turkey, the same scenario is happening in other steel cases, such as the recent cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant/galvanized steel cases.

Based on the nonmarket economy antidumping methodology, which does not use actual prices and costs in China, in the recent cases Chinese steel companies were smashed with high antidumping rates of 200 to 300 percent. In the Cold Rolled Steel countervailing duty case, the Chinese companies and Chinese government simply gave up and received a rate over 200% and now under the Antidumping Law rates of over 200%.

COLD ROLLED STEEL FROM CHINA, BRAZIL, KOREA, INDIA AND RUSSIA—PRELIMINARY COUNTERVAILING DUTY AND ANTIDUMPING DETERMINATIONS

On December 16, 2015, Commerce issued its attached preliminary countervailing duty determination, factsheet-multiple-cold-rolled-steel-flat-products-cvd-prelim-121615, in Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, China, India, and Russia and No Countervailable Subsidization of Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Korea. The effect of the case is to wipe all Chinese cold rolled steel out of the United States with a countervailing duty (CVD) rate of 227.29%.

As also predicted, the countervailing duty rates for all the other countries were very low, if not nonexistent: Brazil 7.42% for all companies, India 4.45% for all companies, Korea 0 for all companies and Russia 0 to 6.33% for all companies.

The 227.29% CVD rate for all the Chinese companies was based on all facts available as the Chinese government and the Chinese steel companies simply refused to cooperate realizing that it was a futile exercise to fight the case at Commerce because of the surrogate value methodology and refusal to use actual prices and costs in China.

On March 1, 2016 Commerce issued its attached preliminary antidumping determination mirroring the rates in the preliminary CVD determination. Specifically, in a factsheet, factsheet-multiple-cold-rolled-steel-flat-products-ad-prelim-030116, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty  investigations of imports of certain cold rolled steel flat products from Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United Kingdom.

As predicted, China’s antidumping rate was 265.79% as the Chinese companies simply gave up and did not participate because they believed that it would be impossible to get a good antidumping rate using nonmarket economy methodology.

For the other market economy countries, the results were mixed. Brazil received antidumping rates of 38.93% and Japan was 71.35%.

But India’s rate was only 6.78% and Korea had rates ranging from 2.17 to 6.85%. For Russia, the rates ranged from 12.62 to 16.89% and the United Kingdom rates were between 5.79 to 31.39%.

What does this mean? China is wiped out along with Japan and probably Brazil, but Korea, India, Russia and UK will continue to export steel to the US and simply take the Chinese market share.

Antidumping and countervailing duty cases do not save US industries.

CUSTOMS NEW “LIVE ENTRY” PROCEDURES FOR STEEL IMPORTS

On March 3, 2016, Customs announced a new effort to enforce trade rules against steel shipments at risk for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders. It requires importers of record to provide the paperwork and pay the necessary duties before a given shipment is released into the U.S. market.

This live-entry requirement is already being applied to cut-to-length steel plate from China. Customs is considering requiring live-entry procedures for other high-risk steel imports subject to the 100 plus AD/CVD cases, but sidestepped a question on whether these procedures would apply to products other than steel.

This new live entry requirement slows up imports from entering the US commerce to that Customs can make sure everything in the shipment is correct before releasing it into the Commerce of the United States.

SOLAR CELLS REVIEW DETERMINATION

On December 18, 2015, in an attached decision, SOLAR CELLS AD PRELIM, the Commerce Department issued its preliminary determination in the 2013-2014 Solar Cells antidumping review investigation.  The antidumping rates range from 4.53% for Trina to 11.47% for Yingli.  The average dumping rate for the Chinese separate rate companies is 7.27%.

On December 31, 2015, Commerce issued its attached preliminary determination in the 2013 Countervailing duty case, DOC SOLAR CVD 2013, and the rates went up to 19.62% for three Chinese companies–JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd., Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd.

Meanwhile, requests for antidumping and countervailing duty review investigations in the Solar Cells case were due in December 2015 and in February 2016 for the Solar Products. While in China in February, I ran into many Chinese solar companies that were in serious trouble because they failed to request a review investigation.

MARCH ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On March 1, 2015, Commerce published the attached Federal Register notice, MARCH REVIEWS, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of March. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Chloropicrin, Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, Glycine, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, and Tissue Paper Products.

The specific countervailing duty case is: Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe

For those US import companies that imported : Chloropicrin, Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe, Glycine, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, or Tissue Paper Products during the antidumping period March 1, 2015-February28, 2016 or the countervailing duty period of review, calendar year 2015, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the antidumping and countervailing duty case is over because the initial investigation is over. Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability.

While in China in February, I found so many examples of Chinese solar companies or US importers, which did not file requests for a review investigation. In one instance, although the Chinese companies obtained separate rates during the initial investigation, the Petitioner appealed to the Court.  Several Chinese companies and US importers did not know the case was appealed, and the importers now owe millions in antidumping duties because they failed to file a request for a review investigation in December.

CUSTOMS

RICO ACTION AGAINST CHINESE GARLIC EXPORTERS

In the attached complaint, GARLIC COMPLAINT, on January 28, 2016, Chinese garlic exporter Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co. Ltd. and its parent company sued a group of Chinese competitors in California federal court accusing them of deliberately defrauding the U.S. government in order to acquire preferential duty rates.

Zhengzhou Harmoni claimed the exporters, which the company says are affiliated to Chinese businessman Wenxuan Bai, are defrauding the system by lying and submitting falsified documents to Customs and Commerce in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The company said their competitors’ allegedly unlawful conduct is unfairly eroding Harmoni’s market share because Harmoni rightly earned favorable rates from the federal government through the antidumping review process,

Zhengzhou Harmoni told the court that its parent company and exclusive importer enjoys a similar advantage in the U.S. marketplace, but accused the Bai-affiliated garlic exporters of unlawfully forming new corporate entities and revitalizing old ones in order to obtain coveted “new shipper” designations to garner preferential treatment.

Meanwhile, in a decision, CIT PREMIER GARLIC, in late January Premier Trading, Inc. v. United States, Premier, a U.S. garlic  importer of garlic from Qingdao Tiantaixing Foods Co. Ltd., one of the companies named in Harmoni’s RICO suit, sued Customs and Commerce in the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”). Premier Trading Inc. alleged CBP’s enhanced bond requirements for shipments from QTF are resulting in delays and leaving fresh garlic to spoil.

On February 11, 2016, Judge Gordon of the CIT denied Premier’s motion for a preliminary injunction, stating at the outset that there was no likelihood of success on the merits:

It is apparent that QTF may potentially be subject to the higher PRC-wide rate as a consequence of Commerce’s preliminary determination in the 20th administrative review. Furthermore, there has been a long and documented pattern of non-payment and underpayment of antidumping duties subject to the Garlic Order (amounting to several hundred million dollars). . . . Customs, here, has also provided confidential documents regarding Plaintiff’s connection to other importers that mirror a pattern of non-payment and underpayment, which suggests, as Customs claims, that Plaintiff poses a similar risk to the revenue. . . . In light of these facts, it is hard to see merit in Plaintiff’s claim that Customs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the enhanced bonding requirement for Plaintiff’s entries. Accordingly, Customs’ imposition of a heightened bonding requirement on imports from QTF does not appear arbitrary or capricious. . . . Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.

Judge Gordon then found that there was no irreparable injury and that the balance of equities favored the Government. Judge Gordon then stated that Public Interest lies in favor of the Government:

Here, the public has an interest in protecting the revenue of the United States and in assuring compliance with the trade laws. See 19 U.S.C. § 1623. Enhanced bonding pending litigation serves both these interests. Additional security covers potential liabilities and protects against default, ensuring the correct antidumping duty is paid.

CUSTOMS PROTEST RULE APPEALED TO SUPREME COURT

Meanwhile, International Custom Products Inc. has filed an attached writ of certiorari on January 19, SUPREME COURT CERT PROTEST ISSUE, and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of a Customs rule requiring the full payment of duties by an importer before a court case can proceed, challenging the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the policy meets due process requirements. The importer argues that the CPB rule requiring importers to fully pay imposed duties before bringing a court case is unconstitutional because it deprives the company of due process. The company has been disputing $28 million in tariffs it claims have been erroneously applied to its imports of white sauce due to the agency’s reclassification of the product.

FALSE CLAIMS ACT

GRAPHITE ELECTRODES

On February 22, 2016 in a settlement agreement, SETTLEMENT FCA GRAPHITE, Ameri-Source International Inc., a graphite electrodes company, paid $3 million to settle a false claims act case that it schemed to avoid antidumping duties on imports of graphite electrodes from China in violation of the False Claims Act. The complaint alleges that the importer misclassified the merchandise and lied about the country of origin to avoid paying anti-dumping duties on shipments of small-diameter graphite electrodes use for manufacturing.

Ameri-Source reportedly established a shell company in India to accept the imports of graphite rods from China for “jobwork,” and to re-export the materials to the U.S. to circumvent stateside customs regulations. The settlement resolves claims that Ameri-Source evaded anti-dumping duties on 15 shipments.

IP/PATENT AND 337 CASES

NEW 337 CASES

On January 21, 2016, Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC and International Refills Company Ltd. filed a new 337 patent case on Certain Diaper Disposal Systems and Components Thereof, Including Diaper Refill Cassettes against Munchkin, Inc., Van Nuys, CA; Munchkin Baby Canada Ltd., Canada; and Lianyungang Brilliant Daily Products Co. Ltd., in China.

On February 5, 2016, Simple Wishes, LLC filed a new section 337 on Pumping Bras against Tanzky, China; Baby Preg, China; Deal Perfect, China; and Buywish, China.

CRIMINAL PATENT CASES

On January 26, 2016, the US Justice Department announced that Chinese National Mo Hailong, Robert Mo, pled guilty to conspiring to steal trade secrets from Dupont, Pioneer and Monsanto. In a notice, Chinese National Pleads Guilty to Conspiring to Steal Trade Secrets _ OPA _, the Justice Department stated:

Specifically, Hailong admitted to participating in the theft of inbred – or parent – corn seeds from fields in the Southern District of Iowa for the purpose of transporting those seeds to China. The stolen inbred seeds constitute the valuable intellectual property of DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto.

During the conspiracy, Hailong was employed as director of international business of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Company, a Chinese conglomerate with a corn seed subsidiary company, Kings Nower Seed. Hailong is a Chinese national who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States pursuant to an H-1B visa.

Hailong is scheduled to be sentenced at a date to be determined later in Des Moines, Iowa. Conspiracy to steal trade secrets is a felony that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. As part of Hailong’s plea agreement, the government has agreed not to seek a prison sentence exceeding five years.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHINESE, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN COMPANIES

On January 13, 2016, in the attached complaint, SHENZHEN PATENT CASE, PS Products Inc and Bill Pennington filed a patent case against Global Sources, Ltd. and affiliated parties, and Jiangsu Rayi Security Products, Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Rose Industrial Co., Ltd.

On January 21, 2016, in the attached complaint, STAHLS PATENT CASEStahls’ Inc. filed a patent case against Vevor Corp., Shanghai Sishun Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd. and Saven Corp.

On January 25, 2016, in the attached complaint, UNICOLORS COPYRIGHT, Unicolors, Inc. filed a copyright infringement case against Jiangsu Global Development, Inc., T. Milano Ross Stores Inc., DD’s Discounts, Phool Fashion Ltd., the Vermont Country Store, Inc. and Trends Inc.

On January 26, 2016, in the attached complaint, BLUE RHINO PATENT CASE, Blue Rhino Global Sourcing filed a patent case against Guangdong Chant Group Co., Ltd.

On February 1, 2016, in the attached complaint, ZHEJIANG PATENT CASE, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed a patent case against Stason Industrial Corp., Stason Pharmaceuticals Inc., Zhejiang Jinhua Conba Bio-Pharm Co., Ltd., Tai Heng Industry Co., Ltd, and Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc.

On February 5, 2016, in the attached complaint, VACCUUM TRADE SECRET CASE, IMIG, Inc., Nationwide Sales and Services Inc, Gumwand Inc. and Perfect Products Services and Supply Inc. filed a trade secrets and unfair competition case against Omi Electric Appliance Company Co., Ltd., Beijing China Base Startrade Co., Ltd. and Xi Shihui, a Chinese citizen.

On February 10, 2016, in the attached complaint, HUAWEI PATENT CASE, Blue Spike LLC filed a patent case against Huawei Technologies.

PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES AND LACY ACT VIOLATIONS

THE RISE OF CHINESE PRODUCTS LIABILITY INSURANCE

While in China last month working on various cases, I learned that the People’s Insurance Company (“PICC”) is offering Chinese companies products liability insurance. Every US importer should demand that his Chinese supplier obtain product’s liability insurance.  Otherwise when something goes wrong, the US importer is on the hook for damages, not the Chinese company that created the problem.

PRODUCT LIABILITY COMPLAINTS

On January 26, 2016, in the attached complaint, CHINA FIREWORKS CASE, the Reynolds Family filed a products liability/wrongful death case on behalf of Russell Reynolds, who was killed when Chinese fireworks went off by mistake. The respondent companies are Pyro Shows of Texas, Inc., Pyro Shows, Inc., Czech International Trading, Jiangxi Lidu Fireworks Group Co., Ltd., Jiangxi Province Lidu Fireworks Corp., Ltd., Fireworks Corp., Ltd., Icon Pyrotechnic International Co., Ltd., Oriental Fireworks Co., Ltd. and Glorious Company.

On January 26, 2016, in the attached complaint, CHINA REFRIGERATOR, Allstate Insurance Company on behalf of Miguel Bejarno filed a products liability case against Electrolux Home Products Inc., Midea Group Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Refrigeration Co., Ltd. because a Chinese produced refrigerator blew up and burned down a house causing extensive damage.

LARGEST LACEY ACT FINE IN HISTORY AGAINST LUMBER LIQUIDATORS FOR CHINESE HARDWOOD IMPORTS

On February 1, 2016, the Justice Department in the attached statement, Lumber Liquidators Inc. Sentenced for Illegal Importation of Hardwood and Re, announced that Lumber Liquidators Inc. was sentenced for illegal Importation of hardwood from China and related environmental crimes and agreed to pay 13 million, one of the largest penalties ever issued under the Lacey Act. The announcement states:

Virginia-based hardwood flooring retailer Lumber Liquidators Inc. was sentenced today in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia, and will pay more than $13 million in criminal fines, community service and forfeited assets related to its illegal importation of hardwood flooring, much of which was manufactured in China from timber that had been illegally logged in far eastern Russia, in the habitat of the last remaining Siberian tigers and Amur leopards in the world . . . .

In total, the company will pay $13.15 million, including $7.8 million in criminal fines, $969,175 in criminal forfeiture and more than $1.23 million in community service payments. Lumber Liquidators has also agreed to a five-year term of organizational probation and mandatory implementation of a government-approved environmental compliance plan and independent audits. In addition, the company will pay more than $3.15 million in cash through a related civil forfeiture. The more than $13.15 million dollar penalty is the largest financial penalty for timber trafficking under the Lacey Act and one of the largest Lacey Act penalties ever.

Lumber Liquidators pleaded guilty and was charged in October 2015 in the Eastern District of Virginia with one felony count of importing goods through false statements and four misdemeanor violations of the Lacey Act, which makes it a crime to import timber that was taken in violation of the laws of a foreign country and to transport falsely-labeled timber across international borders into the United States. . . . This is the first felony conviction related to the import or use of illegal timber and the largest criminal fine ever under the Lacey Act.

“The case against Lumber Liquidators shows the true cost of turning a blind eye to the environmental laws that protect endangered wildlife,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “This company left a trail of corrupt transactions and habitat destruction. Now they will pay a price for this callous and careless pursuit of profit.” . . .

“By knowingly and illegally sourcing timber from vulnerable forests in Asia and other parts of the world, Lumber Liquidators made American consumers unwittingly complicit in the ongoing destruction of some of the world’s last remaining intact forests,” said Director Dan Ashe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “Along with hastening the extinction of the highly endangered Siberian tiger and many other native species, illegal logging driven by the company’s greed threatens the many people who depend on sustainable use of these forests for food, clean water, shelter and legitimate jobs. These unprecedented sanctions show how seriously we take illegal trade, and I am grateful to the Service special agents and wildlife inspectors, Homeland Security agents, and Justice Department attorneys who halted Lumber Liquidators’ criminal acts and held the company accountable under the law.”

According to a joint statement of facts filed with the court, from 2010 to 2013, Lumber Liquidators repeatedly failed to follow its own internal procedures and failed to take action on self-identified “red flags.” Those red flags included imports from high risk countries, imports of high risk species, imports from suppliers who were unable to provide documentation of legal harvest and imports from suppliers who provided false information about their products. Despite internal warnings of risk and noncompliance, very little changed at Lumber Liquidators.

ANTITRUST

There have been developments in the antitrust area.

CHINESE BAUXITE EXPORTERS WIN ANTITRUST CASE

On January 25, 2016, in the attached opinion in Resco Products, Inc. v. Bosai Minerals Group Co., Ltd. and CMP Tianjin Co., Ltd., BAUXITE OPINION, Chief District Judge Conti in the Western District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for the Chinese companies and dismissed the antitrust case. Resco brought the claim individually and as a class representative, against Bosai and CMP alleging a conspiracy in China to fix the price and limit the supply of refractory grade bauxite in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

The Court concluded that any price floor or quota was set by the Chinese government’s Ministry of Commerce, not by the individual Chinese Bauxite companies. In its discussion of the facts, the Court stated:

In his declaration for the China Chamber of Commerce for Metals and Chemicals (“CCCMC”), Liu Jian (“Jian”), a CCCMC employee since 1995 and deputy director of the Bidding Office since 2006, . . . explained that “[a]t Bauxite Branch meetings, Bidding Office staff asked the Bauxite Branch members for their opinions about specific proposed quota amounts, quota bidding minimum prices, and other matters relating to quota bidding.” . . . but the authority and power to adopt quotas, and to establish the quota amount, minimum bidding price, and other terms, was always with MOFCOM, not the members or the CCCMC. MOFCOM could, and often did, set the quotas and minimum bidding prices at levels different than those favored by members. . . .

The Judge went on to state:

Here, plaintiff’s § 1 claim is based on its assertion that “[d]efendants and their co-conspirators colluded to fix export prices and quotas for bauxite from 2003 to 2009. . . .

In a per se case, “‘the plaintiff need only prove that the defendants conspired among each other and that this conspiracy was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.’”  . . .

In a vacuum, proposals to set bauxite quotas at specified levels being voted on at Bauxite Branch meetings appear to indicate explicit member participation in a conspiracy to limit output. However, the Bauxite Branch’s demonstrated lack of authority with respect to quotas invalidates such a finding. Since at least 2001, MOFCOM has been “responsible for deciding and announcing the types and the total quota quantity of commodities subject to bidding,” not the CCCMC or its Branches. . . . The quota announced by the Bidding Committee during each of the years of the alleged conspiracy never corresponded to a resolution of the Bauxite Branch. At its 2004 through 2006 meetings, the Bauxite Branch failed to pass any resolution related to quota amount, yet the Bidding Committee, an instrumentality of MOFCOM, still announced quotas in each of those years. . . . Any conspiracy to establish a limit equal to or higher than that imposed by the government could have no effect.

Consistent with the undisputed Declaration of the CCCMC, Bauxite Branch member votes for proposals concerning the yearly bauxite quota amount can only be construed as opinions offered to MOFCOM. .   . . These opinions were not that limits should be placed on bauxite output. The implementation of quotas was mandated by the Chinese government, not agreed to by private entities. . . .

Bauxite Branch members were asked for their opinions pertaining to the bauxite quota during meetings, “but the authority and power to adopt quotas, and to establish the quota amount, minimum bidding price, and other terms, was always with MOFCOM.” . . .

As discussed previously, the evidence adduced with respect to the quotas cannot support a § 1 claim, because the Chinese government – and not defendants – set the quotas.

Resco has appealed the District’s Court’s determination to the Court of Appeals.

CHINESE COMPANIES SETTLE SOLYNDRA SOLAR CASE

On February 26, 2016, in the attached settlement agreement, SOLYNDRA SETTLEMENT, Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Ltd. agreed to settle for $7.5 million a US antitrust case alleging that Chinese companies conspired to set prices with the objective of destroying Solyndra.

Solyndra previously settled the litigation against two other Chinese companies, Trina Solar Ltd. and Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd, for a total of $51 million, with Trina Solar paying $45 million and Suntech paying $6 million.

CHINA ANTI-MONOPOLY CASES

On February 3, 2016, T&D sent us their attached January report on Chinese competition law, T&D Monthly Antitrust Report of January 2016.  The main contents of the January report are:

(1) NDRC: Guideline on Leniency Policies in Horizontal Monopoly Agreement Cases has Begun to Seek for Opinions; (2) SAIC Held a Forum to Seek for Opinions and Comments on the Guideline on Prohibiting the Behavior of Abusing Intellectual Property Rights to Restrict or Eliminate Competition (the Sixth Draft); (3) MOFCOM Year-End Review: Positively Promoting Anti-monopoly Enforcement and Protecting Fair Competition of the Market; (4) SAIC: Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement Treats All Market Players the Same, etc. . . .

On February 5, 2016, T&D sent us the latest attached draft of Guideline on Undertakings’ Commitments in Anti-Monopoly Cases on February 3rd, 2015, Guideline on Undertakings’ Commitments in Anti-Monopoly Cases-EN-T&D.

SECURITIES

US LISTED CHINESE COMPANIES MOVING BACK TO CHINA TO RAISE MONEY

On February 29, 2016, it was reported that many U.S.-listed Chinese companies are leaving the United States and moving back to China as the easing of Chinese securities regulations has renewed the possibility of finding stronger valuations domestically.

Although there has been market volatility in China, US too has had volatility. Apparently, there is a perception that a stronger valuation can be found in Chinese domestic stock markets, where investors have a stronger understanding of the companies and the role they play.  In November, the China Securities Regulatory Commission began greenlighting IPO-bound companies and promised to take measures to help reform the country’s system for initial public offerings.

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

In February Dorsey& Whitney LLP issued its January February 2016 Anti-Corruption Digest, TIANJIN INVESTMENT COMPANY. The Digest states with regards to China:

China

Wang Qishan, the Secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has given assurances that China’s anti-corruption efforts will continue in 2016. In a recent speech, Mr. Wang stressed that, “the strength of our anti-corruption efforts will not be lessened”.

This sentiment was echoed by the recent sentencing of two former officials:

According to state media, Li Dongsheng, China’s former deputy national police chief, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for corruption. Reports state that Mr. Li stood accused of taking bribes totally ¥22 million ($3.3 million/£2.3 million) and abusing his power. It is said that Mr. Li will not appeal the verdict.

A former top official in the city of Guangzhou has reportedly admitted to taking ¥111 million ($17 million/£11.5 million) in bribes between 2000 and 2014. Wan Qingliang’s alleged corruption is said to have included taking bribes of more than ¥50 million ($7.6 million/£5.2 million) from a company that he had helped to win a government development project.

In a written statement the Nanning Intermediate People’s Court said that Mr. Wan raised no objection to the charge of corruption and that he showed remorse during the trial. It is said that Mr. Wan told the court that, “I have hurt the Party, the people and my family and I hope that the court can give me another chance.”  

Recently, Dorsey& Whitney LLP issued its attached February 2016 Anti-Corruption Digest, Anti_Corruption_Digest_Feb2016. The Digest states with regards to China:

China

China’s army has not been immune from President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption drive and has seen a number of its officers investigated, including two former vice chairmen of the Central Military Commission.

To continue this drive, it has been reported that the military’s anti-corruption discipline inspection committee has established a hotline as a means for reports to be made regarding allegations of corruption in the People’s Liberation Army. It is said that the hotline will “fully utilize supervision by the masses” and complaints will be addressed in a “timely and earnest” fashion.

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS.

On March 8, 2016 Jacob Sheiner filed the attached class action securities complaint, TIANJIN INVESTMENT COMPANY, against a number of individuals and also Tianjin Tianhai Investment Co., Ltd. as well as GCL Acquisition, Inc.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade policy, trade adjustment assistance, customs, 337, IP/patent, products liability, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US China Trade War — Stock Market Crash, Presidential Trade Politics, Trade Policy, Customs, Antitrust and Securities

New York City Skyline East River Chrysler Building NightTRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR AUGUST 28, 2015

 

Dear Friends,

The Chinese stock market crash and world- wide effect on stock markets around the World has created a crisis with day to day developments.  The World Stock market crash stated on August 24, 2015 and went through to August 27th and 28th, when World markets recovered. This blog post follows the day to day developments during this period.

The July and early August stock market crash in China was followed by a slight devaluation of the Chinese yuan, which, in turn, created panic as many investors feared that a substantial slow-down in the Chinese market would affect economies world-wide. That in turn triggered more falls in the Chinese stock market and subsequent crashes in stock markets around the World.

The real issue now is what is the real state of the Chinese economy and how that will affect Chinese and US companies in the future.

The parallel story was the US Presidential Primary in which the main contenders as a result of the crash pounded free trade and China in particular provoking a question will the real loser in the 2016 US election be free trade? Although many US politicians may be happy that China is falling economically, the direct impact on the US stock market and other stock markets around the World indicates how the World economy is very interconnected. The more the US pounds China, the more it hurts itself.

As predicted, the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) did not conclude at the Hawaii meeting, but it continues forward. In addition, the EXIM bank has problems and there have been slight technical changes to the US antidumping and countervailing law, which were passed in the African Growth and Opportunity Act.  In addition to the China and World Stock Market Crash and Trade Policy, this blog post will cover Trade, Customs, 337, including the Suprema case, IP/patent, antitrust and securities.

I will also be in Hong Kong, Shanghai and Beijing, China from September 7 to 26, first in Hong Kong from Sept 7 to 12, Shanghai 12 to 18th and Beijing from 18th to the 26th. If anyone would like to talk to me about developments in trade and customs law, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

CHINA STOCK MARKET CRASH

CHINA STOCK MARKET CRASH—STAGE 2 WORLD MARKETS CRASH

After my last post at the end of July on the Chinese stock market crash, on August 24, 2015, despite assurances from Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew, https://grabien.com/story.php?id=32165&from=allstories, that the fall in the Chinese stock market would not affect world markets, there was a sharp fall in stock exchanges around the World as China’s stock exchange started the day off by falling another 8.5% to put the Chinese exchanges in negative territory for 2015.

On August 24th, the New York Post yelled out, “Wall Street Really Freaked Out This Morning” and went on to state:

An enormous shudder swept through Wall Street on Monday as the Dow Jones industrial average cratered more than 1,000 points, or about 6.2 percent, in early trading — before leveling off at a decline of about 450 points, or 2.7 percent, as fears of a global economic slowdown once again spooked US investors.

The plunge was a wake-up call to Main Street and Wall Street alike. . . .

The huge Dow sell-off follows an 8.5 percent decline in Asia markets. In Europe, markets were down as much a 6 percent. . . . The global market sell-off began earlier this month when China — the world’s No. 2 economy behind the US — devalued its currency twice in a bid to jumpstart its economy.

China’s GDP, which was in the mid- to upper-single digits, had slowed to the lower-single digits. “Nobody really knows for sure, from fundamental perspective, will we go into recession, will China go into recession,” Stovall said. . . .

In fact, at the end of trading on August 24th, Dow Jones lost 588 points, a drop of 3.58%. to close at 15,871.

On August 24th, the Wall Street Journal also reported:

U.S. stocks pared most of Monday’s steep losses after a rocky morning during which the Dow Jones Industrial Average briefly plummeted more than 1,000 points. . . .

The Dow industrials plunged as much as 1,089 points shortly after the open, marking the index’s largest one-day point decline ever on an intraday basis, amid a selloff that has hammered stock markets from Beijing to London to New York. . . .

Fears that China’s economy is slowing dramatically sparked the heavy selling in stocks around the globe in recent days. Beijing’s unexpected move to devalue its currency two weeks ago raised the alarm that the world’s second largest economy may be in worse shape than many had thought. Since then, weak economic data have fueled worries that a drop-off in Chinese growth could cause a global slowdown. . . .

The Wall Street Journal also stated in the August 24th edition:

Beijing’s struggles this summer have spooked many investors into viewing China as a threat to, rather than a rescuer of, global growth. During the financial crisis of 2008 and early 2009, China, with a colossal stimulus plan, acted as a shock absorber. Lately, It Is China that Is providing the shocks.

Over the past week, it has grown clear how dependent a growth-starved world is on China, which accounts for 15% of global output but has contributed up to half of global growth in recent years.

Given this dependency one reason markets have been so unnerved is that China’s economy remains something of a black box. For starters, analysts have long wondered about the accuracy of government economic statistics. And levers pulled by Chinese policy makers can be unconventional.

This is seen in Beijing’s desire to micromanage the yuan’s value, which undercuts its ability to pursue an independent monetary policy because of spillover effects on domestic liquidity.

On the same day, the Washington Post reported:

China’s ‘Black Monday’ spreads stock market fears worldwide….

Stock market jitters spread throughout Asia and the rest of the world, and Wall Street sustained a major plunge, after Chinese stocks recorded their biggest slump in eight years during what China’s state media dubbed “Black Monday.”

The collapse in Chinese stocks was fueled by mounting concerns about an economic slowdown here, but it has fed into a wider sell-off in emerging markets. . . ..

“A lot of questions are being asked by investors,” said Chris Weston, chief markets strategist at IG in Melbourne. “This is a confidence game, and when you don’t have confidence, you press the sell button.” . . ..

“Markets are panicking,” Takako Masai, head of research at Shinsei Bank in Tokyo, told the Reuters news agency. “Things are starting to look like the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s.

See also following article from Bloomberg on how the slide in the Chinese market has hit global markets– http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-21/these-charts-show-how-hard-china-has-hit-global-markets.

What are the lessons to be learned from the Chinese stock market drop? There are lessons for China and the United States.

The lesson for China is that accurate economic and corporate data, including economic data from village, city and Provincial governments and corporate earnings of listed companies, are incredibly important. Many countries and investors question the accuracy of the Chinese government economic statistics. In fact, one Chinese has told me that based on electricity consumption numbers, the real China growth number is 4%. Other commentators have argued that the real number is a negative number.

The problem is that the 7% economic growth number is not based on hard economic data because Chinese governments at the village, city and the provincial level play with their economic data to make themselves look good.

In addition, as stated in my last newsletter, there is no market regulator in China to protect the integrity of the Chinese stock market, as there is in the US, Europe, Hong Kong and other countries. The market regulators, such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), make sure that earnings and financial statements issued by listed companies, in fact, are accurate. There is no such assurance in the Chinese market.

Many experts in China have told me that I simply “do not understand the Chinese way.” If the “Chinese way” means having different sets of accounting books and providing different corporate data or economic data depending upon what the government authority wants, the problem with that Chinese way is that it deprives the Chinese government of accurate data it needs to manage its own economy. The Chinese way also encourages wild swings in the Chinese stock market as investors in China and abroad simply do not know what numbers are accurate.

The “Chinese way” of not having a governmental authority to ensure the accuracy of economic data from villages, cities and provinces and corporate data from listed companies has contributed to the sharp fall in the Chinese stock market and the loss of trillions of dollars. China is no longer a developing company. Economic decisions in China impact the rest of the World. Neither the World nor China can afford acting as if China is a developing country. As a modern advanced country, China needs to ensure the accuracy of its economic and corporate data.

For the United States, the lesson is that the World economy is very interrelated and interconnected, and what happens in China affects the US market. It is simply impossible for the US to cut or delink itself from China.

The US market cannot be isolated from China and the rest of the World. When one hits China and other foreign countries, as many politicians do, such as Donald Trump, that in turn can hurt the US. Ira Stoll who writes for the NY Sun blames the US market crash in part on Donald Trump http://www.nysun.com/national/the-trump-recession-markets-start-to-react-to/89263/. See also New York Sun Editorial on Donald Trump at http://www.nysun.com/editorials/an-economic-imbecile/89259/.

Trump reacted by stating that he was not to blame for just pointing out the problems and that the US should delink from China. See http://video.foxnews.com/v/4441195997001/trump-talks-stock-market-slide-biden-and-border-security/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips. So that means, as described below, that the US should stop shipping its $123 billion plus in exports to China because it should delink from China. Correct?

Sometimes when you jump up and down on China, you end up hurting the United States. Always blaming China for the US economic problems may feel good and be good election politics, but it is not good economic policy. When Hank Paulson was the Secretary of Treasury under President George W. Bush, he firmly believed that the economic relationship between the US and China was the most important economic relationship in the World. US politicians should understand this important point.

For Republicans, the inconvenient truth is that President Ronald Reagan was a free trader. As President Ronald Reagan stated on June 28, 1986 in a speech from his California ranch, Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.”

CHINA STOCK MARKET CRASH – STAGE 3 MOST WORLD MARKETS RECOVER BUT CHINESE STOCK MARKET CONTINUES TO FALL

On August 25, 2015, World markets, including the US, rebounded, but then fell again as the Chinese stock market continued a straight line fall. After surging through most of the trading day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 205 points, or 1.29% to drop to 15,666.

On August 26, 2015, Wall Street recovered as the Dow Jones average went up 620 points to 16,285, but the Shanghai stock market fell again by 1.37% as well as Hong Kong.

After the Chinese government cut its interest rate the fifth time in nine months, on August 25th stocks went up around the World, but then fell back. But in China it continued to be a straight line decline. Shares in Shanghai closed 7.6% lower as the index fell below 3000 for the first time since December, following the worst one-day loss in more than eight years on Monday. China’s stock plunge has wiped out more than $1 trillion in value from equities over the past four days.

The Chinese government apparently has stopped trying to stop the market plunge because it simply costs too much money. As mentioned in prior newsletters, stock market bubbles get so big that no government can control the situation. The Chinese government now appears powerless to prevent a further slide in the country’s stock market, as the country’s main share index plunged for a fourth straight day.

As Wei Wei, an analyst at Huaxi Securities in Shanghai:

“At the moment there’s panic in the market, because we have lots of retail investors. We’ve never experienced anything like this in China’s stock market, the speed of the decline and the scale of it.”

Global markets have lost trillions of dollars in market value over the last few weeks, erasing all gains for the entire year and creating fears of an ever deepening loss.

When the Chinese market first started its drop, authorities unleashed a series of measures to stop the slide, establishing a $400 billion fund to buy stocks, ordering state-owned companies to buy shares, banning large shareholders from selling and even launching criminal investigations into short sellers.

Aside from the central bank’s action, however, the Chinese government authorities appear to be largely standing aside this time, partly because they know they cannot stem a global slide in equity markets, and partly because government intervention to buy shares was simply becoming too expensive.

As Li Jiange, vice chairman of state-owned investment company Central Huijin, stated:

“The trade volume of the market can reach 2 trillion yuan ($300 billion) a day, which means if it collapsed no one could save it. The issues of the market should be handled by the market itself.”

As another Chinese analyst stated:

“The authorities stepped in and tried to save the stock market once. And you can see it is not working. The authorities might step in but probably not in as high profile a way as they did last time. It’s not helpful for them to interfere like that.”

On August 26, 2015, CAIXIN, a well-known newspaper/magazine in China, issued an editorial stating:

Counting the Cost of Gov’t Intervention in Stock Market

Regulators should take a long look at their recent behavior because the bourses’ future depends on government doing its job the right way

Two months into the government’s unprecedented efforts to save the stock market – which had its most turbulent week starting on August 18 since state-backed investors intervened to end volatility in early July – it is time we consider what comes next.

On August 14, the China Securities Regulatory Commission announced that the China Securities Finance Corp. (CSF), which has played a central role in the government’s campaign to bail out the market, sold an unspecified amount of stocks it recently bought to Central Huijin Investment Ltd.

It would be wishful thinking to believe that this means the CSF has more money to continue buying stocks. Rather, the deal marked an end to operations that have plowed nearly 2 trillion yuan into the A share market since it took a nosedive in mid-June.

The sheer volume of the capital involved and the consequences that may follow over a long period demand that we seriously reflect on what was done and what should have been learned.

The money the CSF used to buy the shares primarily came from commercial banks. It will need to repay those loans quickly with the funds it received from Central Huijin, which raised the funds it needed for its purchase by issuing bonds. Costs aside, Central Huijin’s mandate is to hold stakes in financial institutions on behalf of the state. Supporting the stock market is not its job.

When announcing the share transfer, the securities regulator also said “the stock market goes up and down according to its own laws and the government will not intervene under normal circumstances.” Perhaps this statement is intended to signal that the government’s intervention has concluded.

The announcement also said that the CSF “will continue to play a stabilizing role in many ways should the market experience severe and abnormal fluctuations and possibly trigger systemic risk.” The emphasis here should fall on how the government defines “abnormal fluctuations” and “systemic risk.” Ambiguity on these two important questions will have grave consequences.

It is still too early for a thorough review of the costs and benefits of the government’s involvement in the stock market, but some judgments can be made. To start, the regulator should not have tried to get the stock index to go up. Also, the CSF seemed to have picked stocks randomly, pouring capital into valuable and worthless companies indiscriminately. Critics have questioned the wisdom of these actions, and some voiced concerns about insider trading.

Many other issues remain to be resolved. The first is defining the role of the CSF. The institution has become a de facto stock market stabilization fund in that it snaps up shares few others want, and the government has said this will remain its mission for years. Critics say the very existence of the fund distorts the market, not to mention that trillions of yuan are at stake. Deciding what the CSF can do with the money – now that its main job has changed – should be done according to the law. . . .

Also at risk is the sense of rationality that the government has tried for years to instill in stock investors.

Ever since the CSF stepped into the market, speculators have started gambling again, to the detriment of the market. The message some investors took away from the intervention is that the government will always ride to the rescue when the market collapses. The moral hazard this created backtracks on progress that has been made over many years on investor education. . . .

The capital market cannot grow in a healthy manner with the CSF playing the role of savior. It should end this role sooner rather than later. . . .

The regulator must learn the right lessons this time. Reflecting on what it did wrong would be a start. The future of the market depends upon it doing its job right.

For the full editorial, see http://english.caixin.com/2015-08-26/100843837.html.

Pointing to the factory and consumer price data, Mr. Yu Yongding, a prominent Chinese economist and a former adviser to the central bank, stated:

China’s economy will get worse before it gets better. Chinese companies are struggling with high debt loads and low prices. China has entered a stage of deflation.

Although the fundamentals are driving stock prices around the World, no one knows what the fundamentals are in China and that fuels the panic, when it comes to the Chinese stock market. As the Wall Street Journal reported on August 25th:

For All Its Heft, China’s Economy Is a Black Box

For sheer clout, China’s economy outweighs every country in the world save the U.S. But on transparency, it remains distinctly an emerging market, with murky politics, unreliable data and opaque decision making.

This veil dims the understanding of China’s economy and is an important reason its recent slowdown has produced so much turmoil.

Economists widely doubt that China grew at a robust 7% pace in the second quarter, as the country’s official statistics say. Citing other data, such as power generation and passenger travel, some think the rate might be as little as half that.

Similarly, when the People’s Bank of China devalued its currency two weeks ago, a step that sparked much of the recent market upheaval, officials couched the move as part of a long-term effort to align the yuan’s value more closely with market forces. Some outside analysts, noting that the PBOC isn’t independent, saw a more political motive: to boost exports and thus bolster the Communist Party’s credibility and hold on power. . . .

“With my G-7 and many G-20 counterparts there were frank, honest conversations, you were on the phone pretty frequently, often weekly,” recalls one former Treasury official who still deals extensively with China for the financial industry. “With China, you don’t know who to call. It’s hard to know where decision making occurs or who’s calling the shots.” . . . .

no major advanced country’s statistics are viewed as skeptically as China’s.

In 2007 Li Keqiang, now China’s premier, told the U.S. ambassador, according to a memo released by WikiLeaks, that GDP is “man-made” and therefore unreliable.

Mr. Li, who was then Communist Party chief of Liaoning province, said he looked at data on electricity, rail cargo and loans to get a better gauge on economic activity. Several analysts have since come up with indexes based on Mr. Li’s favorite stats.

In London, Capital Economics looks at freight activity, electricity, property development, passenger travel and sea shipments, and concludes China’s economy expanded much more slowly in the second quarter than China reported. Lombard Street Research, another London research outfit, uses another approach, including a different measure of inflation, and comes up with just a 3.7% growth rate.

Chinese statistics are “spookily stable from quarter to quarter,” says Capital Economics analyst Mark Williams. For instance, China’s unemployment rate registers 4.1% nearly every quarter. . . .

China’s leaders are heir to a tradition of secrecy. In 1971, when Mao Zedong’s anointed successor died, the public wasn’t told for nearly two months. In the current corruption crackdown, it can still be weeks or months after senior or retired leaders disappear before their detention is announced. . . .

Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, in the August 25th Washington Post stated that the real scary part of the stock market crash was the reaction of the US Presidential candidates:

The truly scary thing about Black Monday

The global sell-off of stocks yesterday was a little worrying. The reaction from some candidates for president was a lot worrying. . . .

China’s Black Monday reveals something useful: how potential U.S. presidents are reacting to the market sell-off. . . .

One Republican candidate, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, called on President Obama on Monday to cancel his plans to meet in Washington next month with President Xi Jinping of China on what will be his first state visit to the United States. Mr. Walker accused Beijing of a range of offenses that have harmed American interests, including manipulating its economy and currency, carrying out cyberattacks and persecuting Christians.

Wait. What?

Frankly, at this point both U.S. and Chinese officials wish China could actively manipulate their economy. What’s happening this month is evidence, in fact, that market forces can easily override Chinese government manipulation. To be sure, Walker lists legitimate beefs with the People’s Republic, but I’m pretty sure canceling the state visit would not help at all on any of them. . . .

In response to Trump’s argument that the United States should delink from “China, Mr. Drezner stated:

Oh, for the love of –. Look, I’ll keep this simple. If American voters really want any market volatility to metastasize into an actual Great Depression, then by all means break ties with China and Asia. But the only reason the 2008 financial crisis wasn’t worse was precisely because that didn’t happen. . . .

The same is true for Sanders, who also seized on the market moment in a tweet from the populist left: “For the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class have rigged the rules to redistribute wealth to the richest among us.”….

and it would be foolish for any of the establishment candidates to go down this rabbit hole.” Except that’s what Scott Walker did. Oh, and then there’s Chris Christie:

“. . .17:08:24 Lots and lots of money from the Chinese and remember that when the Chinese hold this much of our debt, if the Chinese get a cough, we get the flu and that’s what’s happening now right now in my opinion in our financial markets.”

Let’s be clear: China owning lots of U.S. government debt has exactly zero to do with what’s happening right now. If anything, the gyrating Chinese stock market and depreciating yuan, combined with general developing country malaise, will trigger a massive surge of interest in U.S. government debt. So Christie is simply wrong here.

The scariest thing about Black Monday wasn’t the stock market fluctuations. Those will hopefully be temporary enough in the United States. No, the scariest thing was how one day of financial volatility was enough to make four presidential candidates — Christie, Sanders, Trump, and Walker — say really stupid things about the Chinese economy and the Sino-American relationship.

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/25/the-truly-scary-thing-about-black-monday/?hpid=z3 for the full article.

From an international trade point of view, although China is important, the really scary part is not China, but the global drop in trade. On August 25, 2015 the Financial Times reported that “This year is worst for trade since crisis” of 2009

The volume of global trade fell 0.5 per cent in the three months to June compared to the first quarter . . . also revised down their result for the first quarter to a 1.5 per cent contraction, making the first half of 2015 the worst recorded since the 2009 collapse in global trade that followed the crisis.

“We have had a miserable first six months of 2015,” said Robert Koopman, chief economist of the World Trade Organization, which has forecast 3.3 per cent growth in the volume of global trade this year but is likely to revise down that estimate in the coming weeks.

Much of the slowdown in global trade this year has been due to a halting recovery in Europe as well as a slowing economy in China, Mr Koopman said.

In other words, instead of bashing China and trade in general, maybe the Presidential candidates should talk about boosting trade.

But one interesting point, on August 25, 2015, the New York Times had an article by Joe Nocera entitled The Man Who Got China Right. In the Article, Mr Nocera described Jim Chanos of Kynikos Associates, a $3 billion hedge fund that specializes in short-selling. Mr. Nocera goes on to state:

In the fall of 2009, Jim Chanos began to ask questions about the Chinese economy. What sparked his curiosity was the realization that commodity producers had been largely unaffected by the financial crisis; indeed, they had recorded big profits even as other sectors found themselves reeling in the aftermath of the crisis.

When he looked into why, he discovered that the critical factor was China’s voracious appetite for commodities: The Chinese, who had largely sidestepped the financial crisis themselves, were buying 40 percent of all copper exports; 50 percent of the available iron ore; and eye-popping quantities of just about everything else.

That insight soon led Chanos to make an audacious call: China was in the midst of an unsustainable credit bubble. . . .

Chanos and his crew at Kynikos don’t make big “macro” bets on economies; their style is more “micro”: looking at the fundamentals of individual companies or sectors. And so it was with China. “I’ll never forget the day in 2009 when my real estate guy was giving me a presentation and he said that China had 5.6 billion square meters of real estate under development, half residential and half commercial,”

Chanos told me the other day.

“I said, ‘You must mean 5.6 billion square feet.’ ”

The man replied that he hadn’t misspoken; it really was 5.6 billion square meters, which amounted to over 60 billion square feet.

For Chanos, that is when the light bulb went on. The fast-growing Chinese economy was being sustained not just by its export prowess, but by a property bubble propelled by mountains of debt, and encouraged by the government as part of an infrastructure spending strategy designed to keep the economy humming. (According to the McKinsey Global Institute, China’s debt load today is an unfathomable $28 trillion.)

Chanos soon went public with his thesis, giving interviews to CNBC and Charlie Rose, and making a speech at Oxford University. He told Rose that property speculation in China was rampant, and that because so much of the economy depended on construction — in most cases building properties that had no chance of generating enough income to pay down the debt — China was on “the treadmill to hell.”

He also pointed out that much of the construction was for high-end condos that cost over $100,000, yet the average Chinese household made less than $10,000 a year.

Can you guess how the financial establishment, convinced that the Chinese juggernaut was unstoppable, reacted to Chanos’s contrarian thesis? It scoffed. . . .

As it turns out, China’s economy began to slow right around the time Chanos first made his call. No matter: Most China experts remained bullish. Chanos, meanwhile, was shorting the stocks of a number of companies that depended on the Chinese market. . .

These days, with the markets in free-fall, it certainly looks like Chanos has been vindicated. . . . This loss of confidence in China and its leaders has spooked stock markets around the world.

The moral of today’s story is a simple one. Listen to the skeptics and the contrarians. You dismiss them at your peril.

For the full article, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/joe-nocera-the-man-who-got-china-right.html?emc=edit_th_20150825&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=19479910.

CHINA STOCK MARKET CRASH – STAGE 4—MARKETS RECOVER BUT CHINA IS NO LONGER A SURE BET

On August 27 and 28, 2015, World Markets recovered and the Chinese stock exchanges even went up on suspicion of Chinese government buying programs, but the new reality is that China is no longer a sure bet. The focus now is on the true state of China’s economy. As the New York Times stated on August 27th:

China Falters, and the Global Economy Is Forced to Adapt

With deepening economic fears about China, multinational corporations and countries are having to respond to a new reality as a once sure bet becomes uncertain.

China’s rapid growth over the last decade reshaped the world economy, creating a powerful driver of corporate strategies, financial markets and geopolitical decisions. China seemed to have a one-way trajectory, momentum that would provide a steady source of profit and capital.

But deepening economic fears about China, which culminated this week in a global market rout, are now forcing a broad rethinking of the conventional wisdom. Even as markets show signs of stabilizing, the resulting shock waves could be lasting, by exposing a new reality that China is no longer a sure bet.

Smartphone makers, automobile manufacturers and retailers wonder about the staying power of Chinese buyers, even if it is not shaking their bottom line at this point. General Motors and Ford factories have been shipping fewer cars to Chinese dealerships this summer. . . .

The trouble is, the true strength of the Chinese economy — and the policies the leadership will adopt to address any weaknesses — is becoming more difficult to discern.

China’s growth, which the government puts at 7 percent a year, is widely questioned. Large parts of the Chinese service sector, like restaurants and health care, continue to grow, supporting the broader economy. But the signs in industrial sectors, in which other countries and foreign companies have the greatest stake through trade, paint a bleaker picture. . . ..

For entire article, see http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/business/international/china-falters-and-the-global-economy-is-forced-to-adapt.html?emc=edit_th_20150827&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=19479910&_r=0.

 TRADE POLICY

WILL THE REAL LOSER IN THE 2016 US ELECTION BE FREE TRADE?

In my first July newsletter on Trade Policy, Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) and Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”), I asked whether the US Congress will follow the siren call of protectionism and take the US backwards or move forward with the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) to resume its free trade leadership? Truly a question.

As an observer of the Presidential primary right now, free trade and the trade agreements appear to be the latest punching bag, especially among the populist front runners, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Saunders. Using the euphemism of putting America first and protecting workers and US factories at all costs from import competition created by free trade agreements, many candidates apparently are simply engaged in protectionism.

Although the establishment Republicans, such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, have all indicated that they are for Free but “Fair” Trade, Donald Trump, the front runner, is a different story.

When asked how the United States could create new jobs in the first Republican debate, Donald Trump, who presently leads the Republican primary field, stated during the first Republican debate, “Well for starters I would negotiate better trade deals. The Chinese are killing us.”  Trump further stated:

“This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody,”

On August 24th, Trump warned that because of the Chinese stock market fall, China would bring the US down and the US should delink from China. See https://instagram.com/p/6xT08ZGhQc/

Trump has decreed that he will build a wall to stop illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico and the Mexican government will pay for it. Trump has stated that if the Mexican government does not pay for it, he will raise tariffs on Mexican products. But that would be a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”).

Trump has also threatened that if China takes actions, such as cyber-attacks, on the US, he will raise tariffs on Chinese products, but that would be a violation of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Agreement and the WTO Agreement between the US and China.

In other words, it sounds like Trump Administration would create a trade war or trade wars with a number of different countries.

Although Trump and Republican Senator Sessions of Alabama have argued that the US has a free trade agreement with China, it does not. All the US has with China is PNTR, which means permanent normal trade relations with China, just like the normal trade relations the United States has with Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Iran and many other countries.

Although Trump has been bashing China and trade in general, most people thought he could not be elected, but in mid-August, Bloomberg Politics Managing Editor Mark Halperin stated on MSNBC that Trump has “reached a turning point” at which “establishment candidates” think he can win Iowa and added that “most” believe he can win the nomination, and “a significant number think he could win the White House.” As Halpern further stated, “Trump may not end up as the nominee, but right now, he’s changed the race.” The latest Fox News poll shows that Trump is in first place with 25 percent support nationally, more than double the support for Ben Carson who is in second place with 12 percent. The findings mirror recent polls in Iowa.

An August 20, 2015, Rasmussen Report telephone Poll has 57% of Republican voters stating Trump is the likely to be the Republican Presidential Nominee. See http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_change.

On August 27, 2015, Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan and a committed Republican, in an article entitled “America Is So in Play” published in the Wall Street Journal stated that she was discovering a distinct change in the electorate towards Donald Trump and the Republican party because the Hispanics and  other lower income people that she knows are for Donald Trump:

Second, Mr. Trump’s support is not limited to Republicans, not by any means. . . .

Since Mr. Trump announced I’ve worked or traveled in, among other places, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey and New York’s Long Island. In all places I just talked to people. My biggest sense is that political professionals are going to have to rethink “the base,” reimagine it when they see it in their minds. . . .

Something is going on, some tectonic plates are moving in interesting ways. My friend Cesar works the deli counter at my neighborhood grocery store. He is Dominican, an immigrant, early 50s, and listens most mornings to a local Hispanic radio station, La Mega, on 97.9 FM. Their morning show is the popular “El Vacilón de la Mañana,” and after the first GOP debate, Cesar told me, they opened the lines to call-ins, asking listeners (mostly Puerto Rican, Dominican, Mexican) for their impressions. More than half called in to say they were for Mr. Trump. Their praise, Cesar told me a few weeks ago, dumbfounded the hosts. I later spoke to one of them, who identified himself as D.J. New Era. He backed Cesar’s story. “We were very surprised,” at the Trump support, he said. Why? “It’s a Latin-based market!”

“He’s the man,” Cesar said of Mr. Trump. This week I went by and Cesar told me that after Mr. Trump threw Univision’s well-known anchor and immigration activist, Jorge Ramos, out of an Iowa news conference on Tuesday evening, the “El Vacilón” hosts again threw open the phone lines the following morning and were again surprised that the majority of callers backed not Mr. Ramos but Mr. Trump. Cesar, who I should probably note sees me, I sense, as a very nice establishment person who needs to get with the new reality, was delighted.

I said: Cesar, you’re supposed to be offended by Trump, he said Mexico is sending over criminals, he has been unfriendly, you’re an immigrant. Cesar shook his head: No, you have it wrong.

Immigrants, he said, don’t like illegal immigration, and they’re with Mr. Trump on anchor babies. “They are coming in from other countries to give birth to take advantage of the system. We are saying that! When you come to this country, you pledge loyalty to the country that opened the doors to help you.”

He added, “We don’t bloc vote anymore.” The idea of a “Latin vote” is “disparate,” which he said generally translates as nonsense, but which he means as “bull—-.”

He finished, on the subject of Jorge Ramos: “The elite have different notions from the grass-roots working people.”

Old style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Hispanic America. New style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Jorge Ramos. . . .

I will throw in here that almost wherever I’ve been this summer, I kept meeting immigrants who are or have grown conservative—more men than women, but women too. America is so in play. . . .

Both sides, the elites and the non-elites, sense that things are stuck. The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new. Everything is stasis. Then Donald Trump comes, like a rock thrown through a showroom window, and the molecules start to move.

For the entire article, see http://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-so-in-play-1440715262.

In early August at a Bellevue, Washington Republican event, I heard Congressman Dave Reichert, a former Washington State policeman and sheriff, state that he believes the major issue in the next 2016 election will be “control versus chaos”. He argues that the average American voter is looking for someone who can control the situation in the United States as compared to the chaos we see in the US with illegal immigration, foreign policy and other domestic issues. That may be a reason for Trump’s appeal to the Republican voter.

But what about Democrats? Although Hilary Clinton may be in the lead, as many political experts know, she is wounded because of a number of issues, including e-mail problems she had while Secretary of State that have morphed into a potential FBI criminal investigation. See Reuters report at http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821. But Hilary has not come out in favor of the trade agreements. Why? The labor unions, which are a significant part of the Democratic base and very anti-trade.

The next candidate behind Hilary is Senator Bernie Sanders. Many Democrats are saying that Hilary is “feeling the Bern.” Sanders, however, is very close to the labor unions and, therefore, is vehemently against the Trade Agreements, China and Free Trade in general. See the June 23rd statement by Senator Bernie Sanders in which he denounced Trade Promotion Authority and the Trans Pacific Partnership on the floor of the US Senate at http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4541798/sen-bernie-sanders-tpa-disaster-america.

Bashing international trade and China in particular and blaming trade and China for all the ills in the US economy is common in US elections and may feel good. But reality soon intrudes. In 2014, total US exports, including manufactured products, agricultural products and services to other countries were $2.35 trillion, an increase over the last few years, with exports of US manufactured goods reaching $1.64 trillion. Under NAFTA in 2014 goods exported to Mexico were $240 billion and to China were $123 billion. US exports means US jobs. See https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html.

The reality is that the United States is exporting many products to Mexico and China, including manufactured goods, agricultural products and services. What this means is that the United States is vulnerable to retaliation if it takes trade actions against other countries. Retaliation that will shut down US exports and cost US jobs.

As described above, China right now is going through an economic slowdown. As the New York Times stated on August 18th:

When Prime Minister Li Keqiang convened the Chinese cabinet last month, the troubled economy was the main topic on the agenda. The stock market had stumbled after a yearlong boom. Money was flooding out of the country. Most ominously, China’s export machine had stalled, prompting labor strikes. . . . .

Manufacturing, the core engine of growth in the world’s second-largest economy, is just too critical. And the pressures have been mounting, with exports last month plunging 8 percent compared with 2014.

Across the country, millions of workers and thousands of companies are feeling the pain, as sales slip and incomes drop. . . .Millions of Chinese are looking for work.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/business/international/chinas-devaluation-of-its-currency-was-a-call-to-action.html?emc=edit_th_20150818&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=19479910&_r=0.

China’s slower economy will affect US companies and US jobs. Qualcomm, for example, is about to layoff thousands from its global workforce, many in San Diego, California. See http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/17/Qualcomm-broadcom-nokia-layoffs-foreign-workers/.

But as people who read this newsletter know, Qualcomm was fined almost $1 billion for violations of China’s Antimonopoly law. Qualcomm also makes more than $9 billion every year, but half of that income comes from China. As people also know from this newsletter, China is going through an economic slowdown so right now a weak China market can hurt US exports. In international trade, what goes around, comes around.

The problem with protectionism is that trade is not a one way street. As Senator Marco Rubio stated on August 10th at a Republican reception in Bellevue, Washington, US consumers represent only 5% of the World Economy. 95% of consumers are outside of the US so if a US company wants to increase sales and increase jobs, it has to export.  In an August 28, 2015 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “How My Presidency Would Deal With China”, Senator Rubio made one of the more thoughtful points on China, stating:

My second goal is protecting the U.S. economy. For years, China has subsidized exports, devalued its currency, restricted imports and stolen technology on a massive scale. As president, I would respond not through aggressive retaliation, which would hurt the U.S. as much as China, but by greater commitment and firmer insistence on free markets and free trade. This means immediately moving forward with the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements.

For the full opinion piece, see http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-my-presidency-would-deal-with-china-1440717685.

Republican and Democratic Senators, such as Orin Hatch, Marco Rubio and Ron Wyden, and Republican representatives, such as Paul Ryan, Dave Reichert and Pete Sessions, and free trade Democratic representatives, such as Ron Kind, Rick Larson, Derek Kilmer and Suzan DelBene, make the same argument and, therefore, understand the trade situation.

On August 19th, I met with the New Democratic Coalition of moderate Congressional Democrats, many from Washington State, who are pro-trade and pro-growth. 40% of the jobs in Washington State are tied to trade. See the Politico article, which describes the New Democrat Coalition in detail at  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/new-dems-plan-assertive-new-presence-in-house-121208.html. See also http://www.newdempac.com.

All the Democratic Representatives in the New Dem Coalition that I talked with were very concerned about the anti-trade rhetoric in the Presidential Primary, not only from Donald Trump but also Bernie Sanders. One Representative surprised me by talking well of Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who is pro free trade. The Democratic Representatives in the New Democratic Coalition understand how important international trade is to the economy, the companies and jobs in their states.

All of international trade is based on reciprocity. What the United States does to one country, that country can do back. If the US raises tariffs to keep imports out or puts in place trade restrictions, that country, in turn, can retaliate, raise tariffs and keep US exports out.

Several years ago, the United States determined to stop Mexican trucks from carrying freight into the United States. In return, Mexico stopped all imports of potatoes from Washington and other US states.

Just like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and other present day politicians, in the 1930s, as a candidate for President, Herbert Hoover promised to help the United States dig out of the recession by raising tariff walls against imports, and Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Countries around the World retaliated by raising barriers to US exports. Exports, imports and trade stopped and the World was plunged into the Great Depression.

As indicated below, the World economy is at a tipping point and starting a trade war with the rest of the World could hurt the United States and its economy big time. As the recent drop in the US stock market because of the China slow down indicates, the United States is no longer the big kid on the block, the only and biggest market in the World. The US, therefore, can be a target of trade actions, which will hurt US companies, US jobs and the US economy as a whole.

TPP NEGOTIATING ROUND ENDS IN HAWAII WITH NO FINAL AGREEMENT—CANADA AND JAPAN CONTINUE TO BE STICKING POINTS

In late July, after a week of negotiations in Hawaii to close the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), negotiators were not able to close the gaps on the TPP’s most controversial provisions, including pharmaceutical patents and rules governing dairy trade. USTR Michael Froman stated that although the negotiations had resulted in “substantial progress in certain areas, final agreement remains out of reach”.

At the conclusion, trade ministers spoke optimistically:

“In this last stage of negotiations, we are more confident than ever that TPP is within reach and will support jobs and economic growth. The progress made this week reflects our longstanding commitment to deliver an ambitious, comprehensive and high-standard TPP agreement that will support jobs and economic growth across the Asia Pacific region.”

On July 9th in a Politico Morning Money speech, which can be found here http://www.c-span.org/video/?327014-1/politico-conversation-trade-representative-paul-ryan-rwi, Paul Ryan, House Ways and Means Chairman, stated that there could be a final TPP Agreement by late Fall.

Among the major obstacles are pharmaceuticals and in particular biologic drugs. The U.S. has long held that those high-value medicines, which are used to treat diseases like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis, should be given 12 years on the market before the entry of generic alternatives. But every other TPP partner has consistently pressed for a much shorter exclusivity window, with positions varying from eight years of exclusivity to no exclusivity period whatsoever.

A major problem is Canada’s barriers to agricultural goods, including its dairy and poultry market. New Zealand wants more access to the US market, but the US has stated that it will only open its market if Canada will open its market for more US dairy imports. With Parliamentary elections on October 16th, it is very difficult for Canada to give in now. Trade ministers vowed to keep working closely together to resolve their differences but did not give any details about the timing of the next official negotiating session.

By the way, which group in Canada opposes the giving in to dairy imports from the United States? The Teamsters labor union. Recently Teamsters Canada reiterated its opposition to any changes to Canada’s controversial supply management system for its dairy industry warning Canada’s political class over giving into the United States and other countries in the TPP talks.

In other words, the Teamsters and AFL-CIO in the United States oppose the TPP, but their brother union in Canada opposes lifting restrictions on dairy imports from the US. Apparently the Union’s position is let’s drive worldwide economics back decades and put all the protectionist walls back in place.

The TPP talks are at a delicate stage where much of the technical underbrush has been cleared, but parties are still faced with making calls on politically charged sectors of their economies that could make or break the deal. As Warren Maruyama, former USTR general counsel, stated:

“A lot of the issues that they had going into Maui still appear to be wide open. They are definitely in the endgame, and this is when all the hard issues have to get resolved, and I have yet to see a major trade negotiation that was resolved in one ministerial meeting.”

Another issue is the rules of origin for automobiles and auto parts, which were at the center of bilateral talks between the U.S. and Japan. Although the two countries appear to have forged a compromise on the regional content rule issue, Mexico has taken issue with that arrangement. In addition, rice is a big problem for Japan, and sugar is a big problem for the United States.

The passage of the Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) bill revealed a Congress still sharply divided on trade, a factor that Maruyama said USTR Froman will have to keep in mind as they bring the deal to completion. As Maruyama stated:

“USTR has to keep a close eye on the Congress. If it does something that costs votes or gets them seriously crosswise with the Republican House or Senate leadership, TPP is in big trouble. TPA is a good proxy for TPP, and it passed Congress by a very narrow margin and with mostly Republican votes.”

But any delay to TPP threatens to move such a vote deeper into the 2016 election season, where meaningful legislative action often reaches a standstill. In talking to pro-trade Democratic Representatives on August 19th in the New Dem Coalition, they are concerned that the TPP could become an election issue if the Agreement is not concluded soon. Pursuant to the TPA bill that was signed into law, once the final agreement is approved, President Obama must publish the Agreement for 60 days before he can sign it, and then the Congress must take at a minimum 30 days before they can ratify it. If the Agreement is concluded in late Fall or after October 16th, the Canadian election, for example, then that means President Obama could not sign the agreement until the end of December, and Congress would have to deal with the Agreement at the end of January, February 2016, just as the Presidential primaries are starting up in an election year.

If the TPP isn’t ratified by the end of this year, the chances of its being ratified before Obama leaves office will be slim. Congress is highly unlikely to pass a gigantic free trade agreement like the TPP during an election year. It would almost have to happen after the November Presidential election in a December lame-duck session.

Meanwhile, on August 14th, Senator Sherrod Brown, an outspoken critics on US trade policy, stated that he will block the nomination of Marisa Lago to serve as a deputy U.S. trade representative, citing the office’s failure to fully open Trans-Pacific Partnership text for viewing by congressional staff. When USTR rejected Senator Brown’s request, he stated:

“The administration would rather sacrifice a nominee for a key post than improve transparency of the largest trade agreement ever negotiated. This deal could affect more the 40 percent of our global economy, but even seasoned policy advisers with the requisite security clearance can’t review text without being accompanied by a member of Congress.”

EXIM BANK PROBLEMS

There is a major battle in the US Congress now on the Ex-Im Bank. In a victory for free market ideology over pragmatism and simple common sense, conservative members of Congress have let the charter of the EX-IM Bank expire hurting many US companies.

More specifically, Congress let federal authorization for the Ex-Im Bank expire July 1, to the cheers of conservative lawmakers who view it as a tool for crony capitalism.   As a result, credit insurance policies are starting to run out for 3,000 small businesses that rely on them to be able to export along with a number of large companies, such as Boeing. According to National Association of Manufacturers Vice President Linda Dempsey, some U.S. companies continue to compete for overseas bids that will ultimately require Ex-Im backing, in the hopes that the agency will be renewed before the deals fall through.

What is the Ex-Im Bank? According to the Export-Import Bank itself, the EXIM Bank:

is an independent, self-sustaining agency with an 80-year record of supporting U.S. jobs by financing the export of American goods and services. . . .

By financing the export of American goods and services, EXIM Bank has supported 1.3 million private-sector, American jobs since 2009, supporting 164,000 jobs in FY 2014 alone. . . .

Small business exporters need certainty and protection to tackle new markets, expand and create jobs. In FY 2014, nearly 90 percent of EXIM Bank’s transactions—more than 3,340—directly supported American small businesses. . . .

Over the past two decades, the Bank has generated nearly $7 billion more than the cost of its operations. That’s money EXIM Bank generates for the American taxpayer, to help reduce the federal deficit.

EXIM Bank argues that it:

“is vital to countering aggressive foreign competition. With nearly 60 other export credit agencies around the world trying to win jobs for their own countries, EXIM Bank helps level the playing field for American businesses. “Made in America” is still the best brand in the world, and EXIM Bank ensures that U.S. companies never lose out on a sale because of attractive financing from foreign governments.

EXIM Bank further states:

In FY 2014, Export-Import Bank financing supported $27.5 billion worth of U.S. exports. $10.7 billion of that total represents exports from U.S. small businesses, making small business exports the top category for EXIM Bank supported exports last year.

Finally, the EXIM Bank argues that it has a long history of bipartisan support:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, February 12, 1959: “[EXIM Bank’s] record of repaid loans and repayable loans, your infinitesimal portion of written-off loans is one that I can do nothing except to say congratulations to your Directors, the President, and to all of you.”

President John F. Kennedy, July 18, 1963: “…the Export-Import Bank has created a wholly new program of export financing which now provides U.S. business with credit facilities equal to any in the world.”

President Gerald Ford, November 18, 1974: “In order for the United States to maintain its strong position in foreign markets, it is important that the Congress pass the Export-Import Bank bill and avoid attaching unnecessary encumbrances.”

President Ronald Reagan, January 30, 1984: “Exports create and sustain jobs for millions of American workers and contribute to the growth and strength of the United States economy. The Export-Import Bank contributes in a significant way to our nation’s export sales.”

President William J. Clinton, May 6, 1993: “Export expansion obviously encourages our most advanced industries. I am committed to promoting these exports, and what’s where the EXIM Bank plays an important role.”

President George W. Bush, June 14, 2002: “I have today signed into law S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002. This legislation will ensure the continued effective operation of the Export-Import Bank, which helps advance U.S. trade policy, facilitate the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad, and create jobs here at home.”

See http://www.exim.gov/about/facts-about-ex-im-bank

The decision to let the EXIM Bank expire on July 1st forces many large and small companies to make drastic changes. Despite the rhetoric of pure free market ideology, the reality is that the real winner of this decision is China, Europe and other countries. Gary Mendell, president of trade financier Meridian Finance Group, said export credit agencies in other countries are already taking advantage of EXIM’s expiration to lure away business from U.S. companies. Mendell stated:

“They’re gleeful about it, and I don’t blame them. Those foreign competitors are going to customers in other countries and saying, ‘Hey, you don’t know if your U.S. supplier is even going to be able to ship to you and give you the payment terms they’re promising in their quote, because look what’s happening with Ex-Im Bank.’”

Some companies are not going to wait for Congress. Boeing Chairman Jim McNerney has stated that the giant plane manufacturer and defense contractor is considering moving parts of its operations to other countries, where they could take advantage of those nations’ equivalents to Ex-Im to continue selling products overseas:

“We’re actively considering now moving key pieces of our company to other countries, and we would’ve never considered that before this craziness on Ex-Im.

McNerney further stated that he might have “made the wrong decision” years ago in trying to keep production in the U.S., given the newly uncertain politics surrounding export financing in Washington. “People just playing politics — they’re not connected to the real world anymore,”

But Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a leading conservative critic of the bank, sees even a prolonged expiration for the bank as a victory, stating:

“This is great news for families and taxpayers. Every day that goes by without the Ex-Im Bank being resurrected means it is more likely that it permanently ends. … This is the kind of example of good governance that I am excited to tell my constituents about during the August recess.”

But in Ohio, a state where manufacturing is the key economic issue, the failure to keep the EXIM bank open means a loss of companies and a loss of jobs. Although politicians love to blame China, the real problem is the United States, and politicians should look at themselves in the mirror. The failure of the United States to be competitive with other countries, including China, is not China’s fault.

AGOA PASSES WITH TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW

On June 25, 2015 the African Growth and Opportunity Act (“AGOA”) with Trade Adjustment Assistance (“TAA”) passed the House by a 286 to 138 vote and went to President Obama for signature.   The AGOA includes the attached technical changes to the US Antidumping and Countervailing duty law, BILL CHANGED LAW.  See also attached explanation of the changes to the law, trade_bills_fact_sheet.

Although most of the proposed changes to the Customs and Trade law are still at Conference Committee, Congress put certain attached technical changes to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty law, including changes to the All Facts Available and the ITC injury standard, into AGOA, which passed both Senate and the House and has been signed into law by President Obama.

With regards to the ITC, a provision was added to clarify that even though an industry is profitable, it can still be materially injured. The ITC, however, has always been able to find an industry to be injured if profits were declining.

At Commerce, the new change waters down the requirement that Commerce corroborate the rate it uses as an All Facts Available (“AFA”) rate and the requirement that Commerce show that the AFA rate represents commercial reality when determining antidumping rates for foreign companies that do not cooperate in the antidumping or countervailing duty investigation.

Commerce has issued the attached Federal Register notice, DOC FED REG EFFECTIVE DATE TRADE LAW stating that the change in law applies to determinations after the effective date of the law, August 6, 2015, as published in the Commerce notice.  But in a remand determination, which came out recently in the Aluminum Extrusions case, Commerce indicated that it could apply the new law change to remand determinations made on or after August 6, 2015.

But to further complicate the issue today, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued the attached order on August 11th in the Ad Hoc Shrimp case, CAFC SHRIMP TRADE BILL APPLICATION, asking for further argument on whether the new law applies to future Commerce determinations or retroactively back to entries that were made prior to August 6th.  The CAFC appears to be stating that the new law does not apply to old entries, in effect, that are on appeal to the Courts because the actual determinations on appeal were made prior to August 6th

CUSTOMS AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT BILL

All the Senators emphasized during the final Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) debate the importance of the Customs and Trade Enforcement bill formerly The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (“TFTEA”), which passed the Senate on May 11, 2015 and the House. This bill will crack down on US importers that attempt to evade antidumping and countervailing duty laws by importing transshipped merchandise. This Customs and Trade Enforcement Bill is directed straight at the problem of transshipment by certain Chinese companies around US antidumping and countervailing duty orders.

Because of the differences in the Senate and House Bills, the bills have gone to Conference Committee to reconcile the differences.  But since some of the most pressing provisions went through Congress attached to AGOA, there is not the same pressure on Congress to work through the differences in the two bills.

TRADE

CHINA’S WTO CASE AGAINST US COUNTERVAILING DUTY DECISIONS RESULTS IN LOWER DUTIES IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ANTIDUMPING CASES FOR CHINESE EXPORTERS

On July 22, 2015, Commerce issued the attached Federal Register notice,   ,as a result of China’s victory in the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) case against Commerce Department’s antidumping duty determinations, which did not adequately reduce antidumping rates to account for export subsidies found in the companion Countervailing duty case. This WTO case and Commerce Department notice have had the effect of reducing slightly cash deposits and assessment rates in the following antidumping cases against China: Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China; Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China; Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People’s Republic of China; Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People’s Republic of China; Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People’s Republic of China; Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China; Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China; Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China; Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China; Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China; Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People’s Republic of China; Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China; Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from the People’s Republic of China; Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the People’s Republic of China; Raw Flexible Magnets from the People’s Republic of China; and Sodium Nitrite from the People’s Republic of China.

TIRES AD AND CVD ORDERS

On August 10, 2015, in the attached notice, TIRES AD CVD ORDER, the Commerce Department issued antidumping and countervailing duty orders against Passenger Tires from China. The Antidumping Rates range from 14.35 to 30.74% with the Chinese separate rate companies receiving 25.84%. The PRC wide rate is 87.99%. The Countervailing duty rates range from 20 to 116% with the average rate for all other Chinese companies being 30.61%.

BOLTLESS STEEL SHELVES

On August 17, 2015, in the attached decision,factsheet-prc-boltless-steel-shelving-ad-cvd-final-081715, the Commerce Department announced its affirmative final determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from China. The antidumping rates range from 17.55% to 112.68%, but the cash deposits in the AD case are only 1.49 to 96.62% because of the countervailing duty rates ranging from 12.40 to 80.45%, which are set off in part against the antidumping rates.

UNCOATED PAPER

On August 20, 2015, in the attached decision, factsheet-multiple-uncoated-paper-ad-prelim-082015, the Commerce Department announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) investigations of imports of certain uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal. For China, the antidumping rates are very high from 97.48% to 193.30% with all Chinese companies but one getting the 193% rate.

MORE STEEL CASES AND STAINLESS STEEL CASES COMING

After the July 28, 2015 steel case that was filed against Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from China, Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Russia, and the United Kingdom, on August 11, 2015, a new antidumping and countervailing duty case was filed against Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

In briefs to the ITC, the domestic steel industry in the Cold-Rolled Steel case argue that the Commission should apply the new injury provisions in the statute and find that the domestic industry is materially injured.

There are also rumors in the market that US antidumping and countervailing duty cases will be filed against stainless steel imports from a number of countries, including China. On August 26, 2015, in the attached decision, EU STAINLESS STEEL, the EC imposed antidumping on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan.

SOLAR CELLS

CIT AFFIRMS ITC

On August 7, 2015, in the attached Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. et al v. US International Trade Commission (“ITC”),CIT AFFIRMS ITC INJURY , the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed the ITC’s injury determination in the original Solar Cells antidumping case.

SOLAR CELLS—EUROPE

On August 14, 2015, Chinese exporters of specialized glass for solar panels were hit with stiffer antidumping duties by the European Union on Friday after regulators determined that a decrease in export prices had failed to protect their domestic industry. An eight-month European Commission investigation found that dipping export prices allowed Chinese solar glass producers to “absorb” the duties imposed on their products in 2009, which demands increased duties to stop the surge of cheap imports that continue to flow into the EU. The EC then stated:

“[T]he Commission concluded that the sampled exporting producers absorbed the anti-dumping duty in force. Hence, anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the [People’s Republic of China] should be amended.”

The antidumping duties in place since 2009 ranged from 0.4 percent to 36.1 percent. Under the new regulation, those numbers go up to range from 17.5 percent to 75.4 percent, with Xinyi PV Products Anhui Holdings Ltd. hit with the highest duties.

The product subject to investigation is solar glass consisting of tempered soda lime flat glass, with an iron content of less than 300 parts per million and a solar transmittance of more than 88 percent, among other technical characteristics.

COMMERCE REVOKES ANTIDUMPING ORDER ON WOVEN ELECTRIC BLANKETS FROM CHINA

On August 18, 2015, in the attached notice,BLANKETS REVOCATION AD ORDER, the Commerce Department revoked the antidumping order on Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People’s Republic of China because of lack of interest by the US industry.

AUGUST ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On August 3, 2015, Commerce published the attached Federal Register notice, AUGUST OPPTY REVIEWS, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of August. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Ironing Tables,     Laminated Woven Sacks, Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, Petroleum Wax Candles, Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, Sodium Nitrite, Steel Nails, Sulfanilic Acid, Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol, and Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof. The specific countervailing duty cases are: Laminated Woven Sacks,     Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, Sodium Nitrite.

For those US import companies that imported Ironing Tables, Laminated Woven Sacks, Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, Petroleum Wax Candles, Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, Sodium Nitrite, Steel Nails, Sulfanilic Acid, Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol, and Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof and the other products listed above from China during the antidumping period August 1, 2014-July 31, 2015 or during the countervailing duty review period of 2014 or if this is the First Review Investigation, for imports imported after the Commerce Department preliminary determinations in the initial investigation, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the antidumping and countervailing duty case is over because the initial investigation is over. Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability. In the recent Solar Cells 2012-2013 final review determination, for example, the following Chinese companies were determined to no longer be eligible for a separate antidumping rate and to have the PRC antidumping rate of 238.95%:

(1) Shanghai Suntech; (2) Wuxi Sunshine; (3) Changzhou NESL Solartech Co., Ltd.; (4) CSG PVTech Co., Ltd.; (5) Era Solar Co., Ltd.; (6) Innovosolar; (7) Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd.; (8) Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd.; (9) Jinko Solar Co., Ltd.; (10) LDK Solar Hi-tech (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; (11) Leye Photovoltaic Science Tech.; (12) Magi Solar Technology; (13) Ningbo ETDZ Holdings, Ltd.; (14) ReneSola; (15) Shanghai Machinery Complete Equipment (Group) Corp., Ltd.; (16) Shenglong PV-Tech; (17) Solarbest Energy-Tech (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; (18) Suzhou Shenglong PV–TECH Co., Ltd.; (19) Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd.; (20) Zhejiang Xinshun Guangfu Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; (21) Zhejiang ZG-Cells Co., Ltd.; (22) Zhiheng Solar Inc.; and (23) LDK Hi-Tech (Nanchang Co., Ltd.

IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA

This is also why the Import Alliance for America is so important for US importers, US end user companies and also Chinese companies. The real targets of antidumping and countervailing duty laws are not Chinese companies. The real targets are US companies, which import products into the United States from China.

As mentioned in prior newsletters, we are working with APCO, a well-known lobbying/government relations firm in Washington DC, on establishing a US importers/end users lobbying coalition to lobby against the expansion of US China Trade War and the antidumping and countervailing duty laws against China for the benefit of US companies.

On September 18, 2013, ten US Importers agreed to form the Import Alliance for America. The objective of the Coalition will be to educate the US Congress and Administration on the damaging effects of the US China trade war, especially US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, on US importers and US downstream industries.

See the Import Alliance website at http://www.importallianceforamerica.com.

We will be targeting two major issues—working for market economy treatment for China in 2016 as provided in the US China WTO Agreement for the benefit of importers and working against retroactive liability for US importers. The United States is the only country that has retroactive liability for its importers in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.

On November 18, 2015, importers in the Alliance will be meeting Congressmen and Congressional Trade Staff in Washington DC to discuss these issues. If you are interested in this effort, please contact the Import Alliance through its website or myself directly.

For your additional information, in the attached notice, 9-14 Kilmer Save-the-Date (3), pro-trade Democratic Congressman Derek Kilmer of Tacoma, Washington will be having a reception in Seattle, Washington on September 14, 2015. Congressmen Kilmer would be interested in talking to any importers that attend the reception.

RUSSIA—US SANCTIONS AS A RESULT OF UKRAINE CRISIS

On July 30, 2015, OFAC issued an Advisory, entitled “Obfuscation of Critical Information in Financial and Trade Transactions Involving the Crimea Region of Ukraine,” to call attention to practices that have been used to circumvent or evade the Crimean sanctions. While billed as an “Advisory,” the agency’s release stands as a warning to the financial services and international trade sectors of their obligation to implement adequate controls to guard against such evasive practices and ensure compliance with their obligations under the Crimean sanctions.

On May 21, 2015, the Commerce Department filed changes to the export rules to allow unlicensed delivery of Internet technology to Crimea region of Ukraine, saying the change will allow the Crimean people to reclaim the narrative of daily life from their Russian occupants. Under a final rule, which is attached to my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, individuals and companies may deliver source code and technology for “instant messaging, chat and email, social networking” and other programs to the region without first retaining a license from the federal government, according to Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

Commerce stated:

“Facilitating such Internet-based communication with the people located in the Crimea region of Ukraine is in the United States’ national security and foreign policy interests because it helps the people of the Crimea region of Ukraine communicate with the outside world.”

On September 3, 2014, I spoke in Vancouver Canada on the US Sanctions against Russia, which are substantial, at an event sponsored by Deloitte Tax Law and the Canadian, Eurasian and Russian Business Association (“CERBA”). Attached to my blog are copies of the PowerPoint or the speech and a description of our Russian/Ukrainian/Latvian Trade Practice for US importers and exporters. In addition, the blog describes the various sanctions in effect against Russia.

Pursuant to the OFAC regulations, U.S. persons are prohibited from conducting transactions, dealings, or business with Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDNs). The blocked persons list can be found at http://sdnsearch.ofac.treas.gov/. See also: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/programs/pages/ukraine.aspx . The list includes the Russian company, United Shipbuilding, and a number of Russian Banks, including Bank Rossiya, SMP Bank, Bank of Moscow, Gazprombank OAO, Russian Agricultural Bank, VEB, and VTB Bank. The “Sectoral Sanctions Identification List” (the “SSI List”) that identifies specific Russian persons and entities covered by these sectoral sanctions can be found at www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/pages/ssi_list.aspx.

The sanctions will eventually increase more with the Congressional passage of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which is attached to my blog, which President Obama signed into law on December 19, 2014. Although the law provides for additional sanctions if warranted, at the time of the signing, the White House stated:

“At this time, the Administration does not intend to impose sanctions under this law, but the Act gives the Administration additional authorities that could be utilized, if circumstances warranted.”

The law provides additional military and economic assistance to Ukraine. According to the White House, instead of pursuing further sanctions under the law, the administration plans to continue collaborating with its allies to respond to developments in Ukraine and adjust its sanctions based on Russia’s actions. Apparently the Administration wants its sanctions to parallel those of the EU. As President Obama stated:

“We again call on Russia to end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, cease support to separatists in eastern Ukraine, and implement the obligations it signed up to under the Minsk agreements.”

Russia, however responded in defiance with President Putin blasting the sanctions and a December 20th Russian ministry statement spoke of possible retaliation.

One day after signing this bill into law, the President issued an Executive Order “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine” (the “Crimea-related Executive Order”). President Obama described the new sanctions in a letter issued by the White House as blocking:

New investments by U.S. persons in the Crimea region of Ukraine

Importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States from the Crimea region of Ukraine

Exportation, re-exportation, sale, or supply of goods, services, or technology from the United States or by a U.S. person to the Crimea region of Ukraine

The facilitation of any such transactions.

The Crimea-related Executive Order also contains a complicated asset-blocking feature. Pursuant to this order, property and interests in property of any person may be blocked if determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, that the person is operating in Crimea or involved in other activity in Crimea.

The EU has also issued sanctions prohibiting imports of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, and providing financing or financial assistance, as well as insurance and reinsurance related to the import of such goods. In addition, the EU is blocking all foreign investment in Crimea or Sevastopol.

Thus any US, Canadian or EU party involved in commercial dealings with parties in Crimea or Sevastopol must undertake substantial due diligence to make sure that no regulations in the US or EU are being violated.

CUSTOMS

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT — IMPORTER EXECUTIVE SHOULD GO TO PRISON FOR EVADING US ANTIDUMPING LAWS

On August 21, 2015 the Justice Department requested prison time of four to five years for an executive for illegally importing magnesium from China that was later sold to the military knowing that the Chinese magnesium was covered by an antidumping order. As the US Attorney stated in its response to the Defendant’s sentencing request:

“Based on the defendant’s intentional undervaluing [of the magnesium] for his own profit, it is the position of the government that the defendant was not a minor participant in the offense.”

Prosecutors alleged that the Executive received the powder from a Chinese export dealer named Qian Chen after it was mixed with quarter-inch aluminum nuggets. Nehill then mislabeled the powder as magnesium reagent, or nonpure magnesium, which carried only a 5 percent duty, rather than the 100% plus in antidumping duties.

PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS IS HAMMERED BY PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROBLEM CAUSED BY CHINESE IMPORTS

On August 5, 2015, it was reported that Lumber Liquidators stock continued to fall by 14 percent, despite the fact that the stock was already down 72 percent this year. The fall in the stock price was caused by a surprise quarterly loss of $23 million. Numerous executives have left the company as it faces criminal and civil investigations by several regulators as a result of the charges, as well as consumer and shareholder class action suits.

Legal costs continue to smash the company as it has already spent $9.7 million to address legal problems associated with both consumer and shareholder lawsuits and ongoing probes by the Justice Department, SEC, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the California Air Resources Board.

PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHINESE PRODUCTS AND COMPANIES

On August 25, 2015, Juan Pruneda and Maria Ana Pruneda filed the attached products liability complaint, for a defective metal grate that led to the death of Matias Uriel Pruneda against Honghua International Co. Ltd., Chuanyou Guanghan Honghua Co., Ltd., Sichuan Honghua Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd., Nabors Industries, Ltd., Nabors Drilling International Ltd., and Nabors Drilling International II Ltd.

IP/PATENT AND 337 CASES

SUPREMA—CAFC AFFIRMS ITC’S AUTHORITY IN INDUCED INFRINGEMENT IN SECTION 337 CASES

On August 10, 2015 in the attached en banc decision in Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, SUPREMA CAFC, a majority of the judges in the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) by a 6-4 vote affirmed the ITC finding that the Commission has the authority to exclude the importation of materials that induce patent infringement even if the products are not infringing when they cross the border.

The Federal Circuit found that because Section 337 does not directly address the issue of whether the ITC can exclude articles that infringe only after importation, the ITC’s interpretation of the statute as giving it jurisdiction over such post-importation infringement should be given deference.

The case involved fingerprint scanners from Korea which at the time of importation into the United States did not infringe the patent, but when the fingerprint scanners after importation were combined with software in the United States, they did infringe the US patent.

In the original CAFC decision, the 3 judge panel held on a 2-1 basis that since the scanners did not infringe the patent at the time of importation into the United States, their importation was not a violation of section 337. The En Banc panel based on a 6-4 determination reversed the ruling of the initial 3 judge panel finding that since the statute itself does not answer the question of whether the ITC has jurisdiction over goods that infringe only after importation, deference should be given to the Commission’s reasonable interpretation of Section 337 as giving the Commission authority over goods that infringe.

As the CAFC majority stated:

We conclude that because Section 337 does not answer the question before us, the Commission’s interpretation of Section 337 is entitled to Chevron deference. We hold that the Commission’s interpretation is reasonable because it is consistent with Section 337 and Congress’ mandate to the Commission to safeguard United States commercial interests at the border. Accordingly, we return the case to the panel for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. . . .

Reading the statute unambiguously to require that infringement occur at the time of importation would have produced absurd results under the pre-1994 version of § 271(a). Such a reading would mean that Congress, when it enacted the language at issue in 1988, excluded even the ordinary case of direct infringement. . . .

For nearly 35 years, the Commission has embraced its Congressional grant as bestowing authority to investigate and take action under Section 337 based on induced infringement. At least as early as 1980, the Commission was making determinations that inducement to infringe a valid U.S. patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) constituted an unfair trade act under Section 337 that could be remedied by an exclusion order. . . . The Commission has persisted in its interpretation of Section 337 to the present day. . . .

The technical interpretation adopted by the panel weakens the Commission’s overall ability to prevent unfair trade acts involving infringement of a U.S. patent. The panel’s interpretation of Section 337 would eliminate relief for a distinct unfair trade act and induced infringement.

There is no basis for curtailing the Commission’s gap-filling authority in that way. Indeed, the practical consequence would be an open invitation to foreign entities (which might for various reasons not be subject to a district court injunction) to circumvent Section 337 by importing articles in a state requiring post-importation combination or modification before direct infringement could be shown.

The Commission reasonably determined that its interpretation would further the purpose of the statute. . . .

We note that our deference to the Commission’s statutory interpretation in this case is hardly momentous. The court has consistently deferred to the Commission, recognizing the Commission’s technical expertise in deciding issues arising under Section 337, a statute Congress has entrusted the agency to administer.

The Suprema case, however, is followed by Clear Correct v. ITC, which reached the CAFC after the ITC declared that the agency has the authority to stop the importation of digital files, not just physical goods. This case is presently on appeal at the CAFC, which has specifically asked the litigants to brief the issue of the impact of the Suprema decision on “the issues in this appeal.”

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHINESE, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN COMPANIES

On July 31, 2015, Kiss Nail Products, Inc. filed the attached patent complaint KISS TIANJIN PATENT CASE, against Tianjin Shuangrong Paper Products Co., Ltd. and Shuang Rong America LLC.

On August 4, 2015, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. Kg filed the attached patent complaint,  SMALL HEP PATENT CASE, against Chinese companies Hec Pharm Group, Hec Pharm Co., Ltd., Hec Pharm USA, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Accord Healthcare, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Aurobindo Pharma Usa, Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cadila Healthcare Ltd., MSN Laboratories Private Limited, MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc., Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC, Huahai US Inc., Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Invagen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Sun Pharma Global Fze, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

On August 10, 2015, Hitek Software LLC filed the attached copyright complaint FOXCONN COPYRIGHT CASEagainst Foxconn Corp., Foxconn Interconnect Technology (USA), Inc., Foxconn Electronics, Inc. and Foxconn EMS Inc.

On August 18, 2015, Foshan Naibo Electric Product Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, and Xpower Manufacture, Inc. filed the attached patent case CHINA COMPAY SUING CHINA COMPANY, against another Chinese company, Ningbo A-One Industrial Co., Ltd.

CHINA IP AND PATENT LAW

Recently, AFD China Intellectual Property Law office in China issued the attached Newsletter, News August 2015 fr AFD, about developments in Chinese patent law.

ANTITRUST

There have been major developments in the antitrust area.

VITAMIN C CASE—COLLECTIONS PROBLEMS

As the Vitamin C case is on appeal to the Second Circuit, the Plaintiffs in the case seek to vigorously enforce their $160 million judgment against Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. On August 14, 2015, the Federal judge stated that he was tempted to place the Chinese companies, judgment debtors, into receivership because they are in contempt in contrast to continuing to beat up the US Chinese bank branches so as to get the companies’ assets in China and elsewhere.

Plaintiffs argue that the two Chinese defendants have frustrated all collection efforts to date and added that banks have used sleights of hand and hidden behind a recently strengthened “separate entity rule” to stymie subpoenas. Plaintiffs’ attorney said that the money appears to sit inside of China and pressed for a receivership as a potential new avenue to press for collection:

A receivership is materially better than sending subpoenas out [to banks] and having these fights.

In response to the Chinese argument that the two Chinese companies would face prosecution in China if the complied, the Federal judge was not willing to consider the argument:

“It is more a question of what people want at any particular time in China” and stated that it appeared the companies and the Chinese government were working together with “a nod and a wink” to frustrate collection.

The judge further stated “It’s almost like instant nationalization of a company for the protection of the local economy.”

Attached is a full transcript of the hearing, 2ND CIRCUIT LETTER THREE, before the Federal Judge, which was filed with the Second Circuit.

CHINA ANTI-MONOPOLY CASES

T&D JANUARY REPORT

In August T&D also sent us their attached July report, T&D Monthly Antitrust Report of July 2015, on Chinese competition law.

SECURITIES

On August 17, 2015, a class action securities case was filed against Chinese Mobile Co, NQ Mobile, Inc., with allegations of mismanagement and investor fraud. The allegations are that the company has hid information from investors, diluted the stock through overvalued equity purchases and refused good faith offers to buy the business. The suit said, in particular, the company has taken to buying out small Chinese Internet firms for tens of millions of dollars in equity to expand the business and dilute shareholders without further offerings.

“This company has a few mobile applications available on iTunes with no ratings or reviews, and only 100 to 500 downloads on Google Play. No independent analysis of similar companies would value such an entity, with such a small number of product purchases, anywhere near $54 million.”

According to the complaint, NQ parted ways with its prior auditor, Price Water House Coopers China, over access to documents detailing those transactions.

“NQ Mobile has not explained why the acquisitions were made in the first place, and there is no evidence that the costs were justified and in the best interest of NQ Mobile and its shareholders.”

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Recently, Dorsey & Whitney LLP issued its attached August 2015 Anti-Corruption Digest, Anti-Corruption-Digest-Aug2015.

With regards to China, the August Digest states:

Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. Settles FCPA Charges with SEC

The Illinois-based maker of Enfamil and other infant formula products, Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., has settled civil charges of FCPA violations related to its China operations. Under the terms of the settlement with the SEC, which has been entered in an administrative order, Mead Johnson disgorged $7.77 million (£4.95 million) plus $1.26 million (£800,000) prejudgment interest, and paid a $3 million (£1.9 million) penalty. The company neither admitted nor denied the charges.

According to the SEC, Mead China, Mead Johnson’s Chinese subsidiary, paid $2 million (£1.3 million) in bribes to healthcare professionals employed by state-owned hospitals in exchange for the healthcare professionals’ recommendations of its products, and for contact information for new and expectant mothers. According to the administrative order, Mead Johnson violated the books and records provisions of the FCPA by inaccurately recording these bribes as “distributor allowances”. The SEC alleges that Mead China gave steep discounts to distributors and directed the distributors to pay the state employed health care professionals.

In its order, the SEC also alleges that Mead Johnson violated the internal controls provisions by failing to have an adequate internal accounting control system. The SEC did not allege that the U.S. parent or any U.S. person knew about or coordinated the bribes, and none of the conduct was alleged to have taken place in the U.S. This lack of U.S. nexus to the alleged violations may explain why the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has informed Mead Johnson that it has closed its parallel investigation into the bribery activity.

The SEC noted in its order that Mead Johnson had conducted but not reported an internal investigation into these allegations in 2011. When the SEC approached Mead Johnson in 2013 regarding these allegations, Mead Johnson initially failed to report its internal investigation, which had not confirmed the illegal payments.

Plaintiffs Request $62 million Avon Settlement

A group of investors have reportedly requested that a federal judge in New York approve a $62 million (£40 million) settlement in a lawsuit. The shareholders allege that Avon along with its former CEO, Andrea Jung, and former CFO, Charles Cramb, misled them about the company’s compliance with the FCPA in China.

The Chinese subsidiary in question allegedly made $8 million (£5 million) worth of payments in cash, gifts, travel, and entertainment to various Chinese officials, according to the DOJ. Avon needed the approval of the officials in order to undertake direct sales in China. The matter is ongoing.

China

It has been reported that, since President Xi Jinping initiated his anti-corruption campaign in 2012, Chinese authorities have returned Rmb38.7 billion ($6.2 billion/£4 billion) of funds involved in corruption matters to the state.

The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (the “CCDI”), China’s anti-corruption body, stated that the money had been returned to the state, without specifying which government entity received it. The sums recovered are said to include confiscated bribes in the form of cash, land, gifts and fines that have been levied.

According to Han Jinping, director-general of the CCDI’s case co-ordination department, “submitting illegally obtained money to the national coffers and recovering economic losses will help correct the economic incentives distorted through corruption”.

HIRING RELATIVES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BECOMES AN FCPA ISSUE

In an August issue on his securities blog, Tom Gorman, a partner in Dorsey’s Washington DC office and formerly with the SEC Enforcement division, states:

The SEC has been investigating sovereign wealth funds and issues relating to the hiring of friends and family of foreign officials for some time. Now it has filed a settled action centered on both of those issues which contains a cautionary note for those who have not updated their compliance procedures in view of these inquiries. . . .

The Commission acknowledged the cooperation of BNY Mellon and its remedial acts which, prior to the SEC’s investigation, included initiating reforms to its anticorruption policy to address the hiring of government officials’ relatives.

To resolve the case Respondent consented to the entry of a cease and desist order based on the Sections cited in the Order.

In addition, BNY Mellon agreed to pay disgorgement of $8.3 million, prejudgment interest and a civil money penalty of $5 million. BNY Mellon acknowledged that a penalty of over $5 million was not imposed based on its cooperation.

For the full article, see http://www.secactions.com/sec-bny-mellon-settle-fcpa-charges-tied-to-hiring-relatives-of-officials.

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS

On August 14, 2015, Daniel Finocchiaro filed the attached class action securities case, Complaint (7), against NQ Mobile, Inc., Henry Yu Lin, Omar Sharif Khan, Vincent Wenyong Shi, Xu Zhou, James Ding, Jun Zhang, Roland Wu, Chun Ding, William Tiewei Li, Xiuming Tao, Max Yao, Justin Chen, Ying Han, Zemin Xu, Matthew Mathison, and Bingshi Zhang.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade, trade adjustment assistance, customs, 337, patent, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

 

US CHINA TRADE WAR–DEFAULT DANGERS, TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP IN JEOPARDY, TRADE, CUSTOMS ANTITRUST AND SECURITIES

US Capital Pennsylvania Avenue After the Snow Washington DCTRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER

Dear Friends,

There have been some major developments in litigation, including dangers of default judgments, trade, Solar Cells, Chinese Antidumping, patents, US/Chinese antitrust, and securities areas.

January was a very important month for US Trade Policy because of the problems with the Trade Promotion Authority/Fast Track Trade Bill and the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) and Trans- Atlantic (“TA”) Trade Agreements in Congress.  Literally there have been day to day developments culminating with President Obama’s January 28th State of the Union address followed by the January 29th decision of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to oppose the Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) Bill and the TPP and TA Negotiations.

As described below, Senator Reid’s decision to not allow the TPA bill to be introduced in the Senate may be the day free trade died.  If Senator Reid’s decision becomes final, this will have a dramatic impact on all trade relations, including trade relations with China, as the United States becomes more and more protectionist.

US LITIGATION AGAINST CHINESE COMPANIES—DANGERS OF DEFAULT

Recently through a Chinese law firm a Chinese company approached us because they were facing a US trademark case brought by a competitor in the United States.  The company’s question, why respond?  We are a Chinese company and you cannot catch us and make us pay damages in the United States.

We pointed out that the trademark case in question is a tough case for the Plaintiffs to prove because the trademarks in question are not registered marks and are common law marks.  If the Chinese company fights the case, it would have a good chance of winning the case.  But if the Chinese company defaults, it loses the right to contest the merits of the case.

In antidumping and countervailing duty cases, Chinese companies with US import operations have also told us, “Don’t worry.  We will never pay antidumping and countervailing duties; they cannot catch us in China.”  The times, however, are changing.

In many US cases against Chinese companies in Federal District Court, Plaintiffs are asking for damages, an injunction and punitive damages.  If the Chinese company wants to sell its products in the United States again, it has to fight.  If it does not fight, when the Chinese company sells its products in the United States, those products, including all inventory and accounts receivable, can be attached to satisfy the judgment.

Moreover, when a default judgment is for money damages, the US company is seeking to collect actual damages, interest from the date of the judgment or before, statutory damages, possibly punitive damages and attorney’s fees, which eventually will total millions of dollars.  If the Chinese company has a strong legal argument against the US Plaintiff, when it defaults, the Chinese company loses the right to make those legal arguments.

Moreover, this is no longer the 1990s or even early 2,000s.  Over the last two decades, Chinese companies have grown up and have bank accounts and assets/money and subsidiaries all over the world.  But that means it is easier for US judgment holders to collect money on their default judgments against Chinese companies.

If the Chinese company continues to do business in the US in the face of a default judgment, Plaintiffs can attach the company’s assets.  U.S. Marshalls can show up at a U.S. trade show and take all the company’s trade show materials to satisfy the judgment.  US Marshalls can go to warehouses where the company stores its products and take them.  US plaintiffs can go after the Chinese company’s accounts receivable.  The US Plaintiffs and their US lawyers can attach or garnish the Chinese company’s bank accounts–in the U.S., Hong Kong, the EC, Taiwan and countries all over the World where US judgments are enforceable and also now in China itself.

If the Chinese company banks with a Chinese bank that has a branch in the U.S., such as New York, Plaintiffs will garnish that branch bank and go after the China company’s  assets/bank accounts located in any of the bank’s other branches, wherever located, including China.

In 2010 a US inventor sued Chinese tire companies in Shandong Province for patent infringement and unfair competition in a Federal District Court in Virginia.  The Chinese companies did not fight the case and the Federal District Court entered a default judgment for $26 million.

In September 2013, in the attached complaint TIRES COLLECTION CASE the US law firm and inventor sued the Chinese Industrial and Commercial Bank Branch in New York City, saying give the US Plaintiffs the records and assets of these companies in China to satisfy the US $26 million judgment.  If the Chinese bank branch refuses to pay, the Bank could face fines of $100,000 a day, as an example.

Under the Single Entity Doctrine, US Federal Courts have held that if the Court has jurisdiction over the Chinese bank branch, it has jurisdiction over the bank worldwide.  If a Chinese company has any bank accounts in Chinese banks, such as the Bank of China or the Industrial and Commerce Bank, those banks have branches in New York City and the Chinese company can be attacked through its bank.  We are presently representing a Chinese Bank in a similar case and have 30 lawyers working full time on the case in Guangzhou on discovery.

The point is that Chinese companies can run, but they cannot hide.  If a Chinese company defaults in US litigation, it can be attacked in the US, Hong Kong, Taiwan, EC, Canada and many other countries, and now China through Chinese bank branches in the US.  So when a Chinese company defaults in US litigation, it puts the entire company at risk.

On the other hand, if the Chinese company decides to fight the case and hire a US lawyer, it may be able to pay a small amount of money as compensation or simply change its product or trade dress slightly and settle the entire case.  In many cases, if the Chinese company fights, it may be able to win the entire case and in certain situations get money from the US company bringing the case.

Ignoring US litigation is like picking up the sesame and losing the watermelon.  If the Chinese company does business in the United States and intends to continue to do business in the United States, trying to avoid service or defaulting after service may materially damage its business.  It will certainly materially damage its ability to do business in the United States.  The costs of default may be significant and far greater than that which would be necessary to defend against the US lawsuit.

TRADE

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS—TPP AND BALI/DOHA ROUND

As mentioned in my past newsletter, in the trade world, the most important developments may be the WTO negotiations in Bali and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic (TA) negotiations with the EC.  Experts have estimated that TPP and TA Agreements could increase global business by several trillion dollars, if they can be concluded and implemented. These trade negotiations could have a major impact on China trade, as trade issues becomes a focal point in Congress and many Senators and Congressmen become more and more protectionist.

This is particularly a problem because the protectionism is coming from the Democratic side of the aisle.  Democratic Senators and Congressmen are supported by labor unions.  Although companies see the substantial increase in business from the TPP and TA Trade Agreements, unions only see a loss of US manufacturing jobs.  To date, President Obama cannot get one Democratic Congressman to support Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) in Congress.  Without bipartisan/Democratic support for these Trade Agreements, Republicans will not go out on a limb to support President Obama and risk being shot at by the Democrats during the mid-term elections as soft on trade.

This rising protectionism in Congress directly threatens the TPP and all future trade deals with China and many other countries.

TPP NEGOTIATIONS MAY END AS SENATOR MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID REFUSES TO LET THE TPA BILL GET TO THE SENATE FLOOR

As the Doha Round chances went up, the chance of TPP and TA Agreements fell down and may have fallen down completely.  As mentioned in my last post, USTR and US government officials were predicting that the TPP negotiations would conclude at the end of the year with an Agreement.  That is not going to happen.  The Congressional problems regarding the TPP have grown larger and larger and, in fact, may now be insurmountable.

Although the TPP does not include China, China is the elephant in the room and so its presence is very much in the mind of all the negotiators and the political powers in the United States.  The public reaction to TPP and the TPA, which is needed to conclude the TPP agreement, in part, is a reaction to trade with China and is a reflection of public and political attitudes in the United States to trade with China.

In January the TPP and Trans-Atlantic Agreements have created high drama on Capitol Hill as there have been literally day to day developments.

TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY (“TPA”)

On January 9, 2014, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican, of the Senate Finance Committee and Representative Dave Camp, Republican, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced the attached Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014. HOUSE FAST TRACK BILL The TPA bill gives the Administration, USTR and the President, Trade Promotion Authority or Fast Track Authority so that if and when USTR negotiates a trade deal in the TPP or the Trans-Atlantic negotiations, the Agreement will get an up or down vote in the US Congress with no amendments.

Under the US Constitution, Congress, not the President has the power to regulate trade with foreign countries.  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations”  Thus to negotiate a trade agreement, the Congress gives the Executive Branch, the Administration/The President and United States Trade Representative (“USTR”), the Power to negotiate trade deals.

Because trade deals are negotiated with the foreign countries, the only way to make the system work is that under the TPA law when the Trade Agreement is negotiated, the Congress will agree to have an up or down vote on the entire Agreement and no amendments to the Agreement that has already been negotiated will be allowed.

In introducing the new Trade Priorities Act, Senator Baucus stated that “This is our opportunity to tell the Administration – and our trading partners – what Congress’ negotiating priorities are.  TPA legislation is critical to a successful trade agenda. It is critical to boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs. And it’s critical to fueling America’s growing economy.”

According to Senator Hatch, “Every President since FDR has sought trade promotion authority from Congress because of the job-creating benefits of trade. Renewing TPA will help advance a robust trade agenda that will help American businesses, workers, farmers and ranchers by giving them greater access to overseas markets.”

The TPA Bill set out a clear directive on currency manipulation, provided greater transparency and gave Congress greater oversight of the Administration’s trade negotiations.

Both Senators Baucus and Hatch and Congressman Camp called TPA a “vital tool” as the U.S. continues TPP negotiations as well as free trade TA agreement talks with the European Union (EU).   The National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation quickly got behind the proposal and urged Congress to quickly pass it

As mentioned in past posts, however, the Administration considers the TPP negotiations to be secret and has not released any official negotiating texts.  Thus opposition is growing in Congress.  In November 2013, a group of over 170 lawmakers in the House sent letters to the President saying they opposed fast-track authority because modern trade agreements affect so many policies under Congress’ purview, and it should have much larger role in shaping the terms of the Agreements.

Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, stated that he was developing alternative legislation

On January 10th, it was reported that with opposition growing in Congress and the upcoming midterm elections, President Obama was going to have to mount a very serious lobbying effort to move the TPA legislation through Congress.  The proposed TPA legislation has drawn strong opposition from labor unions, including the AFL-CIO, which vowed to “actively work to block its passage,” and also environmental groups like the Sierra Club and consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen.  Many Congressmen and Senators, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, stated that moving the TPA bill through Congress would require a strong lobbying effort on the part of the Obama administration, possibly even including remarks about TPA in the 2014 State of the Union address.

Prospects for a fast-track bill moving forward in 2014 are further complicated by the Congressional elections in November.  The TPA Bill is a test of the administration’s influence and clout on Capitol Hill and right now the Administration’s clout on Capitol Hill is very weak.  The TPA fight is a fight over a number of different issues and the extent to which Congress can influence the negotiating process.

Typically multi-national corporations strongly back free-trade agreements. The Chamber of Commerce, which sometimes spends more than $100 million lobbying a year, and the Business Roundtable, were quick to put out statements supporting the legislation. Also weighing in was a coalition called Trade Benefits America, which includes companies ranging from General Electric Corp. to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

On January 15th it was reported that President Obama could not find one Democratic Congressman in the House of Representatives to co-sponsor the TPA bill. Meanwhile, the bill’s main Democratic backer in the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, is retiring from the Senate and on his way out to be Ambassador to China, and key senior Democratic Senators on the committee, including Senator Wyden, its incoming chairman, say they either don’t support the bill or want to change it.

Democratic Reps. George Miller of California, Louise Slaughter of New York and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said of the proposed TPA Bill: “Our constituents did not send us to Washington to ship their jobs overseas, and Congress will not be a rubber stamp for another flawed trade deal that will hang the middle class out to dry.”

The free-trade push joins a growing list of policies Obama has championed that are unpopular with Democrats.  Both Republican and Democratic Members complained that the Obama administration’s outreach on trade has been disorganized.

Another Democratic complaint is that the negotiations for both trade deals are confidential and too far along for Congress to play a meaningful role in their outcome. Five influential Senate Democrats told U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman that they won’t support the trade promotion authority bill without assurances that Congress can hold U.S. trade negotiators “more accountable” during the talks, rather than after a deal is finished and lawmakers can only cast up-or-down votes.

For Republicans, Democrats used pro-trade votes to blast GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and House Republicans in the Midwest states and elsewhere as supporters of outsourcing jobs.  According to one GOP leader in the House, given Obama’s political problems within his own party, House Republicans are insisting that Democrats deliver at least 50 votes in support of the bill, including at least one from the party’s leadership, before they’ll bring it to the floor.

On January 16, 2013, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the TPA Bill and the TPP and TA negotiations, but USTR refused to send a witness.  Many industry witnesses did appear, however.  See http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=bd99ab08-5056-a032-523f-27ddae65e3d0 for a video of the hearing.  The failure of USTR to show up at the hearing illustrated the difficulty ahead for the TPP.

At the hearing in the attached statement LARRY COHEN TESTIMONY TPP DIFFICULTY Labor Leader Larry Cohen, President of the Communications Workers of America, a union, spoke against the TPP, stating:

 

“Free trade agreements have been devastating for our balance of trade. In 1993, the year before the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), our trade deficit in goods was -$132 billion or -1.9 percent of our GDP. By 2012, our trade deficit ballooned to -$741 billion or -4.6 percent of our GDP. The growth of our trade deficit to such levels has been a strong drag on our economy and especially in terms of jobs and wages.

And specific trade deals have been most at fault for the increased trade deficit. Here are three examples. In 1993, the U.S. had a trade surplus in goods with Mexico of $1.66 billion. By 1995, just one year after NAFTA, this had changed to a $15.8 billion deficit and by 2012 the deficit with Mexico had increased even further to $62 billion.

Allowing China into the WTO also has been disastrous. The U.S. had a trade deficit in goods with China of $83 billion in 2001 when China was admitted to the WTO. This deficit has ballooned to $315 billion in 2012. And for a most recent example, in just one year after the U.S.-Korea trade agreement took effect, our trade deficit in goods with South Korea increased by $5.5 billion or 46%.

Last year, our federal budget deficit was more than $680 billion. But our trade deficit in goods for 2012 was $741 billion. While a lot of attention in Congress and in Washington, DC has focused on the federal deficit, little attention has been focused on our trade deficit and its negative impact on our economy, jobs and wages. If we had trade deals that actually led to balanced trade, our economy would generate more than 3 million more jobs. Unfortunately, our current model for free trade agreements increases our trade deficits and reduces our employment. . . .

In the economy as a whole, average real weekly take home pay for a U.S. worker today is $637 compared to where it was 40 years ago at $731 a week — $100 less.  . . .

Trade agreements have become the new tool in the arsenal for the unfettered corporate attack on collective bargaining rights. With trade agreements, threats to offshore work and actually offshoring the work in highly unionized industries has increased. The result — the share of the private sector workforce protected by a collective bargaining agreement has declined from a high of 35.7 percent to just 6.6 percent today. This is another direct link cited by most economists as a factor in the rising inequality in our country today.  . . .

In telecommunications, we have seen the virtual elimination of telecom manufacturing equipment in the US, the elimination of a U.S. national company, and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs in that supply chain.  . . .

Many groups representing U.S. consumers are especially concerned with how trade agreements can be used to degrade our food safety protections. Allowing for Fast Track consideration of TPP would further jeopardize the safety of the food consumed in the U.S. Seafood standards in particular could be challenged through the TPP. The FDA has detained hundreds of seafood exports from TPP countries because they were contaminated. For example in Fiscal Year 2012, the FDA detained 206 imported seafood products from Vietnam alone because of concerns including salmonella, e-coli, methyl mercury, filth and residues from drugs that are banned in the U.S.  Currently the FDA is only able to inspect between 1-2 percent of our food imports.  The TPP, by greatly expanding our food imports (especially seafood) would result in an even lower percentage of inspections.  . . . .

Trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs and quotas – they are about the food we eat, the air we breathe, the jobs we hold. Congress needs to have an enhanced and enforceable role in this new era when massive trade agreements can cover so many policy issues. We cannot abdicate the legislative and policy formation process to the USTR and non-elected representatives. Or, we would argue that trade policy should commence with the Congress adopting policy priorities and the countries with whom we will negotiate. It’s clear that this is not what has happened.  . . .

For example, we are concerned that Vietnam has been chosen as a trade partner. In Vietnam which has a population of 90 million people, the minimum wage is $0.28 per hour and the average wage is $0.75 an hour. There is no right to free association or expression. Our own Department of Labor has placed garments made in Vietnam on the federal “Do Not Procure” list for documented use of forced child labor in apparel production.  Vietnam’s extremely low wages, non-existent workers’ rights, and extensive roster of human rights violations will only further exacerbate the already strong downward pressure on U.S. wages.  We should not enter into trade agreements with countries with such records. . . .

Shouldn’t this proposition of including countries with such abysmal records like Vietnams be debated? Shouldn’t the U.S. Congress determine if that approach is appropriate? Shouldn’t the US Trade Representative further consult with Congress as negotiations progress?  . . . .”

 

For more details, see also video on CWA website http://action.cwa-union.org/c/1372/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=7357

Yet at the same time, Senator Portman of Ohio, who was formerly USTR under President Bush, noted at the Senate Finance hearing that in terms of exports, in ranking of countries the US rates just above Ethiopia and that 40% of US exports were to countries that had signed trade agreements with the US.

After the hearing, Republicans, including House Speaker Boehner, and free trade Democrats urged President Obama to get more involved saying that the President has to become personally involved in pushing the TPA or the new Bill will simply not pass Congress.  As mentioned, in the House, President Obama faces the problem that not one Democratic Congressman is willing to co-sponsor a TPA Bill.

On January 16th, there were also reports that Congressional Democrats were very upset about the draft environmental provisions of the TPP that had been leaked by Wikileaks.  The draft environmental chapter of the TPP agreement and a report by negotiators from the 12 countries involved in the talks, show that the pact would fall short in enforcing the higher environmental standards of other recent U.S. trade deals. Those pacts threaten sanctions against trading partners that violate international agreements to protect endangered species, prevent overfishing and regulate chemicals that deplete the ozone layer.

Immediately, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Trade, stated ““It’s of grave concern. It’s as if our negotiators, decade after decade, have to walk into the door and … say, ‘Yes, we have concerns about leveling the playing field on labor and environment protections,’ but by the end of it, we say, don’t worry about it.”

Although the United States is pushing for robust environmental provisions, apparently the 11 other countries are all opposed to more strict environmental standards.  The inability of the U.S. to secure its key environmental demands made it even more difficult for the TPA bill.

According to Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.),” As more information about the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated in secret is revealed, the more the public can see how clearly this potential agreement, which is unprecedented in scope, would not only lead to the outsourcing of jobs, but also harm American consumers and the environment.”   All of this did little to help Obama persuade liberal Democrats on the TPA Bill

On January 17, 2013, it was reported that progressive advocacy groups were ramping up efforts to oppose the TPP and TPA legislation urging their members to push their representatives in Congress to fight the trade policies.

The progressive-leaning Democracy for America sent an email to its members saying they should call their local congressional representatives and urge them to vote down a proposal that would grant trade promotion, or “fast-track,” authority to the Obama administration.

On Monday, January 27th, 550 labor, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, including the United Autoworkers, which provided President Obama critical support on previous trade pacts, such as the South Korea FTA, sent a letter to Congress urging them to reject the fast-track bill.

The email campaign comes two days after a dozen Senators, comprised of 11 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., expressing “deep concern” over the chance that trade promotion authority would be renewed.

JANUARY 28 — STATE OF THE UNION

In response to the Republicans call in Congress for the Administration to do more regarding the TPA bill, President Obama responded in his State of the Union pushing the TPA bill and TPP and the TA Agreements.  President Obama stated:

“We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment, and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA”.  Look China and Europe aren’t standing on the sidelines.  Neither should we.”

What was very interesting about this point is that in contrast to almost every other point made in the State of the Union, when President Obama spoke about Trade, the Republicans cheered, but the Democrats in President Obama’s own party were silent.

JANUARY 29TH—THE DAY FREE TRADE MAY HAVE DIED

But the next day, Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, the head Democrat in the Senate, came out against TPA, stating:

“Everyone knows how I feel about this.  Senator Baucus knows.  Senator Wyden knows.  The White House knows.  Everyone would be well-advised to not push this right now.”

As Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid controls the bills that are allowed on the Senate Floor.  With Senator Harry Reid’s opposition, the TPA bill is dead in the Congress, which means that the President’s trade agenda and his push for these agreements are also dead.  In an ironic point, this situation will probably only change if the Republicans take over the Senate in 2014.

The lawmakers opposed to the TPA Bill argue that in light of the top secret nature of the negotiations, multiparty trade deals go far beyond the scope of the smaller, typically single-nation trade accords that were done in the past.  These new multinational deals affect larger portions of the U.S. and global economies and touch on many policies under Congressional jurisdiction.  Congress, therefore, should have a greater say on trade deals beyond the ability to accept or reject them.

On January 29, 2014, David Bonior, a former Michigan Congressman, who voted for NAFTA, in an article entitled Obama’s Free-Trade Conundrum stated:

 

“But Mr. Obama’s desire for fast-track authority on the T.P.P. and other agreements clashes with another priority in his speech: reducing income inequality.

This month is the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which significantly eliminated tariffs and other trade barriers across the continent and has been used as a model for the T.P.P.  Anyone looking for evidence on what this new agreement will do to income inequality in America needs to consider Nafta’s 20-year record. . . .

The result is downward pressure on middle-class wages as manufacturing workers are forced to compete with imports made by poorly paid workers abroad. . . .The shift in employment from high-paying manufacturing jobs to low paying service jobs has contributed to overall wage stagnation. The average American wage has grown less than 1 percent annually in real terms since Nafta, even as productivity grew three times faster. . . .

The Nafta data poses a significant challenge for President Obama. As he said on Tuesday, he wants to battle the plague of income inequality and he wants to expand the Nafta model with T.P.P.  But he cannot have it both ways.”

 

In response to Senator Reid’s statement, it was reported that Sen. John Cornyn  (R., Texas.) stated “You can kiss any new trade deals goodbye. . . I think the majority leader’s focus is on the November elections and he doesn’t want to expose his vulnerable members to controversial votes.”

The latest developments come amid growing skepticism in Japan about the U.S.’s commitment to free trade. “It’s up to the resolve of the U.S. government,” Japan’s economy minister, Akira Amari, told reporters in Tokyo. “If the president comes to the negotiating table with a strong enough determination to wrap it up by spring, other countries will follow suit.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) stated “I think there’s a lot of dubiousness in our caucus to fast track, given that every time we sign a free-trade agreement it seems other countries violate the rules and we don’t”.

Unions opposing the trade deals were happy with the outcome.   According to Larry Cohen, head of the Communications Workers of America, “For those of us who want to have a progressive trade agenda, it means that we’re encouraged.”

On January 30th, House Speaker John Boehner spoke out against President Obama suggesting that he needs to push Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get the TPA bill through Congress.

On February 3rd, President Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid but the President did not bring up the trade issue and made no effort at the meeting to change Senator Reid’s mind on the TPA bill.

On February 4th, it was reported that StopFastTrack.com, a new coalition opposed to the TPA bill and the TPP and TA Trade Agreements is building grassroots support, gathering more than a half a million signatures and making tens of thousands of calls to Senators and Congressmen lawmakers to argue against trade legislation in Congress.

According to the report, unions, environmental groups, and political organizations—working under the umbrella site —have nearly 600,000 supporters  and made more than 40,000 phone calls to Congress, opposing the trade measures.

Another political organization, Democracy for America, has obtained 125,000 electronic signatures on a petition requesting that Nancy Pelosi, top House Democrat, follow Senator Reid’s lead and stop the TPA bill in the House.

Many trade experts believe that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision not to bring the TPA bill to the Senate Floor casts substantial doubt over the negotiations for the TPP and the TA deals.  Most commentators are stating that all these Agreements are at risk right now.

White House press secretary Jay Carney stated on Wednesday, January 29th,

“Leader Reid has always been clear on his position on this particular issue.  As the President said in the State of the Union address, he will continue to work to enact bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers and environment and to open markets to new goods stamped ‘Made in the U.S.A.’ And we will not cede this important opportunity for American workers and businesses to our competitors.”

Harry Reid’s decision could be a critical tipping point in US trade policy as the US becomes more and more protectionist.  It took a President Bill Clinton with his tremendous political ability to persuade Democratic Senators and Congressmen “to do the right thing” on NAFTA and enact it into law.  But President Obama is not Bill Clinton.

DOHA ROUND-BALI

As mentioned in the last newsletter, much to the surprise of many Government officials and companies, in December the WTO round in Bali resulted in all the WTO countries agreeing to Trade Facilitation Agreement to modernize customs procedures, as well as provisions on agriculture and economic development.  If there had been no Agreement in Bali, it could very well have meant the end of the multilateral effort to lower trade barriers through negotiations.

On January 7, 2014 WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo stated:

“Just six weeks ago, the fate of the multilateral trading system hung in the balance. Today, we can talk with confidence about how we can continue to develop and strengthen the system for the future.”

According to Azevedo, the Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement could possibly add as much as $1 trillion to the world’s economy each year.

The question now is what happens in the future.  Most experts believe that the WTO members will in the short term pursue agreements that affect only certain sectors or include only some countries.  Thus, there will probably be sector-by-sector trade negotiations at the WTO.

Agreements affecting trade of environmental goods and services might be one of the likely near-term targets.  But the Trade Facilitation Agreement still must be implemented as the details have to be ironed out, including Customs procedures in developing countries and other issues.  Implementation also means the Agreement must go through Congress and without TPA, it will be difficult for Bali Agreement to get through Congress.

Azevedo himself realizes the problems stating, “The task of strengthening the multilateral system and moving towards delivering on the[Doha Development Agenda] will be difficult, but it is not impossible.”

SOLAR PRODUCTS—NEW ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASE TO CLOSE THIRD COUNTRY LOOPHOLE AND AGAINST CHINA AND TAIWAN–QUANTITY AND VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE DUE FEBRUARY 13TH AT COMMERCE

Commerce has issued a quantity and value questionnaire in the new Solar Products/Modules/Panels antidumping case/initial investigation against China.  The deadline for the response to the Quantity and Value Questionnaire is February 13, 2014.

Attached are the quantity and value questionnaire and the fact sheet that was issued by Commerce. factsheet-multiple-solar-products-initiation-012313   prc-qv-solar-products-012714

The quantity and value questionnaire requires the Chinese exporter to report all sales during the period April 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.  Specifically, Commerce is requiring the Chinese exporter to report the total number of modules, panels or laminates during that period, the total number of megawatts, the terms of sale and the total value of sales.

A Chinese exporter/producer must submit a response to this quantity and value questionnaire by February 13th.  If not, it will receive the highest dumping rate of 165%.

SOLAR CELLS REVIEW INVESTIGATION

To further complicate the Solar case, on February 3rd Commerce published in the attached Federal Register notice initiating the first Solar Cells review investigation.  This case will cover imports of Chinese solar cells during the review period.

So to be clear, the Solar Cells Review Investigation covers Chinese solar cells.  The Solar Products new investigation covers imports of Chinese modules and panels with Taiwan and other solar cells in them.

For the first Solar Cells Review Investigation, attached are the notice, in which many Chinese companies are named, and the Quantity and Value questionnaire.  Solar Cells AD CVD Initiation Notice 1st Review (2) SOLAR CELLS REVIEW QV Chinese companies named in the Solar Cells Review investigation need to file the QV questionnaire response on February 19th .   Chinese companies also need to file separate rate applications or certifications on or before April 4, 2014 at Commerce in first review investigation to keep their separate rate from the Solar Cells initial investigation.  Failure to file these documents meand that imports of Chinese solar cells will be assessed a rate of 250%.

Solar Trade problems with China are getting complicated.

SOLAR PRODUCTS INITIAL INVESTIGATION

As mentioned in my last post, on December 31, 2013, Solar World filed another antidumping and countervailing duty petition to close the third country loophole against China and Taiwan.

On January 23rd, the Commerce Department initiated the Solar Products cases against China and Taiwan, but it made some changes.  The Scope of the Merchandise, the specific products covered by the new antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, are described in the attached notice and petition:

“The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including building integrated materials. For purposes of this investigation, subject merchandise also includes modules, laminates and/or panels consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells completed or partially manufactured within a customs territory other than that subject country, using ingots, wafers, or partially manufactured cells sourced from the subject country. . . .”

See the injury petition in my last post on this blog.

In the subsequent Commerce Department initiation notice, which is attached, however, in contrast to the petition, solar consumer products are specifically excluded:

“Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000mm2 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.”

Initiation Notice – Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products 1-24-14

In addition, Commerce reduced the All Others/Facts available rate in the China case from 298% to 165%, but raised the antidumping rate for Taiwan to 75.68% from 39%.  The trade volume is large.  According to Commerce, imports of the subject merchandise from China and Taiwan were valued at $2.1 billion and $513.5 million, respectively.

If Chinese companies are exporting and US importers are importing Chinese modules and panels with Taiwan or other solar cells in them, this option will be closed in 150 to 210 days, when the Commerce Department’s preliminary determinations are due on May 30, 2014 (CVD) and July 29, 2014 (AD).  Commerce Department investigations almost always are extended out to the full time.

Chinese companies also must submit their response to the quantity and value questionnaire by February 13th and be prepared to submit separate rate applications in this new antidumping case to get the average rate.

On January 22nd, the day after the Government was closed, the ITC held a preliminary conference.  The Commission’s preliminary injury determination is due February 14th.

Meanwhile, many trade lawyers have come to the same conclusion that when the scope in the past case and the present case are combined, the only way for US importers to escape liability is to have the underlying solar cells, modules and panels all made outside of China and Taiwan.  In effect, the entire chain of production would have to occur outside of China and Taiwan, which will have the effect of driving up the cost of business for major segments of the U.S. solar industry that need solar components, such as utility-scale solar project developers, rooftop solar companies and public utilities.

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) has announced that it is opposed to the case, calling it an “escalation” of the U.S.-China solar trade conflict.  Experts also stated that the duties could cripple the end user portion of the solar Industry, which is far larger than the domestic production industry.  As the SEIA stated, “From past experiences, we have learned that a conflict within one segment of the solar industry ripples across the entire solar supply chain.”

The market pressure driving solar prices downward is not caused by dumping, but the industry’s efforts to achieve so-called grid parity, where the price for solar power is comparable to that for traditional-source power.  But prices for US oil and natural gas are falling fast.  With falling costs for traditional forms of energy, it is very difficult for solar energy to be competitive.

The effect of this case, however, will be to drive up the costs of solar products,

Although the SEIA and some members of Congress have called for a settlement of the solar trade dispute, Solar World has expressed skepticism about such a deal, making it more difficult to conclude a government to government deal settling the case.  As mentioned in a prior post, there is no public interest standard in US antidumping and countervailing duty law, as compared to EC, Canada and China.  Also End Users have no standing in US antidumping and countervailing duty cases.  Thus it is difficult for the US Government to pressure Solar World to drop its case.

Meanwhile, as indicated below, the Chinese government has retaliated by finalizing antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of polysilicon from the US, shutting all US produced polysilicon, close to $2 billion, out of China.  Since last year U.S. polysilicon exporters have faced preliminary CVD duties in China of 6.5 percent, and AD duties of 53.3 to 57 percent and those duties are now final.

On January 26th, MOFCOM announced that it was delaying these duties for the moment and on January 30th called for negotiations over the Solar Cells/Products Antidumping and Countervailing duty cases stating:

 

“The two parties should follow the trend and make efforts to promote cooperation proceeding from the overall interests of clean energy development, so as to ensure the steady development, rather than restricting competition and cooperation by frequently taking trade remedy measures. It is proved that, that U.S. initiated investigations and levy high anti-dumping and countervailing duties in 2011 not only failed to change the situation of poor operation and lacking of competitiveness of its domestic industries, resulting in significant negative impacts on downstream industries including the assembly industry and services sector, but also triggered a worldwide chain reaction of trade disputes on PV products, which caused chaos in the whole industry.  . . .”

 

See attached statement MOFCOM STATEMENT

CURTAIN WALL UNITS ARE COVERED BY THE ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS CASE

On January 30, 2014, in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. v. United States, Judge Eaton in the Court of International Trade affirmed the Commerce Department’s determination that Curtain Wall Units, the sides of buildings, are with the scope of the AD and CVD orders on aluminum extrusions from China.  The Court stated in part;

“Because curtain wall units are “parts for” a finished curtain wall, the court’s primary holding is that curtain wall units and other parts of curtain wall systems fall within the scope of the Orders.”

See the attached decision.  SHENYANG YUANDA

As a result of the Court’s and the Commerce Department’s determination, the sides of buildings from China are now covered by US antidumping and countervailing duty orders with duties as high as over 100 to 300% for certain imports.

NEW ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES AGAINST CHINA

WIRE ROD

On January 31, 2014, a new antidumping and countervailing duty case was filed against carbon steel wire rod from China.  See notice below.

Docket No: 3000

Document Type: 701 & 731 Petition

Filed By: Kathleen Cannon

Firm/Org: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Behalf Of: ArceloMittal USA LLC, Charter Steel, Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc., and Keystone Consolidated Industries Inc, and Nucor Corporation.

Date Received: January 31, 2014

Confidential: Yes

Commodity: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod

Country: People’s Republic of China

Description: Letter to Lisa R. Barton, Secretary, USITC; requesting the Commission to conduct an investigation under sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding the imposition of countervailing and antidumping duties on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the People’s Republic of China.

Status: 701-TA-512 & 731-TA-1248

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY REVIEW INVESTIGATIONS

In February Chinese producers and exporters, US importers and US producers have the opportunity to request an antidumping and/or countervailing duty review investigation of certain outstanding AD and CVD orders by filing a review request at Commerce by the last day of February for the following cases against China :

Period of review ————————————————————————              Antidumping Duty Proceedings

The People’s Republic of China:

Certain Preserved Mushrooms, A-570-851………..     2/1/13-1/31/14

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs \2\, A-570-868…     6/1/12-11/5/12

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, A-570-893……………     2/1/13-1/31/14

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, With or Without Handles,     2/1/13-1/31/14      A-570-803…………………………………

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes, A-570-929….     2/1/13-1/31/14

Uncovered Innerspring Units, A-570-928………..     2/1/13-1/31/14

Utility Scale Wind Towers, A-570-981………….    2/13/13-1/31/13

Countervailing Duty Proceedings

The People’s Republic of China:

Utility Scale Wind      2/13/13-12/31/13  Towers, C-570-982.

IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA/IMPORTERS’ LOBBYING COALITION

As mentioned in prior posts, we are working with APCO, a well-known lobbying/government relations firm in Washington DC, on establishing a US importers/end users lobbying coalition to lobby against the expansion of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws against China.

On September 18, 2013, ten US Importers agreed to form the Import Alliance for America. The objective of the Coalition will be to educate the US Congress and Administration on the damaging effects of the US China trade war, especially US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, on US importers and US downstream industries.

We will be targeting two major issues—Working for market economy treatment for China in 2016 as provided in the US China WTO Agreement and working against retroactive liability for US importers. The United States is the only country that has retroactive liability for its importers in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.

The key point of our arguments is that these changes in the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws are to help US companies, especially US importers and downstream industries. We will also be advocating for a public interest test in antidumping and countervailing duty cases and standing for US end user companies.

We are now contacting many US importers and also Chinese companies to ask them to contact their US import companies to see if they interested in participating in the Alliance. Changes to the US antidumping and countervailing duty law against China can only happen because of a push by US importers and end user companies. In US politics, only squeaky wheels get the grease.

In forthcoming posts we will provide additional information about the Alliance and specific meeting days in different areas of the United States.

CHINESE ANTIDUMPING CASE

POLYSILICON

On January 20, 2014, China issued final antidumping and countervailing duties against solar-grade polysilicon imported from the U.S.  Under the Chinese polysilicon antidumping duty order, US companies face dumping rates ranging from 53% to 57%.  On the Countervailing Duty side, US companies face rates from 0 to 2.1%.

On January 26, 2014, MOFCOM announced that given “the special market conditions” it has decided not to carry out antidumping and anti-subsidy measures for the moment.  Apparently, MOFCOM is hoping for a negotiated suspension agreement in the new Solar Products case.

FDA—FOOD PROBLEMS

CHINESE CHICKEN

On December 19, 2013, fourteen Congressmen circulated a letter in Congress asking their Congressional colleagues to ensure Chinese-processed chicken is kept out of the school lunch and other child nutrition programs. The letter also states that chicken slaughtered in China should be banned from the US market.  The letter states:

“It is because we are deeply concerned about the safety of the food served to the American people, especially our children, that we write to express our serious apprehension about the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) recent decision to allow China to process chicken raised in the United States, as well as Canada and Chile, to then export to the United States. Furthermore, we believe FSIS is likely to eventually allow China to export its own raw poultry to the United States.”

CHINA CHICKEN PROBLEM CONG LETTER

WASHINGTON/PACIFIC COAST SHELLFISH BANNED FROM CHINA

On December 5th, the Washington State Government reported that on December 3rd the Chinese government announced that it was banning all imports of molluscan shellfish from North America area #67, which includes all harvest areas in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and northern California. China reported a shipment of geoduck clams tested high in paralytic shellfish poison (PSP) and arsenic.  See my past post on this blog for more on this fight and the attached announcement.

The ban has already devastated shellfish growers in Washington, Alaska, Oregon and Northern California.  It also affects clams, oysters and other shellfish from U.S. waters.

China is the world’s largest importer of geoducks (pronounced “gooey duck”), with more than half of all the harvest from Washington, British Columbia and Alaska getting shipped to China. With China cut off, there are few places for the harvest to go.

Test results showed that, on average, arsenic was present in the geoduck bodies at a level of 0.327 parts per million (ppm), which falls below China’s legal limit of 0.5 ppm. Arsenic in the actual meat of the geoducks registered at 0.063 ppm, eight times lower than the limit.

On January 9th it was reported that Laboratory tests on Washington State’s exports of geoduck clams, found no evidence of unsafe or excessive levels of arsenic.  Although the test results have been sent to China, to date they have not yet received a response, and the ban remains in place.

The problem, however, arises from US export forms for the geoduck shipment.  The form does not allow for more specificity in identifying the source from which the shellfish were harvested.  While the problem shipments of shellfish came from isolated areas in Washington and Alaska, “Area 67″ encompasses all the coastal regions from Northern California through Alaska’s Pacific Coast. As a result, Chinese authorities were forced to ban shellfish from all of Area 67.

National shellfish programs provide forms that set forth specific shippers and harvest locations, which allow the governmental authorities to easily trace shipments back to specific shippers and harvest locations. If there’s a contamination problem domestically, shellfish growers can easily isolate the problem instead of shutting down the entire industry.

The World Health Organization is said to be considering setting safe levels for
inorganic arsenic in food in the .2-.3 ppm range in 2014. The Washington geoduck claims that tested high for inorganic arsenic in China, however, were harvested from a tract of land managed by the Department of Natural Resources that has since been closed. The tract is within the shadow of a copper smelter that was operated near Tacoma for 100 years.   According to Marian Abbett, manager of the Tacoma smelter clean up for the Washington Department of Ecology, “Well we know that arsenic levels are elevated in the surface soils in that area.  Soil samples from the surrounding land show levels of arsenic between 40 and 200 ppm, though that number does not directly equate to levels of arsenic that will end up in the water, or in shellfish.”

The area was closed to all shellfish harvest until 2007, when the Puyallup Tribe petitioned state agencies to reopen the tract for geoduck harvest. At that time the Department of Health conducted tests on geoduck in the area and found levels of .05 ppm. That’s an order of magnitude below the amount found by the Chinese in October of 2013 and well within the safety parameters set by the Chinese.

However, state agencies have not tested for inorganic arsenic or other metals in shellfish from the area since it was reopened in 2007.

Arsenic is a carcinogen that has also been associated with long-term respiratory effects, disruption of immune system function, cardiovascular effects, diabetes and neurodevelopmental problems in kids.

“There’s no safe level, but at some point you’ve crossed the threshold to being really dangerous and we don’t quite know where that threshold is at this point,” Cottingham said.

But the ban is having a real effect on fishermen in Washington State.  Ninety percent of the geoduck harvested in Washington is sold to China and Hong Kong.

The clams can fetch up to $150 per pound in China, but today the Suquamish tribe is losing $20,000 each day that the ban is in place, but the impacts of the ban are being felt well beyond the reservation. John Jones, another Suquamish diver, stated, “My brothers are from Port Gamble and they’re out of work.  They shut down diving everywhere, not just for us but for the state.”

Although British Columbia in Canada is not affected, the Chinese ban impacts all shellfish throughout Puget Sound, Alaska, Oregon and Northern California.  The shellfish industry in Washington is worth $270 million annually, and China is the biggest market for exports.

This is the broadest shellfish ban China has ever put in place, but it’s not the first time China has banned a major import from the U.S.  Beef imports from the U.S. have been banned for the past ten years. More recently, China rejected about half a million tons of U.S. corn because it contained a genetically modified strain.

Chinese officials have been slow to reveal details of their shellfish testing methods. That’s prompted some to raise concerns about political motivations behind the shellfish ban.

Although there is a possibility that the Chinese are retaliating for past problems with food imports in the US, there is strong evidence that the Chinese have a legitimate problem.  The contaminated geoduck clams were harvested near the former site of a copper smelter in Tacoma, which had leached arsenic into the surrounding area.

Again Chinese problems with US shellfish must be kept in context.  As indicated above, US Congressmen want to ban all chicken processed in China.  Because of US antidumping laws, all Chinese imports of honey, garlic, mushrooms, crawfish and shrimp have been greatly curtailed.  Some of the antidumping orders against Chinese agricultural products have been in place for more than 10 to 20 years.

In addition, the US government has been particularly tough on imports of Chinese honey, mushrooms, garlic and other agricultural products because of pesticide contamination, banning all imports of certain products during specific periods of time.

With the US government so tough on imports of agricultural and seafood products from China, US exporters of agricultural and seafood products should expect the Chinese government to be just as tough on US exports to China.

Trade is a two way street and what goes around comes around.

PATENT/IP AND 337 CASES

INTERDIGITAL SETTLES 337 PATENT CASE WITH HUAWEI

On January 2, 2014, InterDigital Communications Inc. and Huawei Technologies filed a confidential settlement of their 337 patent case over 3G and 4G wireless devices.  Huawei’s antitrust strategy seems to have worked.

CHINESE COMPANY LOOSES 337 RESINS TRADE SECRET CASE

On January 15, 2014, in Certain Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-849, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) determined that there was a violation of section 337, 19 USC 1337, because a Chinese chemical maker and other companies had stolen trade secrets covering the recipe for rubber resins held by New York company, Sl Group Inc.  The Commission issued a limited exclusion order for 10-years excluding infringing imports of the Chinese resins into the United States from Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co. Ltd. and the other named respondent companies in the case.

According to the 337 complaint, although SL Group had closely guarded the formula and the equipment used to create the resin, the manager of Sl Group’s Shanghai chemical plant defected to Sino Legend in 2007 and took the design with him.

The ITC’s ruling is directly contrary to the ruling of a Chinese court, which reached the opposite conclusion and found that there was no misappropriation.  After acquiring the trade secret, Sino Legend has been able to take over about 70% of the Chinese market for the rubber resins in question, which are used in tire production.

In response to the ruling, Sino Legend has stated that the Commission’s ruling will not substantially affect its business because the ITC’s ruling will allow its customers to use all Sino Legend resins in any of their non-U.S. production facilities, and then import those products into the U.S. without restriction.

DUPONT TRADE SECRETS CASE — TITANIUM DIOXIDE

In an ongoing criminal trial in California this month, prosecutors described how an ex-DuPont engineer and two conspirators stole DuPont trade secrets regarding a specific process to produce very high quality titanium dioxide, and sold the designs to Chinese state owned companies earning $28 million.

Chinese-American Walter Liew and his wife, Christina, founded multiple companies in Northern California and hired as a consultant ex-DuPont engineer Robert Maegerle, who knew the process of safely producing massive amounts of titanium dioxide.  Maegerle allegedly shared what he learned building plants for DuPont with the Liews, who used the information to negotiate contracts with Chinese companies, including Pangang Group Co., to build titanium-dioxide-making factories in China. However, both Maegerle and Walter Liew knew Dupont had patented that information and it was confidential.

Titanium dioxide is a white pigment used in everything from iPhone cases to toothpaste.  But it is hot, dirty and dangerous and DuPont figured out a way to make the product commercially viable.  According to the prosecutor, that process is what the Chinese companies wanted.

Maegerle is charged with trade-secrets theft, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.  Christina Liew faces charges of economic espionage, trade-secret theft, and tampering with witnesses and evidence in a separate trial.

Lawyers for the defendants argued that they did not copy DuPont’s factory plans verbatim, but used them as the basis to design around and develop their own production techniques for producing titanium dioxide.

Later in the trial, however, a government expert testified that Dupont fiercely guarded its trade secrets for making high-quality titanium dioxide and that the trade secrets made Dupont the envy of the industry.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASES AGAINST CHINESE COMPANIES, INCLUDING HUAWEI, ZTE, AND OTHER COMPANIES

On December 31, 2013, Laserdynamics filed a patent case against Haier. HAIER PATENT CASE

On January 7, 2014, Bluebonnet Telecommunications filed patent cases against ZTE and Huawei. BLUEBONNETZTE HUAWEI BLUEBONNET

On January 7, 2014, Toyo Tire and Rubber filed a patent case against South China Tire and Rubber Co. TOYO TIRE CASE

On January 10, 2014, Personal Audio filed a patent case against Huawei and ZTE. PERSONAL AUDIO HUAWEI ZTE

On January 10, 2014, Thomas & Betts filed a trademark, unfair competition, case against Zhejiang Shengyu City Fengfan Electrical Fittings Co. TRADEMARK WRENCH ZHEJIANG

On January 13, 2014, Laerdahl Medical filed a patent case against Shanghai Honglian Medical Instrument Development Co. SHANGHAI MEDICAL

On January 13, 2014, ICON Health and Fitness filed a trademark case against Zhongshan Camry Electronics Co. ZHONGSHAN TRADEMARK

On January 14, 2014, Kee Action Sports filed a patent case against Shyang Huei Industrial Co., a Taiwan company. TAIWAN SUN

On January 14, 2014 Toyo Tire and Rubber filed a patent case against Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co and Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre Co. TOYO DONG FENG

On January 16, 2014, Touchscreen Gestures filed patent cases against Huawei and ZTE. TOUCHSCREEN ZTE TOUCHSCREEN HUAWEI

On January 29, 2014, Standard Fiber filed a trade secret case against Shanghai Tianan Home Co, Teetex, LLC, and Anwen “Alvin” Li. SHANGHAI TRADE SECRET

Complaints are posted above.

ANTITRUST

VITAMIN C CASE

As mentioned in my last post, the Vitamin C antitrust case against Chinese Vitamin C companies is wrapping up at the District Court level.  Attached is the final judgment with a $153 million judgment against Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Hebei”) and North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. (“NCPGC”) for price fixing.  In addition, the judgment has increased by $4 million, specifically $4,093,163.35, to $158 million, specifically $158,203,163.35, to pay the Plaintiffs’ legal fees. FINAL AMENDED JUDGMENT VITAMIN C CASE

Hebei Welcome has announced that it is appealing the Court’s final judgment and has also switched US law firms and hired new counsel.

JUSTICE IS GETTING TOUGHER ON INTERNATIONAL CARTELS DEMANDING JAIL TIME FOR FOREIGN EXECUTIVES

There are reports that in 2013 and now 2014 the Justice Department has ramped up its enforcement in international cartels/price fixing antitrust cases looking for more prison sentences for foreign executives involved in these cartels.

On January 30th, Bill Baer, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division gave the attached speech to the New York State Bar Association in which he described in detail international antitrust enforcement, including increased enforcement of antitrust cases against international cartels, and the DOJ’s increased cooperation with Chinese antitrust authorities.  BILL BAER DOJ STATEMENT ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT The Assistant Attorney General stated:

 

“With those preliminary observations in mind, let me focus on the progress antitrust enforcement has made these last five years. President Obama promised during his first campaign that his administration would vigorously enforce the antitrust laws.  He pledged to “step up review of merger activity,” “take aggressive action to curb the growth of international cartels,” and ‘ensure that the benefits of competition are fully realized by consumers.’

“I think the record shows the Antitrust Division has followed through on the President’s pledge. Criminal enforcement provides an excellent starting point. We continue to vigorously pursue and prosecute international and domestic cartels. Since January 2009, we have filed 339 criminal cases, a more than 60 percent increase over the prior five years. We secured $4.2 billion in criminal fines in that period. . . .

Effective cartel enforcement requires holding accountable both corporations and the senior executives who orchestrate their unlawful conduct. We have charged 109 corporations with criminal antitrust violations since 2009. We have ensured that those corporations have paid appropriate—and stiff—criminal fines, and those 109 corporations together have paid the highest five-year fine total in division history. The division also charged 311 individuals with antitrust crimes during the past five years.

Experience teaches that the threat of prison time is the most effective deterrent against criminal antitrust violations. We seek sentences commensurate with the economic harm caused by the perpetrators. The statistics show that the courts are embracing the effort to hold company executives accountable for their bad behavior. The average prison sentence in our cases has increased from 20 months in the period 2000-09 to 25 months during the years 2010-2013. Of course, we can never know for certain the full deterrent effect of our enforcement efforts. But we do know that self-reporting under our leniency program remains at high levels and that, increasingly, non-U.S. companies are reporting anticompetitive behavior. They are responding to the fact we are prosecuting off-shore conduct with a U.S. impact. In recent years the number of foreign nationals sentenced to U.S. incarceration has increased threefold. The message should be clear: the division will vigorously and successfully prosecute international cartel behavior that harms U.S. consumers regardless of where that conduct takes place. . . .

The division has brought criminal cases in a range of industries over the past several years. One of our most significant ongoing investigations involves the auto parts industry. We are prosecuting price fixing and bid rigging involving a number of parts that were installed in cars sold in the U.S., including wire harnesses, instrument panel clusters, and seatbelts.  . . .

To date, we have charged 24 companies and 26 executives with participating in multiple international conspiracies, and those numbers are sure to grow as the investigation continues.   These charges have resulted in $1.8 billion in criminal fines, including the third-largest criminal antitrust fine ever.   Of the 26 executives charged so far, 20 have been sentenced to serve time in U.S. prisons or have entered into plea agreements requiring significant sentences.

During the past several years, the division also prosecuted international price-fixing conspiracies involving liquid crystal display panels. These conspiracies hurt U.S. consumers by dramatically inflating prices for computer monitors, notebook computers, and televisions, among other products. In 2012, the division secured convictions of Taiwan-based AU Optronics, its subsidiary, AU Optronics Corp. America, and three former top executives for their participation in such a conspiracy.   The trial against AU Optronics was the first time the division proceeded under the alternative fine statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1571, which allows for fines up to two times the gain or loss resulting from the conduct. The division proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury that the combined gains to the participants in the conspiracy were $500 million or more and that the defendants’ conduct accordingly merited a fine exceeding the Sherman Act’s $100 million maximum.   . . .

There is more to come.  . . . There can be little doubt that the division vigorously prosecutes wrongdoers. . . .

During the Obama administration U.S. enforcers have broken new ground in relations with China and India. In the past few years, the division and the FTC have entered into Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Chinese and Indian enforcement agencies.  These MOUs have led to annual bi-lateral meetings between the U.S. antitrust enforcement agencies and agencies from these nations.  Indeed, earlier this month, I attended with Chairwoman Ramirez a bi-lateral meeting with the Chinese authorities in Beijing. We see candid engagement with the Chinese and Indian agencies as important, and we look forward to increased cooperation in the coming years.

Cooperation also plays an important role in our international criminal cartel investigations. Working with competition enforcers in non-U.S. jurisdictions, we share information where we are able; and we can plan coordinated raids around the world, reducing the opportunity for key evidence to go missing or be destroyed. . . .”

 

When foreign corporate executives are found to be guilty of engaging in a cartel to set prices, this is considered a crime of moral turpitude and the foreign executive is barred from entering the US for a minimum of 15 years.  Under a memorandum of understanding between Justice and Immigration and Naturalization Services (“INS”), now Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), if the foreign executive pleads guilty and cooperates with authorities, that executive can be exempted from the 15 year exclusion and continue to enter the US.  Antitrust criminal defense attorneys have argued that this exemption is unfair because it places unfair pressure on the foreign executive to forgo their right to trial.

On January 24, 2014, in response to questions from Congress on this issue, Assistant Attorney General Baer stated in the attached response:

 

“In general, moral turpitude has been held to be conduct that is inherently dishonest and contrary to accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general. Tax fraud, mail fraud, securities fraud, and theft offenses, for example, have been held to be crimes of moral turpitude. Similarly, price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation agreements among companies that hold themselves out to the public as competitors are inherently deceptive and defraud consumers who expect the benefits of competition. Thus, the division’s Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with INS states that INS, now the Department of Homeland Security as successor to INS, considers criminal antitrust offenses to be crimes involving moral turpitude, which may subject an alien defendant to exclusion or deportation.

However, an alien defendant who is convicted of an antitrust offense at trial retains the ability to contest his removability from the United States.

In today’s global marketplace, many culpable executives involved in international cartels affecting U.S. consumers and commerce are foreign nationals. They may live and work outside the U.S., but their cartel conduct affects billions of dollars of U.S. commerce yearly and takes money out of consumers’ pockets. The MOU was drafted in order to allow the Antitrust Division to secure jurisdiction over and cooperation of these foreign nationals in the division’s investigations and prosecutions of international cartels and to hold these foreign nationals accountable for antitrust crimes, just as domestic defendants are held accountable.

The cooperation of defendants receiving immigration relief under the MOU is critical to the division’s ability to investigate and prosecute international cartel activity. A foreign defendant’s willingness to cooperate with the division provides the basis for the waiver of inadmissibility under the MOU, and fulfilling the continuing cooperation requirements with the division is a condition of a defendant’s retention of the waiver. Having cooperating witnesses from multiple companies is essential to fully investigate cartels and to hold responsible individuals at each corporate conspirator accountable.

Moreover, having defendants who have pleaded guilty is important at Antitrust Division trials. Extending the MOU waiver to noncooperating defendants would undermine the incentives provided by the MOU and be unjust to those foreign nationals who are willing to accept responsibility for their criminal conduct, submit to U.S. jurisdiction, cooperate with the division, and serve time in U.S. prison. It would also be unworkable to require pleading foreign defendants to continue their cooperation to maintain the waiver while at the same time giving the MOU waiver to non-pleading defendants who have not accepted responsibility and fully cooperated with the division.”

BAER STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS

CHINA ANTITRUST CASES

On January 28, 2014, there was a report out of China that Qualcomm is facing a record antitrust fine of $1 billion in an antitrust case from the NDRC.  China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) is becoming an increasingly aggressive regulator and is focusing on information technology providers, especially companies that license patent technology for mobile devices and networks.

Apparently, the NDRC is trying to lower domestic costs as China rolls out its faster 4G mobile networks this year.  US -based Qualcomm is scheduled to obtain the vast majority of licensing fees for the chip sets used by handsets in China, the world’s biggest smartphone market in the World.

Under the Chinese antimonopoly law, the NDRC can impose fines of between 1 and 10 percent of a company’s revenues for the previous year.  Qualcomm reportedly earned $12.3 billion in China for its fiscal year ended September 29, or nearly half of its global sales.

Qualcomm is no stranger to substantial fines.  In 2009, South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission fined the company 273 billion won ($252 million), the highest Korean penalty ever against a single company, for abusing its dominant position in CDMA modem chips which were then used in handsets manufactured in Korea.

SECURITIES

SEC DROPS CHINESE AUDIT CASE AGAINST DELOITTE

On January 27th the SEC told the Federal Court that it was dropping its case against Deloitte for failure to turn over audit documents of a Chinese technology company.  The SEC stated that Deloitte was supplying the audit papers to the China Securities Regulatory Commission, which, in turn, was supplying the records to the SEC.

The dismissal of the case, however, will not affect a separate SEC action against the Chinese offices of the Big Four accounting firms for refusing to reveal client documents to the SEC.  An SEC administrative law judge recently ruled that the China based offices are barred from auditing companies that do business in the U.S.

JURY CLEARS CHINESE INVESTMENT ADVISOR SIMING YANG

On January 13th, a jury in the Federal District Court found Chinese investment adviser Siming Yang not guilty on insider trading claims brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), but did find Yang guilty for other violations, including making false disclosures to the regulator.

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICE ACT–CORRUPTION ISSUES IN CHINA FOR FOREIGN COMPANIES

On February 4th, Carl Hinze in Dorsey’s Shanghai office published the attached article “Doing business in and with China: Battling a corruption culture by building a compliance culture”.

HINZE ARTICLE FCPA

COMPLAINTS

On January 10, 2014, Deborah Donoghue filed the attached securities case against Secure alert, Short Swing Profits, which are all owned by Sapinda Asia and Lars Windhorst, a Hong Kong Company, for short swing profits. SAPINDA HK

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade, customs, 337, patent, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–DEVELOPMENTS TRADE, CUSTOMS, PATENTS, US/CHINA ANTITRUST AND SECURITIES

Suzhou Garden of the Humble Administrator ChinaNovember 29, 2013

ANNOUNCEMENT

On December 3, 2013, former Congressman Don Bonker of APCO and I will be speaking in Vancouver, Canada at a breakfast conference held by the American Chamber of Commerce on “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Demystified: A Discussion of Trade Opportunities for American and Canadian Businesses”.

Attached is a copy of the Speech announcement. Hope to see some of you in Vancouver, Canada.  AMCHAM – Dec 3 TPP Event – INVITE (2)

“TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET”

NEWSLETTER

Dear Friends,

There have been some major developments in the trade, Customs fraud, patents, US/Chinese antitrust, and securities areas.

I have just returned from a trip of more than 2 weeks in China.  While in China, we discussed US and Chinese antidumping and antitrust cases and other US Litigation against Chinese companies along with the US Importers Lobbying Coalition.  In addition, we circulated the attached PowerPoint description in English and Chinese of Dorsey’s Trade and Litigation Team.  FINAL CHINA TRADE LITIGATION POWERPOINT NOV 2013 Final CHINESE China Trade Litigation PowerPoint Nov 2013

TRADE

SOLAR CELLS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILNG DUTY CASE—SETTLEMENT AND THIRD COUNTRY CELLS LOOPHOLE

Apparently, negotiations between the US and China in the Solar Cells case have slowed down because there have been no further developments that have been announced publicly.

Meanwhile, however, the U.S. Department of Commerce and Customs are continuing to press Chinese exporters and US importers of solar panels to demonstrate that their imports of Chinese modules and panels fall outside of existing antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders by proving that they contain solar cells in the Chinese panels and modules that are produced in third countries.

Solar cells produced in countries, such as Taiwan and Malaysia, fall outside the scope of the trade remedy orders imposed by Commerce, even if they are assembled into modules and panels and shipped by companies in China. Many Chinese companies – even those that manufacture cells – have thus begun incorporating cells made in third countries in order to make sure those products shipped to the U.S. are not affected.

As mentioned in my last post, the Commerce Department continues to investigate, but has not launched a formal circumvention inquiry yet.  In addition to Commerce, Customs is requiring similar documents to prove that the solar cells were actually produced outside of China.  On November 16, 2013, USTR Michael Froman said that a close partnership between USTR and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) was the key to enforcing trade duty orders against Chinese solar panels.

After touring the Los Angeles port the USTR said in a statement that the U.S. takes a “whole-of-government” approach to trade enforcement. As one example, the USTR explained that his office and Customs had partnered to protect the U.S. solar industry by challenging unfair trade practices on the part of China through disputes at the World Trade Organization and enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws.

“When it comes to solar, the Obama administration is enforcing U.S. trade remedy laws and U.S. rights under WTO agreements,” Froman said. “At the same time, [Customs] is stepping up reviews of imports of solar panels from China to determine whether they are improperly evading payment of antidumping and countervailing duties.”

USTR also pointed to the coming WTO multilateral negotiations in Bali on trade facilitation measures, which would  streamline customs procedures, and is “poised to close” the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 other Pacific Rim countries.

Unfortunately, the November 27, 2013 reports are that the WTO multilateral negotiations in Bali have broken down, in part over the Trade Facilitation report, which means the Trans Pacific Partnership and other negotiations will become even more important.

ATTACK ON SUNTECH

On November 6, 2013, Solar World launched an attack in the Solar Cells case arguing that Commerce should raise Suntech’s antidumping cash deposit rate from 29.14 to 250% because it is now owned by a new company.  SOLAR SHUNFENG  In the attached submission, Solar World argues:

“On behalf of SolarWorld Industries America Inc. (“SolarWorld”), Petitioner in the above-captioned investigations, we respectfully request the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping and countervailing duties on all entries of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (“solar cells and modules”), imported into the United States by Shunfeng Photovoltaic International Ltd. (“Shunfeng”) or related entities at the PRC-wide rate of 249.96 percent and the All Others rate of 15.24 percent. . . .”

“Publicly available information now indicates that Suntech has ceased to exist as an independent entity and is thus no longer entitled to these separate rates. In March of this year, Suntech was forced into bankruptcy proceedings after defaulting on U.S. bond payments.  This month, Shunfeng, a mid-size solar manufacturer in China, announced that it won a bid to purchase the main unit of Suntech’s assets, i.e., Wuxi Suntech Power Co.  Reports indicate that Shunfeng has paid a deposit of CNY500 million ($82 million) to acquire Suntech, and is expected to pay an additional CNY2.5 billion (or $410 million).”

“In light of this acquisition, solar cells and modules produced by the former Suntech entity will now be imported into the United States by Shunfeng. While Shunfeng participated in the original investigation, it did not submit an application for a separate rate. Antidumping duties on imports of Chinese solar cells and modules from Shunfeng, therefore, are assessed at the PRC-wide rate of 249.96 percent, while countervailing duties are assessed at the All Others rate of 15.24 percent.”

“Given the recent asset acquisition, the PRC-wide and All Others rates now also apply to solar cells and modules manufactured by the former Suntech entity and imported by Shunfeng. Shunfeng is not entitled to Suntech’s separate rates absent a request for a changed circumstances review, a full investigation, and a final determination by the Department.  Indeed, based on publicly available information about the nature and structure of the transaction, in particular that Suntech’s assets were purchased out of bankruptcy, it is unlikely that Shunfeng would be entitled to Suntech’s separate rates.”

HARDWOOD PLYWOOD—NEGATIVE ITC INJURY DETERMINATION

On November 5, 2013, in a very surprising decision, the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) reached a negative, no injury, no threat of material injury determination in the antidumping and countervailing duty case on hardwood plywood from China.  All five voting Commissioners reached a negative determination.

In its opinion, the Commission found that although subject import volume increased from 2010 to 2012, it did so solely at the expense of nonsubject imports and that there was no “significant correlation between subject import prices and the domestic industry’s prices or shipment volumes. Prices for the subject imports trended upward throughout the period of investigation for all six of the products.”

The ITC also determined that “the underselling did not cause a shift in volume from the domestic like product to the subject imports. To the contrary, for most of the pricing products, quarterly shipments of domestically produced hardwood plywood were greater in 2012 when total subject import volume was at its peak, than in 2010.  We also note that despite the prevalent underselling over the period of investigation, the domestic industry did not lose market share.  Rather, as discussed above, the domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption increased steadily throughout the period of investigation while lower‐priced subject imports also gained market share.  To the extent that subject imports gained market share, they did so at the expense of nonsubject imports and without depressing domestic prices. . . .”

“Most of the industry’s trade and employment indicators improved during the period of investigation, including in interim 2013 as the industry continued to recover from the recession. The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased steadily from 2010 to 2012 and were higher in interim 2013 than in interim 2012.”

Two factors that may have had an indirect impact on the case were the Commerce decision and the impact on downstream industries.

As mentioned in the last newsletter and blog, the Commerce Department used Bulgaria as the surrogate country to find dumping by Chinese hardwood plywood companies.

In addition, as indicated in past newsletters and blog posts, US downstream producers of kitchen cabinets, doors and windows have been very vocal in their opposition to these cases because of the very damaging effect any antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Chinese hardwood plywood could have on US downstream industries.

Although the ITC cannot take these two factors into direct account in their determination because they are not statutory factors to be considered, they could have an indirect effect and may have made certain ITC Commissioners more predisposed to reach a negative injury determination if there was a way to do so.

WOOD FLOORING — COMMERCE DEPARTMENT ANTIDUMPING REVIEW INVESTIGATION

Meanwhile, the Commerce Department has issued a preliminary determination in the first antidumping review investigation in the Wood Flooring from China case raising the antidumping rate slightly from 3.88% to 4.77%.  See the attached preliminary determination.  Wood_Flooring_AD Prelim_FR_signed_pub[2]

This decision will not have any actual impact on the US market, however, because it is only Commerce Department final determinations in review investigations that set new cash deposit and assessment rates for imports of wood flooring from China.

COMMERCE NEW SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

On November 4, 2013, the Commerce Department issued the attached Federal Register notice announcing that it was changing its respondent selection methodology in antidumping review investigations to include sampling. SAMPLYING NME METHODOLOGY COMMERCE  As it stands now, in choosing the “mandatory” respondents in antidumping review investigations, Commerce generally creates a list of the Chinese exporters during the relevant review period and picks the two or three largest exporters of the products under investigation during that period.

As mandatory respondents in antidumping review investigations, Chinese export companies must respond to the entire 100 page Commerce Department questionnaire and numerous supplemental questionnaires and be subject to Commerce Department verifications.   Because of the substantial added work, mandatory respondent companies can often pay more than $100,000 in legal fees.  Such high legal fees can cause smaller Chinese export companies simply to give up, which, in turn, can create enormous liability for US importers because of retroactive liability.

As the Department states in the attached Federal Register notice:

“As explained in the Proposed Methodology, when the number of producers/exporters (“companies”) involved in an AD investigation or review is so large that the Department finds it impracticable to examine each company individually, the Department has the statutory authority to limit its examination to: (1) A sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid  based on the information available to the administering authority at the time of selection, or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can reasonably be examined.  The Department has, to date, generally used the second option in proceedings in which limited examination has been necessary. One consequence of this is that companies under investigation or review with relatively small import volumes have effectively been excluded from individual examination.”

“Over time, this creates a potential enforcement concern in AD administrative reviews because, as exporters accounting for smaller volumes of subject merchandise become aware that they are effectively excluded from individual examination by the Department’s respondent selection methodology, they may decide to lower their prices as they recognize that their pricing behavior will not affect the AD rates assigned to them.  Sampling such companies under section 777A(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), is one way to address this enforcement concern. . . .”

“The statute requires that the sample be “statistically valid.”  The Department has interpreted this as referring to the manner in which the Department selects respondents.  Therefore, to ensure the statistical validity of samples, in the Proposed Methodology, the Department proposed employing a sampling technique that: (1) is random; (2) is stratified; and (3) uses probability-proportional-to-size (“PPS”) samples. Random selection ensures that every company has a chance of being selected as a respondent and captures potential variability across the population.  Stratification by import volume ensures the participation of companies with different ranges of import volumes in the review, which is key to addressing the enforcement concern identified above. Finally, PPS samples ensure that the probability of a company being chosen as a respondent is proportional to its share of imports in the respective stratum.”

“In general, the Department will normally rely on sampling for respondent selection purposes in AD administrative reviews when the following conditions are met: (1) There is a request by an interested  party for the use of sampling to select respondents; (2) the Department has the resources to examine individually at least three companies for the segment; (3) the largest three companies (or more if the Department intends to select more than three respondents) by import volume of the subject merchandise under review account for normally no more than 50 percent of total volume; and (4) information obtained by or provided to the Department provides a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the average export prices and/or dumping margins for the largest exporters differ from such information that would be associated with the remaining exporters.”

COMMERCE NAME CHANGE—NOW ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

On October 22, 2013, the Commerce Department changed the name of the organizational unit assigned to administer and calculate antidumping and countervailing duty rates from “Import Administration” to “Enforcement and Compliance.”  In the attached Federal Register notice, COMMERCE NAME CHANGE Commerce states that “The revision more accurately reflects the breadth of the agency’s activities with respect to the enforcement of, and compliance with U.S. trade laws and agreements.”

IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA/IMPORTERS’ LOBBYING COALITION

As mentioned in prior newsletters, we are working with APCO, a well-known lobbying/government relations firm in Washington DC, on establishing a US importers/end users lobbying coalition to lobby against the expansion of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws against China.

On September 18, 2013, ten US Importers agreed to form the Import Alliance for America. The objective of the Coalition will be to educate the US Congress and Administration on the damaging effects of the US China trade war, especially US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, on US importers and US downstream industries.

We will be targeting two major issues—Working for market economy treatment for China in 2016 and working against retroactive liability for US importers. The key point of our arguments is that these changes in the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws are to help US companies, especially US importers and downstream industries. We will also be advocating for a public interest test in antidumping and countervailing duty cases and standing for US end user companies.

We are now contacting many US importers and also Chinese companies to ask them to contact their US import companies to see if they interested in participating in the Alliance.  Changes to the US antidumping and countervailing duty law against China can only happen because of a push by US importers and end user companies.  In US politics, only squeaky wheels get the grease.

CUSTOMS

HONEYGATE GOES ON

On November 15, 2013, the Justice Department announced that a Federal judge in Illinois sentenced Jun Yang, a U.S.-based honey broker, to three years in federal prison for his role in a scheme to evade nearly $38 million in antidumping duties on imports of Chinese honey into the U.S.  In March Jun Yang pled guilty to mislabeling Chinese honey and declaring falsely to Customs that the honey originated from India or Malaysia to avoid the antidumping duties on Chinese honey.  Yang has already paid $2.89 million in penalties to the US government.

According to Gary Hartwig, an agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations unit “This is a significant sentence against a perpetrator of one of the largest food fraud schemes uncovered in U.S. history.  Together with our partners at Customs and Border Protection, we will continue to protect American industries from deceptive import practices, while facilitating the lawful flow of goods across our borders that is so critical to the U.S. economy.”

DOJ said that an undercover HSI agent helped uncover the scheme. Court filings show that Yang delivered 778 container loads of honey to processors and distributors that were falsely declared as Malaysian or Indian imports while knowing that all or some of the honey had originated in China.

Yang’s arrest was part of an ongoing government probe of Chinese honey smuggling operations that allegedly evaded a total of $180 million in antidumping duties.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASES AGAINST CHINESE COMPANIES, INCLUDING HUAWEI, ZTE, AND OTHER COMPANIES

On October 31, 2013, Rockstar Consortium filed a patent case against Huawei.  ROCKSTAR HUAWEI

On November 7, 2013, Mobile Telecommunications Technologies filed a patent case against ZTE. ZTE CASE

On November 8, 2013, Secure Nova LLC filed a patent case against ZTE. SECURE ZTE CASE

On November 15, 2013, Bendpak filed a trademark, trade secrets, unfair competition case against Qingdao Lianhai Hydraulic Machinery Co. QINGDAOTMK

On November 26, 2013, Long Corner Consumer Electronics filed a patent case against Huawei. LONGCORNER HUAWEI

On November 26, 2013, Crossroads Systems Inc. filed a patent case against Huawei. CROSSROADS HUAWEI

On November 26, 2013, Memory Integrity filed a patent case against Hisense. HISENSE

ANTITRUST

VITAMIN C CASE

The Vitamin C case is wrapping up at the District Court level.

As mentioned in my last post, the October 16, 2013 proposed settlement agreement with China Pharmaceutical Group Ltd. and Weisheng Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided for the payment of Plaintiffs’ legal fees of $7.8 million plus $1.5 million in expenses by the Chinese companies.  In other words, the Chinese respondent companies pay the legal fees of the US lawyers bringing the case.

On November 26, 2013, in the attached memorandum order and decision, VITAMIN C JUDGMENT the Federal Court rejected arguments by Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Hebei”) and North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. (“NCPGC”) that as a matter of law they should not be found guilty under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for price fixing.  The effect of the Court’s decision is to leave in place a judgment of $153 million damages award against the two companies.

The most important part of the decision is the response to Hebei and NCPGC’s arguments that the Act of State, Foreign Sovereign Compulsion, and International Comity doctrines bar the jury’s verdict as a matter of law under the US antitrust law.  As the Court states in the attached decision on pages 1-3:

“First, defendants argue that the jury’s verdict against them is barred as a matter of law by the doctrines of act of state, foreign sovereign compulsion, and international comity.  In essence, defendants contend that the Court’s prior rulings that Chinese law did not compel defendants’ actions were erroneous and that plaintiffs’ claims never should have been brought before a jury.  . . . The Court stands by and reaffirms its prior rulings that Chinese law did not compel defendants to engage in antitrust violations, that the doctrines of act of state and international comity do not bar plaintiffs’ suit, and that it was inappropriate to present evidence about the meaning of Chinese laws to the jury. Nothing has changed from these pretrial rulings and defendants have stated no additional grounds to revisit them.”

“Moreover, defendants ignore that one purpose of the trial in this matter was to determine whether, regardless of what Chinese law authorized, defendants’ conduct was actually compelled by the Chinese government as a matter of a fact. Therefore, the Court instructed the jury that it was required to return a defense verdict if defendants proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Chinese government actually compelled them to fix the price or limit the supply of vitamin C and defendants have not challenged this instruction.”

“There was ample evidence presented at trial from which the jury could have found that the Chinese government did not actually compel defendants’ decisions to fix the price and limit the supply of vitamin C – including evidence suggesting that the “verification and chop” mechanism did not actually compel defendants to enter into anticompetitive agreements and that the Vitamin C Subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce of Medicines and Health Products Importers and Exporters (the “Chamber”) was a voluntary trade association. Moreover, in rejecting the compulsion defense, the jury necessarily assessed the credibility of witnesses’ testimony and, on a Rule 50(b) motion, the Court may not second-guess those determinations. . . .”

“Nor, despite defendants’ suggestion, was it error for the Court to exclude from the jury copies of Chinese laws and regulations and witness testimony about the meaning and content of those laws. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1, the determination of foreign law is a question of law. It is for the Court, not for the jury, to decide questions of law and the Court did so when it ruled that, as a matter of law, Chinese law did not compel defendants’ conduct. Accordingly, defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the act of state, foreign sovereign compulsion, and international comity doctrines is denied.”

The Court rejected the arguments of the two Chinese companies and in addition issued an injunction enjoining the Chinese companies from fixing prices in the future.

During my recent trip to China, many Chinese companies and the Chambers of Commerce simply did not realize that US judgments against Chinese companies can be enforced through Chinese bank branches in New York City.  We are presently representing a major Chinese bank in litigation in New York City in which the US lawyer, David Boies, is attempting to get money damages from the Chinese bank in China through its bank branch in New York city.  This same lawyer, David Boies, is a Plaintiff attorney in the Vitamin C case.

The times they are a changing and the Chinese companies should understand that they are now vulnerable to attacks from US litigation.

JAPANESE AUTO PARTS ANTITRUST CASES

On November 26 and 27, 2013, the Justice Department issued two announcements that Toyo Tire and Rubber TOYO GUILTY and Stanley Electric STANLEY ELECTRIC had agreed to plead guilty to price fixing on automobile parts installed in US cars.  Although these Auto Parts antitrust cases are against Japanese and Taiwan companies, they should be of interest to Chinese auto parts and other companies and US importers.

With regards to the plea by Toyo, the Justice Department issued the attached announcement stating:

“Japan-based Toyo Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd. has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $120 million criminal fine for its role in two separate conspiracies to fix the prices of automotive components involving anti-vibration rubber and driveshaft parts installed in cars sold in the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today.”

“According to a two-count felony charge filed today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Toledo, Toyo engaged in a conspiracy to allocate sales of, to rig bids for, and to fix the prices of automotive antivibration rubber parts it sold to Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Corp., Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. – more commonly known by its brand name, Subaru – and certain of their subsidiaries, affiliates and suppliers, in the United States and elsewhere.  . . .”

“In addition, according to the charge, Toyo engaged in a separate conspiracy to allocate sales of, and to fix, raise and maintain the prices of automotive constant-velocity-joint boots it sold to U.S. subsidiaries of GKN plc, a British automotive parts supplier. . . .”

“Today’s charge is the latest step in the Antitrust Division’s effort to hold automobile part suppliers accountable for their illegal and collusive conduct,” said Renata B. Hesse, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The division continues to vigorously prosecute companies and individuals that seek to maximize their profits through illegal and anticompetitive means.”

“The department said the company and its co-conspirators carried out the conspiracies through meetings and conversations, discussed and agreed upon bids, price quotations and price adjustments, and agreed to allocate among the companies certain sales of the anti-vibration rubber and constant-velocity-joint boots parts sold to automobile and component manufacturers.”

“Including Toyo, 22 companies and 26 executives have been charged in the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into the automotive parts industry. All 22 companies have either pleaded guilty or have agreed to plead guilty and have agreed to pay more than $1.8 billion in criminal fines. Of the 26 executives, 20 have been sentenced to serve time in U.S. prisons or have entered into plea agreements calling for significant prison sentences. . . .”

“The charges are the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other anticompetitive conduct in the automotive parts industry, which is being conducted by each of the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement sections and the FBI.”

CHINA ANTITRUST CASES

On November 25, 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported that Qualcomm is subject to an antitrust investigation in China and Cisco is facing retaliation because of the actions of the US Congress against Huawei.  The investigation by the NDRC in China is regarding Qualcomm’s patent royalties on chips used for handsets.

Qualcomm’s chief executive acknowledged the investigation and indicated that the investigation is in response to U.S. restrictions on Chinese companies and revelations about surveillance by the National Security Agency.

Qualcomm, however, is the largest maker of processors and communications chips for mobile phone and has a dominant position in the high-speed technology called LTE that Chinese carriers are moving to adopt.

Qualcomm charges for patent royalties to mobile phone makers for use of its chips have resulted in South Korean and Japanese antitrust cases. Qualcomm is appealing adverse rulings in both countries.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Qualcomm Chief Executive Paul Jacobs said the de facto U.S. ban on telecom gear maker Huawei Technologies and revelations about NSA spying were affecting Qualcomm’s business in China.  Executives of Cisco Systems also recently suggested that Chinese customers are cutting purchases of US tech gear because of the reaction to the US ban.

What goes around, comes around.

SECURITIES

COMPLAINTS

A number of new securities complaints cases have been filed against Chinese companies.

On October 29, 2013, Pang filed a class action securities case against NQ Mobile and various Chinese individuals. PANGNQ

On October 30, 2013 Hiller filed a class action securities action against NQ Mobile and various Chinese individuals. HILLER NQ

On November 5, 2013 Gangaramai filed a class action securities action against NQ Mobile and various Chinese individuals. GANGNQMOBILE

On November 14, 2013 Martin filed a class action securities action against NQ Mobile and various Chinese individuals. MARTINNQMOBILE

In talking with insurance brokers in China, it is now clear that the reason that the Chinese individuals are named in Class Action Securities cases is that insurance companies often insure the individuals that are in management or on the Board of Directors, but not the companies themselves

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

In November 2013, three Dorsey partners, Tom Gorman, who was formerly with the enforcement division of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Nick Akerman, Nike Burkill and Aidan Colclough published the attached Anti-Corruption Digest regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other UK Legal Actions against bribery. FCPA DIGEST

With regards to China the Dorsey partners state:

“FCPA Compliance in China “

“The US China Business Council (the “USCBC”) has published a report which provides an insight into practices which can assist companies doing business in the higher risk environment of the PRC. The report, entitled Best Practices for Managing Compliance in China, is based on a survey of 30 companies doing business in China, spanning a variety of industry sectors.”

“The survey highlights compliance practices currently being utilized by companies doing business in China. These include:

— Entertainment. One of the key risks faced by companies stems from commercial and government entertainment. 94% of the firms responding in the survey reported using mandatory monetary thresholds or limits on the amount that can be spent on entertainment and gift giving. 44% of those companies use global company wide limits in U.S. dollars while 56% keep the thresholds in local currency. The average threshold for entertainment expenses in China is about $72 per event.

–Gifts. Gift giving is a key issue because it is a customary practice in China. Most companies reported that they discourage gifts. When they are unavoidable, typically firms favor giving gifts of minimal monetary value with corporate logos such as flash drives, calendars, notebooks and small toys directly related to the business of the company. Most companies also maintain a threshold for gifts. The average amount for those in the survey was $57.

–Whistleblowers. Nearly all of the companies in the survey offer hotlines for staff to anonymously report compliance concerns. The most successful are those with multi-lingual support and local call-in numbers.

–Joint ventures. Given the local laws restricting the modes of foreign investment in China, these present one of the most challenging issues. Companies in the survey stated the importance of continually discussing compliance to ensure that it is considered a priority in the partnership. Given that a foreign partner may not always have direct input with regards to the joint venture’s day-to-day operations, the respondents noted that it is vital to ensure that senior leaders at the joint venture company continually reinforce the compliance message.”

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade, customs, false claims act, 337, patent, antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR–TRADE, CHINA BANK COLLECTIONS, PATENTS/337, SECURITIES

US Capitol Dome Houses of Congress Washington DCDear Friends,

There have been some major developments in the trade, solar cells, collection actions against Chinese banks, 337/patents, antitrust and securities areas.

TRADE

 

SOLAR CELLS—CHINESE ANTIDUMPING CASE ON POLYSILICON PUTS WASHINGTON STATE/USA JOBS AT RISK

On August 20, 2013, in the attached article the Seattle Times reported about the impact of the Chinese Polysilicon Antidumping and Countervailing Duty case against the United States on REC Silicon, a Washington State manufacturer of polysilicon.  POLYSILICON IMPACT REC SILICON  The article states:

“REC Silicon, a large manufacturer of solar-grade polysilicon in Central Washington, warns of a “massive blow” to its business if China and the United States don’t resolve a trade dispute.”

The article goes on to state:

“REC Silicon, with 500 workers in this Central Washington town, annually produces enough solar-grade polysilicon to power more than 2 million homes. But a global trade battle over solar panels threatens to plunge REC and its local workforce into financial crisis.

China last month slapped hefty duties on U.S.-made polysilicon in a move widely seen as retaliation for American tariffs imposed last year on imports of Chinese solar panels. Now, China’s solar-panel producers face a 57 percent tariff on polysilicon bought from REC, raising the likelihood that they’ll get the raw material elsewhere.

Chinese customers account for nearly 80 percent of the polysilicon produced in Moses Lake, so the stakes are huge, said REC general counsel Francine Sullivan.  “This is potentially a massive blow to our business. We’re doing all we can to keep going, but we can’t manage too much longer without government help,” she said. . . .

Polysilicon, a hyper-pure form of silicon, is the main material in solar panels. REC places fifth on an IHS ranking of the world’s largest polysilicon producers. Last fall, the United States imposed tariffs of 30 to 35 percent on solar panels from China after finding that unfair government subsidies had enabled Chinese producers to sell below cost.

A group of seven U.S. solar panel makers, including the American division of Germany-based SolarWorld, which operates a plant in Oregon, set off the investigation after filing a trade complaint against China.

REC warned that steep tariffs on Chinese imports would drive up solar energy costs, dampen consumer demand and destroy jobs. Chief Executive Officer Tore Torvund also said China might use the tariffs as an excuse to introduce duties on U.S.-made polysilicon.  In an April 2012 op-ed piece for The Seattle Times, Torvund noted that uncertainty surrounding the trade dispute already had caused REC to put off a planned $1 billion investment in new capacity at the Moses Lake plant.

“Other companies in every segment of the industry may also hedge their bets,” he wrote. Indeed, Dow Corning-owned Hemlock Semiconductor, the third-largest polysilicon producer, announced plans in January to lay off 400 employees at its Michigan and Tennessee plants, citing an oversupply of solar panels and the potential for Chinese tariffs. . . .

As expected, China’s Ministry of Commerce moved July 18 to enact preliminary tariffs on U.S. polysilicon, setting REC’s rate at 57 percent and Hemlock’s at 53 percent. The duties are an initial step before a final ruling due next February. . . .

To supporters of a U.S.-China trade accord, REC serves two bigger purposes: Not only is it part of America’s green-energy push, but it also provides the sort of jobs sorely lacking in today’s still-struggling economy.

“It would be a big blow to the community if they were to lose them,” said Brian Bonlender, director of the Washington state Department of Commerce. “We’re taking this very seriously, because there’s no doubt a lot of jobs in jeopardy right now.”

What goes around in the US China Trade War comes around.

GLYCINE CASE

An illustration of how the Commerce Department can use surrogate values to distort antidumping rates is the Glycine from China case.  In the 2012 antidumping review investigation, after years of using India as a surrogate country, Commerce switched surrogate countries to Indonesia.  Since Indonesia does not have good surrogate values for raw material/chemical inputs, such as chlorine, Commerce calculated a dumping margin that went from 52 to 452% for Baoding Mantong.  No dumping rate is too high for Commerce.  As you know, US importers are retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

NEW ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY REVIEW INVESTIGATIONS

On August 28, 2013 the Commerce Department initiated antidumping and countervailing duty review investigations on Certain Steel Gratings from China.  Chinese companies in the review are listed below:

Anping Jinyuan Metal, Anping Jinyuan Metal Co., Ltd., Comtrust Metal & Ware Mesh Products Co. Ltd., Dalian AW Gratings,     Dalian AW Gratings, Ltd., Fujian Youxi Best Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Webforge Grating Co., Ltd., Hebei Jinshi Industrial Metal Co., Ltd., Jiashan Qilmei Grating Co., Ltd., Kingjoy Building Decorative Materials Co., Ltd., Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd., Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd., Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong Electronic Equipment Factory, Shanghai Shenhao Steel Structure Designing Co., Ltd., Shanghai DAHE Grating Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd., Tianchang Flying-Dragon Metallic Products Co., Ltd., Qing Auging Mechanical Xinxing Grating Factory, Yantai Hercules Metal Ltd., Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd., Zhejian Hengzhou Steel Grating Co., Ltd.

Also another antidumping (“AD”) review was initiated on Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from China.  Chinese companies are listed below:

Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Beijing Jia Mei AO Trading Co., Ltd., Beijing Jinghua Global Trading Co., Ltd., Benxi Northern Steel Pipes, Co. Ltd., CNOOC Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd., ETCO (China) International Trading Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Juyi Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial, Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Liaoning Northern Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Pangang Chengdu Group Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Shanghai Zhongyou TIPO Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Haoyou Industry Trade Co., Ltd., Tianjin Baolai International Trade Co., Ltd., Tianjin Longshenghua Import & Export, Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., WISCO & CRM Wuhan Materials & Trade, Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd.

If Chinese companies in these cases exported these products during the July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013 review period, they must enter a notice of appearance and apply for a separate antidumping rate.  Failure to do so will result in the Chinese company receiving the highest antidumping rate, and the US importer of such products during the review period being exposed to substantial retroactive liability.

IMPORTERS’ LOBBYING COALITION/AMERICAN IMPORT COALITION

As mentioned in prior newsletters, we are working with APCO, a well-known lobbying/government relations firm in Washington DC, on establishing a US importers/end users lobbying coalition to lobby against the expansion of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws against China.

The objective of the Coalition will be to educate the US Congress and Administration on the damaging effects of the US China trade war, especially US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, on US importers and US downstream industries.

We will be targeting two major issues—Working for market economy treatment for China in 2016 and working against retroactive liability for US importers. The key point of our arguments is that these changes in the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws are to help US companies, especially US importers and downstream industries.

If anyone is interested in the Coalition, please feel free to contact me.

CHINESE ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW

SILICON STEEL—GOES

The limitation on the US pressure on the Chinese government’s implementation of its antidumping and countervailing duty laws is indicated by the attached August 12th announcement by the Chinese government that it has fully complied with the WTO rulings against the Chinese government’s determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty case aimed at imports of US grain-oriented flat rolled electrical steel (GOES). MOFCOM GOES ANNOUNCEMENT The US industry disagrees.

In response to the WTO decision, China lowered the countervailing duty (“CVD”) rate facing AK Steel from 11.7 percent to 3.4 percent. MOFCOM also lowered the CVD rate facing ATI Allegheny Ludlum, the other main company affected by the case, down from its previous rate of 12 percent to 3.4%.

Concerning antidumping (“AD”) rates, China did not alter the AD duties of 7.9 percent and 19.9 percent on steel exports from AK Steel and Allegheny Ludlum, respectively, although it did lower the “all others” AD rate from 64.8 percent to 13.8 percent.

China maintains that the Appellate Body ruling did not require it to alter the AD rates facing the two primary steel companies.

This dispute between the US and China on US exports of GOES has been going on for years. Meanwhile, however, the United States has imposed numerous antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of Chinese steel.

In addition, because US importers are exposed to retroactive liability on Chinese imports under the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, no US importer dares to keep importing Chinese steel once cases are filed. So the real effect of steel antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China is to shut out Chinese steel imports into the United States.

No other country exposes its importers to retroactive liability under the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Only the United States.

When viewed in this context, it is easier to understand why the Chinese government is playing the trade game in the GOES case.

LITIGATION AGAINST CHINESE BANKS TO COLLECT US JUDGMENTS AGAINST CHINESE COMPANIES

In prior posts, I have mentioned that US Plaintiffs could bring an action against Chinese banks in New York Federal District to recover money owed on US judgments by Chinese companies.  Attached is a complaint that was just filed on September 4, 2013 for garnishment in the US Federal District Court in New York against the Chinese Industrial and Commercial Bank for judgment debts owed by Chinese tire companies.  TIRES COLLECTION CASE

Plaintiffs sued Chinese companies, Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., Ltd., Linglong Group Co., Ltd., Shandong Linglong Tire Co., Ltd., AI Dobowi Ltd., Al Dobowi Tyre Co., LLC, Tyrex International, Ltd., and Tyrex International Rubber Co., Ltd., (collectively, “Judgment Debtors”) and in July 2010 a jury empaneled by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held the Judgment Debtors jointly and severally liable for, among other claims, copyright infringement and conversion and awarded the Plaintiffs $26 million. The Eastern District of Virginia entered the judgment for $26,000,000 against the Judgment Debtors in the case, captioned In re: Outsidewall Tire Litigation, 1 :09-cv-1217 (E.D. Va. ), on October 28, 2010 (the “Judgment”).

Now the US Plaintiffs have sued the Chinese Bank Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank in New York saying give me the assets of the companies in China that you the Bank have to satisfy this $26 million judgment.

Note that this case is to recover money held by the Chinese bank in China to apply to the $26 million US judgment against the Chinese tire companies.  Lesson, the Chinese companies can run, but they can no longer hide from US judgments.

PATENTS

NEW 337 CASES

TIRES

On August 14, 2013 Toyo Tire filed a new section 337 design patent case against imports of tires from China.  The notice is set forth below:

Docket No: 2973

Document Type: 337 Complaint

Filed By: V. James Adduci, II

Firm/Org: Adduci, Mastriani and Schaumberg

Behalf Of: Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc., Toyo tire U.S.A. Corp., Nitto Tire U.S.A. Inc., and Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing Inc.

Date Received: August 14, 2013

Commodity: Tires

Description: Letter to Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary, USITC; requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended regarding Certain Tires and Products Containing Same. The respondents are: Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co., Ltd., China; Weifang Shunfuchang Rubber & Plastic Co., Ltd., China; Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre Co., Ltd., China; Shandong Yongtai Chemical Group Co., Ltd., China; MHT Luxury Alloys, Rancho Dominguez, CA; Wheel Warehouse, Inc., Anaheim, CA; Shandong Linglong Tyre co., Ltd., China; Dunlap & Kyle Company, Inc., d/b/a Gateway Tire and Service, Batesville, MS; Unicorn Tire Corp., Memphis, TN; West KY Customs, LLC, Benton, KY; Svizz-One Corporation Ltd., Thailand; South China Tire and Rubber Co., Ltd., China; American Omni Trading co., LLC, Houston, TX; Tire & Wheel Master, Inc., Stockton, CA; Simple Tire, Cookeville, TN; WTD Inc., Cerritos, CA; Guangzhou South China Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., China; Turbo Wholesale Tires, Inc., Irwindale, CA; TireCrawler.com, Downey, CA; Lexani Tire Worldwide, Inc., Irwindale, CA; Vittore Wheel & Tire, Asheboro, NC; and RTM Wheel & Tire, Asheboro, NC.

OUTDOOR GRILLS

On August 21, 2013, A&J Manufacturing filed a 337 patent case against imports of Outdoor Grills from China and other Countries.  A&J also filed numerous patent cases in Federal District Court at the same time targeting the Chinese and other foreign respondent companies.  The ITC notice is listed below along with the names of the target companies.

Docket No: 2974

Document Type: 337 Complaint

Filed By: V. James Adduci, II

Firm/Org: Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg

Behalf Of: A&J Manufacturing LLC and A&J Manufacturing Inc.

Date Received: August 21, 2013

Commodity: Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts

Description:

Letter to Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary, USITC; requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended regarding Certain Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof. The respondents are: The Brinkmann Corporation, Dallas, TX; W.C. Bradley Co., Columbus, GA; GHP Group, Inc., Morton Grove, IL; Kamado Joe Company, Duluth, GA; Outdoor Leisure Products Inc., Neosho, MO; Rankam Group, Gardena, CA; Academy Ltd, Katy, TX; HEB Grocery Company d/b/a H-E-B, San Antonio, TX; Kmart Corporation, Hoffman Estates, IL; Sears Brands Management Corporation, Hoffman Estates, IL; Sears Holding Corporation, Hoffman Estates, IL; Sears, Roebuck, & Company, Hoffman Estates, IL; Tractor Supply Company, Brentwood, TN; Guangdong Canbo Electrical Co., Ltd, China; Chant Kitchen Equipment (HK) Ltd, China; Dongguan Kingsun Enterprises Co., Ltd, China; Zhejiang Fudeer, China; Ningbo Huige, China; Keesung Manufacturing Co., Ltd, China; Ningbo Spring Communication, China; and Wuxi Joyray International Corp., China.

Complaints are available upon request.

NEW PATENT CASES AGAINST HUAWEI AND ZTE

On August 13, 2013, Hopewell Culture & Design LLC filed the attached patent case against Huawei and ZTE.  HOPEWELLHUAWEIZTE

On August 15, 2013, Wyncomm filed the attached patent case against Huawei. WYNCOMM HUAWEI

On August 23, 2013, Straight Path IP Group, Inc. filed the attached patent cases against Huawei and ZTE. STRAIGHT PATH HUAWEI STRAIGHT PATH ZTE

ANTITRUST

AUTO PARTS TAIWAN

Two class action antitrust complaints were filed in on August 21st and August 30th against Taiwan auto parts producers for price fixing.  AUTO PARTS TAIWAN ANTITRUST COMPLAINT AUTO PARTS TAIWAN ANTITRUST COMPLAINT FIREMAN’S AUTO PARTS TAIWAN

SECURITIES

COMPLAINTS

Attached is a class actions Securities case that was filed in the New York Federal District Court on August 27th against Lightinthebox Holding Co. located in Beijing, China.  LIGHTINTHE BOX HOLDING

Attached is a class actions Securities case filed against PetroChina in New York Federal District Court on September 3, 2013.  PETRO CHINA CLASS ACTION SECURITIES CASE

CHINA NORTH EAST PETROLEUM SECURITIES SETTLEMENT

Attached is a memorandum of law filed on August 19th in New York Federal court in which China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd. has agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a proposed securities class action accusing it of improper accounting and embezzlement. CHINA PETROLEUM MOTION FOR PAYOFF The settlement ends the consolidated class action brought in 2010 claiming the company’s improper accounting tactics led to an overstatement of its net profit in 2008 and 2009.

CNEP was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange in May 2010, after various accounting issues forced it to restate financial results from 2008 and 2009, and its stock price dropped when it was relisted in September 2010.

HOW TO CATCH A TIGER—DORSEY ARTICLE ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ACTIONS IN HONG KONG AND THE US

Three Dorsey lawyers have recently written an article on the how Government Securities Enforcement Agencies in Hong Kong and the US have coordinated their enforcement actions to go after a company that specializes in investments in China, Japan and Korea.

Thomas Gorman is a partner in Dorsey & Whitney’s Washington, D.C. office and used to work in the enforcement division of the US Securities and Exchange Commission. David Richardson and Eden McMahon are partners in the firm’s Hong Kong office.

The Article is important because it demonstrates how Chinese companies listed in the US and HK can face enforcement actions for the same violations in two different countries.

The Article is set forth below:

How To Catch A Tiger —On Both Sides Of The Pacific

Government securities enforcement agencies in Hong Kong and the United States have been pursuing Tiger Asia Management and its affiliates for four years with claims of insider trading and market manipulation on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. In Hong Kong, that pursuit has resulted in an important legal precedent regarding the arsenal of weapons available to the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. In the United States, it has demonstrated the ability of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission working in tandem with the U.S. Department of Justice to exact significant enforcement remedies relating to overseas transactions even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Bank of Australia (2010).

Tiger Asia: A New York Hedge Fund Trading in Hong Kong

Tiger Asia is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in New York City specializing in equity investments in China, Japan and Korea. It has no physical presence or employees in Hong Kong, but maintained accounts in Hong Kong to enable it to trade in Hong Kong securities. All of Tiger Asia’s employees are in New York.

As a hedge fund, Tiger Asia is able to take short positions in equities. Between 2008 and 2009, Tiger Asia participated in three private placements for the securities of two Chinese banks. In each instance the placing agents approached Raymond Park, the head trader for the funds, about participating in a private placement of bank shares. Park agreed in his New York office. Prior to being given details of the placement, he agreed to Tiger Asia being “wall crossed,” a term used in the financial services industry to mean it agreed to receive price-sensitive information that was not generally known to the public, as part of selective pre-marketing of an offering to potential investors.

After entering into the wall-crossing agreements, under which Tiger Asia agreed not to trade shares of the banks, Bill Hwang ordered Park to short sell the relevant stock on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in the days prior to each placement. Park did not inform the placement agent in either instance that their agreement had been breached.

As a result of the trading, Tiger Asia had net trading profits of about HK$16.2 million (US$2.09 million).

Hong Kong Securities Enforcement Legal Framework

Hong Kong has a dual civil/criminal regime to deal with misconduct in the financial markets under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). There is the Market Misconduct Tribunal (MMT), on the one hand, which imposes civil liability for market misconduct and can make orders barring a person from being a director or manager of a corporation, or from dealing in securities and can order disgorgement of any profits made or losses avoided to the Hong Kong government.

On the other hand, the SFO creates criminal offenses for various types of market misconduct. The two regimes are mutually exclusive, and proceedings brought by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (HK SFC) under one means there can be no further proceedings under the other.

The question under consideration in the Hong Kong courts to date was essentially whether or not section 213 of the SFO, under which the courts have wide-ranging power to make a number of injunctions and orders on the application of the HK SFC, provides a “third route” for final orders, or if a prosecution under Part XIV or proceedings before the MMT under Part XIII was a prerequisite.

Proceedings in the Hong Kong Courts

The HK SFC applied for various orders against Tiger Asia. The HK SFC based its action on section 213(1), which states that where a person has contravened any of the relevant provisions (including the prohibition on insider dealing), the Court of First Instance (CFI) may make orders on the application of the HK SFC.

In HK SFC v. Tiger Asia, Hwang, Park and Tomita, the CFI[1], held that the court did not have the jurisdiction to make the declarations sought by the HK SFC because the criminal court or the MMT had not yet determined whether there had been a contravention of the relevant market misconduct provisions; the CFI had no jurisdiction to itself decide whether or not there had been a contravention.

The HK SFC appealed. The Court of Appeal[2] allowed the appeal and ruled that section 213 procedures are freestanding from the dual civil/criminal market misconduct process.

On April 30, 2013, the Court of Final Appeal[3] (CFA), in a unanimous decision, confirmed the decision in the Court of Appeal and held that the CFI does have independent jurisdiction to make orders under section 213 without any prior finding by a criminal court or the MMT in respect of any contravention of the relevant provisions of the SFO. Part of the reasoning of the court is that section 213 is concerned with providing remedies for the benefit of parties involved in the impugned transactions, and serves a different purpose from the penalties that can be imposed by a criminal court or the MMT. As we will see below, the HK SFC is keen to act as both a prosecutor in the general public interest and protector of the collective interests of the persons dealing in the market who have been injured by market misconduct.

Civil and Criminal Enforcement in the United States

SEC v. Tiger Asia Management LLC (D. N.J. Filed Dec. 12, 2012) is an action of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against the firm.

The complaint of the SEC centers on two sets of transactions. First, the short and long sales of shares in the two banks as noted above. Second, the complaint focuses on an attempted manipulation on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.

In four instances, Tiger Asia attempted to manipulate the month-end closing prices of certain stocks listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The stocks were among its largest short holdings. In each instance, Tiger Asia placed trades that were intended to depress the price of the stock, thereby increasing the value of its short position. Since the management of Tiger Asia was paid a fixed annual management fee equal to 1.5 percent of the value of the net assets of the fund, calculated at the end of the month, this action increased the fees by US$496,000. The SEC’s complaint alleges violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[4], section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933[5], and sections 206(1), 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act.[6]

The defendants settled the action, consenting to the entry of permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations of the sections cited in the complaint. In addition, defendants Hwang and Tiger Asia will collectively pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest of US$19,048,787. Each also agreed to pay a penalty of  US$8,294,348. Park agreed to pay US$39,819 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a penalty of US$34,897.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey announced a parallel criminal action against Tiger Asia. The disgorgement and prejudgment interest paid by defendants Hwang and Tiger Asia will be paid to the criminal authorities.

Conclusion

The availability of section 213 relief is of particular importance to the HK SFC in the context of combating market misconduct perpetrated by offshore market participants. A reason why the HK SFC opted for section 213 in pursuing its action against Tiger Asia was to avoid what it perceives as the slow and cumbersome procedure under the MMT regime, which can result in many years passing before a determination of a contravention is reached. In the absence of a relevant bilateral extradition agreement, it will often be difficult (if not impossible) for prosecutions to be made against the offshore wrongdoer.[7]

Moreover, section 213 is not limited to insider trading or market misconduct offenses, but also applies to alleged contraventions of any SFO provisions as well as certain provisions of the Companies Ordinance and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financing Institutions) Ordinance.[8]

The response of the HK SFC should also be taken as a solemn reminder for offshore wrongdoers who wish to take advantage of the difficulty of cross-country law enforcement: The HK SFC has instituted MMT civil proceedings (as criminal proceedings have been instituted in the United States) recently against Tiger Asia. This is the first time the HK SFC has instituted proceedings in the MMT directly. Meanwhile, proceedings under section 213 are expected to continue.

Across the Pacific, the SEC action against Tiger Asia illustrates the reach of the agency. Despite the clear ruling by the Supreme Court in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd.[9] that section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act does not reach transactions where the purchase or sale did not occur in the United States, the action brought here by the SEC relied in part on that provision.

Other courts have held that the Morrison limitation also applies to section 17(a) of the Securities Act, a second statute relied on by the SEC to bring this action. In contrast, at least one court has held that Morrison does not apply to sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act. Whether the SEC would have been able to sustain this action in view of Morrison if the defendants had not elected to settle is at best problematic. Since the U.S. wire fraud statute on which the criminal case is based is not limited by Morrison, the U.S. Attorney did not face the same limitation in filing its charges.

–By Thomas O. Gorman, David A. Richardson and Eden McMahon, Dorsey & Whitney

LLP

[1] HCMP 1502/2009

[2] CACV 178/2011

[3] FACV Nos 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2012

[4] This is the principal statutory weapon against fraud.

[5] This is a key anti-fraud provision in the Securities Act. It provides for liability for fraudulent sales of securities. Section 17(a) makes it unlawful to “employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud,” “obtain money or property” by using material misstatements or omissions,” or to “engage in any transaction, practice or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.” This provision is closely tracked by section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

[6] The sections laid down the prohibited transactions by registered investment advisers.

[7] The primary legislation governing the surrender of fugitive offenders between Hong Kong and the United States is the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503) and the Fugitive Offenders (United States of America) Order (Cap. 503F), which contains the full text of the Agreement between Hong Kong and the United States for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders signed in 1996. Another related legislation is the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (Cap. 525) and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (United States of America) Order (Cap. 525F), which implements the Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of the United States of America on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters signed in 1997.

[8] Please see section 213 and Schedule 1 of the SFO.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade, customs, patent, antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

 

Law Blog Development & Digital Marketing by Adrian Dayton & Company