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 — 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–Developments in Trade, Trade Politics, Patents/IP, Antitrust and Securites

US Capitol North Side Construction Night Washington DC Reflectio“TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET”

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER MAY 18, 2015 UPDATE

Dear Friends,

I have been very busy over the last two months on a number of different cases.  Can now turn my attention back to the the blog.  But the recent events on Capitol Hill, especially the vote yesterday in the Senate to block passage of the TPA bill, has pushed me to send out the two lead stories today as an update because they are so timely.

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

Best regards,

Bill

TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY (“TPA”) FIGHT ON CAPITOL HILL

The major trade issue is Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) and the Trans Pacific Partnership and there are day to day changes.

After the Democrats in the Senate blocked the TPA bill from coming to the floor by a vote of 52 to 45 on May 12th, the Trade Adjustment Assistance (“TAA”) bill was put together with the TPA bill. The other two bills on Customs Enforcement and Africa are to be considered separately and the legislation is moving forward.

Today, May 18th and 19th TPA is being considered by the Senate with a final vote expected on May 19th.  To see fireworks in the Senate, see the following link in CSPAN http://www.c-span.org/video/?326082-1/us-senate-morning-business&live

On May 12, 2015, Democrats in the Senate blocked the TPA bill from coming to the floor by a vote of 52 to 45.  Four bills have been crafted to move together.  They are the TPA bill, Trade Adjustment Assistance (“TAA”) for workers and companies bill, Customs Enforcement Bill/‘‘Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015’’ and an African Trade Bill.  Copies of those bills are attachedCUSTOMS AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT BILL TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE BILL TRADE PREFERENCES ACT TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY BILL.

The key problem was the Customs Enforcement Bill because Senators Brown and Portman have put in the bill a specific provision that currency manipulation can be considered a countervailable subsidy.  That is a major problem for Republicans and also President Obama because a currency manipulation bill could be used to retaliate against US Exports because of the Federal Reserve Policy.  Remember Quantitative Easing?  Currency manipulation has not been defined and this is why Treasury Secretary Lew has been so cautious in going after China and other countries.  All trade law is based on reciprocity and what the United States does to one country, the other country can do back.

To see the Republican and Democratic arguments on May 12th on the Trade Bills, see http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4537385/senators-mitch-mcconnell-harry-reid-blocked-trade-promotion-authority-bill.  Also see speech by Senator Hatch at minute 24 at this link http://www.c-span.org/video/?325918-9/senators-mcconnell-reid-wyden-hatch-cornyn-trade-promotion-authority to get a better idea of what is going on.  Senator Hatch described currency manipulation as “a killer amendment” to the TPA.

Negotiations continue.  See Houses Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan’s response today to the Senate Vote that the entire world is watching, including China http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000379026

The key Senators are not the Democrats that are opposed to TPA, but the pro-trade Democrats.  After the TPA bill was blocked in the Senate on May 12th, President Obama met with a group of pro-trade Democrats at the White House in an effort to secure their support.  In addition to Senator Caper from Delaware, that group includes: Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.), the senior Democrat on the Finance panel and co-author of fast-track legislation.

Those Senators provided the important additional 9 votes, along with the two missing Republican votes, to push the TPA Bill in the Senate over the filibuster barrier of 60 votes to the finish line.

STEEL TRADE CASES ARE COMING

A number of companies have contacted with questions about potential Steel trade antidumping and countervailing duty cases against various countries with a primary target being China.  In discussions with a number of companies, the major steel targeted products are likely to be imports from China and a number of other countries of cold rolled steel, galvanized steel and possibly hot rolled steel.

On March 26, 2015, the Congressional Steel Caucus held a major hearing on Capitol Hill on the State of the Steel Industry.  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFUbn6lnNFM

The announcement for the hearing described it as follows:

Amidst the ongoing market turbulence in our domestic steel industry, the bi-partisan Congressional Steel Caucus will feature testimony from steel industry leaders, including several Pittsburgh-based experts. Earlier this month, U.S. Steel announced that its Keewatin, Minnesota facility would shut down operations as a result of the US market being flooded with low-cost imported foreign steel. Anticipated questions to be discussed include international trade practices, currency valuation; meeting steel market needs.

At the March 26th hearing the large US steel companies urged Congress to take action against “illegal trade practices” threatening the domestic steel industry.  At the Steel Caucus hearing, U.S. Steel President and CEO Mario Longhi and Nucor Corp. Chairman, CEO and President John Ferriola and others stated that the US government has been too easy in confronting foreign companies over unfair trade practices.

Mario Longhi of US Steel stated:

“This nation’s safety, security and prosperity depend upon indigenous capacity to respond to our essential national needs, in peacetime and in times of crisis.  [However], not since the late 1990s have we witnessed the torrent of steel imports. The last time we were at these levels, nearly half of American steel companies disappeared … American steel companies are being irreparably harmed by illegal trade practices.”

Longhi called for revised injury standards in the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws arguing that the ITC is too focused on operating profit margins.  At the meeting Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio pledged to help the steel companies through his “The Leveling the Playing Field Act”.

That pledge resulted in the proposed changes to the US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty laws in the Customs Enforcement Bill formally entitled ‘‘Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015’’Act presently before Congress.  That Bill is the one that includes the Currency Manipulation provision and will be voted on tomorrow in the Senate.

One provision in that Bill would change the way the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) does its injury investigations.  Specifically the Bill proposes to add an additional provision to the Material Injury provision used by the ITC in antidumping and countervailing duty cases to provide:

“(J) EFFECT OF PROFITABILITY.—The Commission shall not determine that there is no material injury or threat of material injury to an industry in the United States merely because that industry is profitable or because the performance of that industry has recently improved.’’

In talking with one friend at the ITC, he did not believe that the change would have that much impact on an ITC investigation, but the passage of the law will have an impact.

With this much smoke in the air regarding Steel imports, that usually means fire will follow.  I suspect we will see a number of trade cases against steel imports, probably at the end of June or early July.

When looking at Steel Trade problems one should understand that the US Steel Industry has had various amounts of trade protection from steel imports for close to 40 years.  Presently there are outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders against the following steel imports from China:  Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar (“Rebar”), Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”), Hot Rolled Carbon Steel, Carbon Steel Plate, Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe, Circular Welded Austentic Stainless Pressure Pipe, Steel Threaded Rod, Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe, Grain Oriented Electrical Steel, Non-Oriented Electrical Steel, and Prestressed Concrete Steel Rail Tie Wire.

Against China, it is easy to bring steel trade cases because Commerce does not use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping.  But when actual prices and costs are used against market economy countries, such as Korea, it is a much bigger problem.  Steel companies in market economy countries are expecting trade cases to be filed and have already used computer programs to run their numbers and make sure that they are not dumping.

So with 40 years of protection from steel imports, the question should be asked is Bethlehem Steel alive today?  Do the Trade Cases actually work to save the companies?  I believe that all the trade cases can do is delay the decline of the steel companies, but mess up the market during the mean time.  The real way to save steel companies is through the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program, which focuses at the micro level to help the companies adjust to import competition.

US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER FEBRUARY 19, 2015

SPEECH IN NANJING CHINA ON MARCH 9, 2015

Dear Friends,

On March 9, 2015, I will be giving a speech on US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty law, Solar cases, section 337 IP cases and Trade Politics in Nanjing China through the Jiangsu Professional Connection.  The web link for more details about the speech is as follows https://az199.infusionsoft.com/app/page/north-american-logistics-salon?inf_contact_key=5b5596bbfdd91501d97ab4dc9c6c8f58cc044086f560cb5c8d22a1a83cf36137.

You can also learn more about the speech from Scott Holbrook at scott.holbrook@smolakindustries.com  More details about the speech are set forth below:

When: Monday, March 9th 7:00pm (Pre-speech Drinks), 7:45pm (Anti-Dumping Presentation), 8:45pm (Networking Session)

Where: Secco Restaurant and Lounge, 132 Changhong Lu, Nanjing (PRC)

FEBRUARY NEWSLETTER

On January 11thth, I put up my last post stating that because of its length, I have broken up the post into two parts. This February post includes a Trade, Customs and IP update with longer sections on Antitrust and Securities law. My intent was to have a short Trade and Customs update but there is so much happening in the trade area, especially on Capitol Hill, that there are literally day to day developments. Because of the many developments, it has taken a while to put this post up.

TRADE

SPEECH

On January 21st I gave a speech at the Brooklyn Law School on US China Trade Disputes. Attached is a copy of the PowerPoint for the speech.  BROOKLYN US CHINA TRADE POWERPOINT  Set forth below is a link to Phoenix Television, which covered the speech, http://v.ifeng.com/news/finance/201501/0166aceb-5bc1-48d8-a2f0-109a495aa914.shtml. Phoenix Television has an estimated audience of 300 million people, and broadcasts in the PRC, Hong Kong, US, and other countries where there are Chinese communities. It is the largest private Chinese-language broadcaster in the world. In addition, the China Daily also covered the speech. See http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-01/23/content_19386984.htm.

OFFICE PAPER FROM CHINA

On January 21st, a major antidumping and countervailing duty case was filed against Uncoated/ Office Paper from China. Attached are a short form of the petition, International Trade Commission’s Notice of Investigation along with a Wall Street Journal Article quoting me about the new case.   OFFICE PAPER CHINA BRAZIL PETITION FED REG OFFICE PAPER ITC The Next Trade Fight Office Paper – WSJ

TIRES

On January 22nd, Commerce announced its preliminary antidumping determination in the Tires from China case. The Commerce Department Federal Register notice is attached FED REG TIRES AD PRELIM. The antidumping rates are from 19.17 to 36.26% with separate rates companies getting 27.72%. The China wide rate is 87.99%.

The big problem with the Commerce Department’s Preliminary Determination is that except for the mandatory respondents, all the rest of the Chinese companies were hit with critical circumstances exposing US importers to millions of dollars in retroactive liability covering imports going back 90 days prior to the preliminary determination.

The only way to get rid of retroactive liability is to fight the case at the US International Trade Commission in the final injury case. In the Solar Cells case on behalf of three importers I fought critical circumstances at the ITC and was able to eliminate close to $100 million in retroactive liability for US importers. But it took a fight at the ITC to win the case as we won on a 4-2 vote at the ITC. If the Commission had gone 3-3, we would have lost the argument.

In response to the Commerce Department’s determination in the Tires case, the Ministry of Commerce in Beijing (“MOFCOM”) condemned the decision stating that the case has “many flaws.” MOFCOM also stated, “Data shows that the U.S. tire industry is in good shape and gets good profit; imports from China did not cause damage to the domestic industry.”

In response, USW International President Leo W. Gerard stated: “It is the Commerce Department’s statutory duty to neutralize the negative effects of the dumped imports into the United States. Dumped imports have cost thousands of American tire workers their jobs. Left unchecked, the combination of illegal dumping and subsidization on imported tires from China would cost Americans tens of thousands of additional jobs.”

ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS

On January 21, 2015, in the attached decision, SHENYANG CURTAIN WALLS INSIDE SCOPE in Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry et. Al. vs. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) determined that imports of Chinese curtain wall, sides of buildings, are within the scope and covered by the US antidumping and countervailing duty orders on Aluminum Extrusions from China.

WOOD FLOORING FROM CHINA

On January 9, 2015, the Commerce Department issued its attached preliminary determination, WOOD FLOORING PRELIM FED REG NOTICE, in the Dec 1, 2012 to Nov 30, 2013 antidumping review investigation in Wood Flooring from China. Rates went up ranging from 0 to 58.84% with most companies getting 18.27%, up from 5.74% in the last review. The final determination will come out in six months. If the final determination stays the same and rates go up, US importers will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

To avoid this liability, importers should fight the review at Commerce.

We are presently in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit arguing against the ITC final injury determination. If we can win, this case may go away.

But retroactive liability for US importers is predictable in antidumping cases because of annual review investigations. Since Commerce can switch surrogate countries in annual review investigations, it is only a matter of time before antidumping rates go up and US importers find themselves liable for substantial antidumping duties. Chinese companies cannot know whether they are dumping and US importers cannot know, because no one knows which surrogate country Commerce will pick to value the raw material inputs and other factors of production.

That is why there is now a surge of Wood Flooring imports from Indonesia because of the fear of retroactive liability. This is exactly what we told the International Trade Commission (‘ITC”) would happen in the initial investigation and now it has happened. But the ITC ignored the argument.

It is also why we formed the Import Alliance for America, www.importallianceforamerica.com. See below. We are now attempting to gather importers together to meet with Congressional Trade Staff this month to speak about their problems.

COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES BECAUSE ANTIDUMPING DUTIES ARE REMEDIAL NOT DEDUCTED FROM US PRICE IN ANTIDUMPING CASES

On February 5, 2015, in the attached Apex Exports v. United States, APEX CAFC CASE, the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit determined that since antidumping duties are remedial, in calculating the US price to determine dumping when either the foreign exporter or an affiliated US importer is the importer of record, Commerce should not deduct the antidumping cash deposits from the US price. This means that if the import sale is structured correctly, foreign producers can reduce their antidumping rates because of the way Commerce calculates antidumping rates.

As the Court stated:

“Commerce considers antidumping duties as distinct from normal selling expenses and customs duties. Normal customs duties have no remedial purpose. . . . Antidumping duties, on the other hand, are special duties that implement a trade remedy. . . .As the CIT has described it, antidumping duties are “an element of a fair and reasonable price,” not an import duty or cost associated with importation. . . . Furthermore, legislative history signals that antidumping duties are special remedial duties, distinct from U.S. import duties. . . . It is therefore reasonable for Commerce not to treat antidumping duties as costs of importation when calculating EP. . . .

What is more, Commerce declines to deduct antidumping margins when calculating the margins because that would be inappropriately circular and result in a double counting of the remedy. In arguing otherwise, Ad Hoc misses the point of the antidumping statute. The goal of imposing the duty is to prevent dumping by effectively raising the price of subject merchandise in the U.S. to the fair value. The importer has less incentive to charge an unfairly low price, because it will have to make up the difference through a duty payment. . . .

Because Commerce’s interpretation of the antidumping statute is a permissible construction, the CIT’s decision to sustain Commerce’s refusal to deduct antidumping duties when calculating export price is affirmed.”

BOLTLESS STEEL SHELVING

On January 26, 2015, in the attached factsheet, CVD factsheet-prc-boltless-steel-shelving-units-cvd-prelim-012615, the Commerce Department announced an affirmative preliminary determination in the countervailing duty (CVD) case on Boltless Steel Shelving Units from China.

Commerce found preliminary subsidy rates ranging from 12.21 percent for Ningbo ETDZ Huixing Trade Co., Ltd. to 14.53 percent for Nanjing Topsun Racking Manufacturing Co., Ltd. All other producers/exporters in China have been assigned a preliminary subsidy rate of 13.37 percent. In addition, fourteen companies which did not respond to the quantity and value questionnaire received a preliminary subsidy rate of 55.75 percent, based on adverse facts available.

A preliminary antidumping determination in the case will be issued in about two months from now.

SOLAR PRODUCTS CASE—ITC AFFIRMATIVE INJURY DETERMINATION

On February 4, 2015, in the attached decision, ITC INJURY DETERMINATION PRODUCTS CASE, the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) reached an affirmative injury determination in the Solar Products from China case. As a result, antidumping and countervailing duty orders will be issued against all imports of Chinese solar panels with third country solar cells in them.

COMMERCE HAS INITIATED SECOND SOLAR CELLS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY REVIEW INVESTIGATIONS

The Commerce Department notice initiating the attached second Solar Cells review investigation. Commerce has also issued the attached quantity and value questionnaire in the antidumping review investigation, and is due February 19th, right in the middle of Chinese New Year.  prc-qvq-silicon-photovoltaic-cells-ar-ad-020415 SOLAR CELLS INITIATION NOTICE SECOND REVIEW

FALL OUT FROM SOLAR CELLS AND PRODUCTS CASE—VIETNAM CIRCUMVENTION SOLAR FACTORIES FORCED TO CLOSE DOWN

One US Solar Cells/Panel importer has informed me that the situation in Vietnam right now is “crazy”.  US Customs is working with Vietnam customs to inspect “so-called” solar factories and have already closed down a number of them as they were just an address for Chinese companies to get a Certificate of Origin and “cheat” the system by way of transshipment.  The Importer went on to state, “Our factory has been inspected twice already and both times had no issues as they are a legit factory using foreign solar cells.”

Vietnam’s crackdown on transshipment should not be a surprise because Vietnam is part of the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations.  Part of the negotiations is cracking down on transshipment and preserving country of origin.  This has been a significant topic of the TPP negotiations with Malaysia and apparently Vietnam.

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.

Recently, the Import Alliance established its own website. See 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 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.

We are now in the process of trying to gather importers to meet with various Congressional trade staff as soon as this month to discuss these issues. If you are interested, please contact the Import Alliance through its website or myself directly.

FEBRUARY ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On February 2, 2015, Commerce published the attached Federal Register notice, FEBRUARY REVIEWS, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of February. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Certain Preserved Mushrooms, Frozen Warmwater Shrimp, Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Graphite Electrodes, Uncovered Innerspring Units, and Wind Towers. The specific countervailing duty case is Wind Towers.

For those US import companies that imported Mushrooms, Shrimp, Hand Tools, Graphite Electrodes, Innerspring Units and Wind Towers and the other products listed above from China during the antidumping period February 1, 2014-January 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. Recently in the Shrimp from China antidumping case, for example, almost 100 Chinese exporters were denied a separate antidumping rate.

MAGNESIUM

Two US Executives were ordered to pay fines for evading the US antidumping order on magnesium. Gregory Magness, president of Superior Metal Powders Inc., and Eldon Bott, president of Innovative Materials & Solutions Inc., pled guilty to evading antidumping duties in the millions of dollars under the Magnesium antidumping order. Greg Magness was ordered to pay antidumping duties of $287,942 and Eldon Bott was ordered to pay $55,600. The two executives made false statements to the US government to avoid millions of dollars in antidumping duties by smuggling Chinese magnesium, which was later used for $42 million worth of aircraft flares. The two executives circumvented a 305% antidumping duty on Chinese magnesium powder that a U.S. military contractor unknowingly used to produce $42 million worth of flares that draw heat-seeking missiles away from aircraft.

Because both men pled guilty, Magness and Bott will avoid serving any prison time under the terms of their agreements. Under the agreement with Magness, the government has gone after him personally and he agreed to return $100,000 from savings and investment accounts, provided his wife doesn’t assert any claim to the money he agreed to forfeit.

Magness’ son Justin also pled guilty last month to aiding and abetting in the presentation of a false document to customs officers. Two other individuals, Nehill and Wright, are scheduled to be sentenced in June.

WTO DECISION AGAINST COMMERCE IS HAVING A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON NUMEROUS US CVD CASES AGAINST CHINA, INCLUDING THE SOLAR CELLS CASE

At the January 27th Senate Finance Hearing, which is described below, the United States Trade Representative and US Senators celebrated all the victories the United States has had in the WTO against China. I personally heard a US Congressman state “We are winning every case against China in the WTO.”

The statement unfortunately is not true because China is also now winning a lot of cases against the USA. As mentioned in my last newsletter, on December 18, 2014 in the attached United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS COMPLETE WTO REPORT, the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Appellate Body found the United States in violation of the WTO Agreement, specifically the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), with regards to a number of US countervailing duty cases against China, including the following US countervailing duty investigations against China: Pressure Pipe, Line Pipe, Citric Acid, Lawn Groomers, OCTG, Wire Strand, Magnesia Bricks, Seamless Pipe, Coated Paper, Drill Pipe, Aluminum Extrusions, Steel Cylinders, Wood Flooring, and Solar Cells. On January 16, 2015, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body accepted the December 18th Appellate Body decision.

This WTO decision is now having an impact on numerous past Commerce Department countervailing duty determinations against China, which the WTO has determined are inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. In response, on January 28 and January 29, the Commerce Department initiated investigations under 19 USC 3538, Administrative Actions following WTO Panel Reports, on a number of different products.

As the Commerce Department states in the attached notice on the Solar Cells case, CVD RE INVESTIGATION WTO:

This is to inform you that, pursuant to Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 19 USC 3538, the Department of Commerce (Department) is in the process of making a determination not inconsistent with the findings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel (the Panel) and Appellate Body (AB) in United States – Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China (WT/DS449). This dispute concerns the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the order published on December 7, 2012.

Several other notices are attached, including Wood Flooring and Coated Paper.  139 Wood Flooring Initiation Letter Coated paper sec 129 inititation letter

As mentioned, in my past post, the WTO faulted the US in its determinations that all state-owned companies, in fact, are the Chinese government and in the Commerce Department’s use of unreasonable all facts available decisions in countervailing duty cases against China.

The WTO Appellate Body also found the US violating the WTO CVD Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), for failing to use Chinese benchmark prices to calculate whether there is a benefit in its countervailing duty (CVD) investigations. Specifically, at issue was the Commerce Department practice of refusing to accept private or in-country prices in China as a benchmark to calculate the benefit the Chinese subsidy is providing the Chinese exporter/producer. Commerce had determined that all in-country China prices were distorted by Chinese government intervention and used a presumption. The WTO determined that Commerce must make a case by case investigation and cannot use a presumption.

The first issue faulted by the panel relates to how Commerce determines whether a state-owned enterprise (SOE) is a public body capable of bestowing subsidies within the meaning of the CVD agreement. The U.S. already lost on this issue in an earlier WTO case brought by China. Specifically the WTO Appellate body found a violation of the WTO CVD agreement when the Commerce Department determined that state-owned enterprises are a public body capable of providing subsidies simply because it is government controlled. The Appellate Body determined that the U.S. instead has to demonstrate that the SOE is performing a “government function” or has “government authority.”

The panel also faulted the U.S. for initiating the investigations based solely on the existence of export restraints in two CVD proceedings, and for not considering the appropriate factors in determining whether a subsidy was de facto specific in 12 CVD proceedings.

Commerce is complying with the WTO decision by initiating “Section 129” proceedings, in which Commerce would review the CVD determinations and perhaps alter the margins in order to take into account the Appellate Body findings. But Commerce will probably follow past procedures and simply change its decisions slightly to accommodate the WTO decision.

It should be noted that the Commerce Department’s approach to WTO decisions is mirrored by the Chinese government’s approach to WTO decisions. Many US Senators and Congressmen are very upset about the Chinese government’s reaction to the adverse WTO antidumping determination against the Chinese government’s antidumping determination on Chicken from the United States. In reality, China is simply following the Commerce Department’s approach in these cases. Never give in and just make small changes to policy in response to WTO decisions.

All WTO law is based on reciprocity and what goes around does indeed come around.

UNITED STATES RESPONDS WITH OWN WTO SUBSIDIES CASE AGAINST CHINA

On February 11, 2015, the United States responded with its own WTO complaint against Chinese export subsidies. USTR Michael Froman announced that a new WTO complaint has been filed in the WTO against Chinese export subsidy program, which has supplied export $1 billion in export subsidies to industries ranging from agriculture to medical devices. Specifically targeted is China’s “Demonstration Bases-Common Service Platform” export subsidy regime, under which the Chinese government allegedly Supplies free and discounted services to 179 so-called demonstration bases across seven industries. Those sectors are textiles and apparel, advanced materials and metals, light industry, specialty chemicals, medical devices, hardware and building materials and agriculture.

TRADE POLITICS AND TRADE AGREEMENTS

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS—TPA, TPP, TTIP/TA AND BALI/DOHA ROUND

TPA MOVES FORWARD QUICKLY WITH CHANGES ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS

As mentioned in past newsletters, in the trade world, the most important developments may be the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trans-Atlantic (TA)/ the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP negotiations and the WTO. The TPP is a free trade agreement being negotiated by officials from the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. These trade negotiations could have a major impact on China trade, as trade issues become a focal point in Congress and certain Senators and Congressmen become more and more protectionist.

This has been a problem because the protectionism is coming from the Democratic side of the aisle. Democratic Senators and Congressmen are supported by labor unions. Although Democratic Congressmen have expressed interest in the TPP, to date, President Obama cannot get one Democratic Congressman in the House of Representatives to openly co-sponsor 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 elections as soft on trade.

As mentioned in prior blog posts, on January 29, 2014, the day after President Obama pushed the TPA in his State of the Union speech in Congress, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the TPA bill would not be introduced on the Senate Floor.

But then came the November 4th Republican wave election changing Trade Politics dramatically in Washington DC. Elections have consequences and in 2015 Republicans have taken the Senate and increased their numbers in House.

To summarize, on January 9, 2014, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, which is posted on my blog in the January 2014 post, was introduced into Congress. 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.

On July 17, 2014 all Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee sent a letter to USTR Froman, which is posted on my blog, urging the Administration to build support for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and directing the Administration not to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) before TPA is enacted into law.

On November 4th, the Republican Wave Election took place.

Now the story continues . . . .

On January 8, 2015, Republican leaders in the Senate and the House began to build the case for Trade Promotion Authority. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, stated that talks have been underway for some time and that the trade area is a critical area in which the Republican majority and President Obama can find common ground.

As McConnell stated,

“We’re in active discussion on … trade promotion authority. It’s an enormous grant of power, obviously, from a Republican Congress to a Democratic president, but that’s how much we believe in trade as an important part of America’s economy.”

Neither McConnell nor Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, however, could offer a specific timetable for the legislation to be introduced as members are still working on the details. McConnell went on to state,

“We think this is an area where we can make progress, and you can look for us to act on TPA. I can’t give you the exact timing right now, or if I could, I probably wouldn’t yet.”

The President has increased his push for TPA renewal and McConnell stated he was happy that the president had become a “born-again free trader,” but stressed that Obama would have to deal with resistance from Democratic trade opponents if he is to be taken seriously in his decision to reinstate TPA. As McConnell further stated:

“The big challenge for the president is going to be to get his own members to give him the authority to negotiate this deal and to send it up to us. He’s going to have to stand up to the AFL-CIO, he’s going to have to stand up to the political left and his party and help us do something important for the American people in the middle, the moderate center.”

On January 12, 2015, USTR responded to criticism that the negotiations have been too secret by stating the White House has taken “unprecedented” steps to promote transparency. The USTR released a fact sheet that detailed efforts it said the administration has made to encourage public conversation and to cooperate with the newly Republican-controlled Congress to pass the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The USTR stated,

“We are always looking for new ways to engage the public and to seek views that will help inform and guide our trade policy, and enhancing transparency will remain a priority, consistent with the ability to deliver on our ultimate mission, which is to deliver agreements that achieve the maximum possible benefit for the American people. That’s our focus.”

The USTR maintained that it will release the full text of the TPP “well before” it is signed in order to invite further comment.

The fact sheet said the White House has provided the current negotiating texts to any interested members of Congress and has held more than 1,600 congressional briefings on the TPP alone. The USTR also said Congress has been informed “every step of the way,” and that Congressional committees have been able to preview every proposal before they’re brought to the negotiating table.

On January 13, 2015 several small government conservative organizations, including Americans for Limited Government and Tea Party Patriots, in an open letter to Congress argued that Congress should refuse to give President Obama the authority to submit trade agreements for votes on an expedited track, because such a process was against good government.

As the letter stated,

“President Obama has seized power time and again, and Congress has effectively thrown up its hands in despair. Denying him Fast Track Authority sends a clear message that enough is enough. It tells this President that Congress will stand up for itself as a co-equal branch of government and engage in a thorough and complete examination of any agreements that he signs.”

“In light of this President’s disregard for Congressional prerogatives, it would be inexcusable for Congress to provide this President with any additional power. Given the fact that the TPP has largely been negotiated in secret with only the administration’s multinational stakeholder partners involved, it is Congress’ duty to examine every jot and note to ensure that American interests are protected.”

On January 20, 2015, in a speech to the US Chamber of Commerce, Senator Orrin Hatch, new Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, stated that he would move “carefully but quickly” to introduce a bill that will reinstate the process for swiftly approving trade agreements, calling on the White House to engage with lawmakers in order to facilitate its ambitious trade agenda. Senator Hatch said that he is continuing his effort to work on the bill in close coordination with the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. As Senator Hatch stated:

“My plan … is to move carefully but quickly to introduce and mark up a TPA bill. I’m currently working with Ranking Member Wyden and Chairman Ryan to see if there are improvements that might be made to TPA so that we can introduce a bipartisan, bicameral bill in this Congress that we can move in short order.”

But Senator Hatch went on to state:

“If President Obama can be more forward-leaning with members of his party — starting with tonight’s State of the Union address — I believe we can get this done quickly. That is what I am committed to do.”

Following his statement, on the night of January 20th, in the only part of the State of the Union address in which Republican lawmakers clapped and Democrats were silent, President Obama pushed for passage of Trade Promotion Authority stating:

“We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”

“I’m the first one to admit that past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype, and that’s why we’ve gone after countries that break the rules at our expense. But 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside our borders, and we can’t close ourselves off from those opportunities.”

In response, several Democratic members in Congress vowed to fight the Trade Agreements. Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, stating, “It surrenders the Congressional authority that we may need to protect American workers and American consumers.” Representative Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, stated “We are going to fight this tooth and nail, and I believe we are going to win.”

But Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, stated prior to the State of the Union that fast track “can pass” in the House. He also praised prior trade deals as “good for our country and our workers.”

Even before the State of the Union had finished, opponents began issuing statements that night. The Communications Workers of America said it supports many of Obama’s initiatives but wouldn’t stand with him “to send more U.S. jobs offshore.” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka agreed with Obama’s initiatives on taxes and wages, but added “our opposition to fast-track trade deals that are giant giveaways to big corporations must be resolute” and do not tackle so-called 21st-century trade problems, such as foreign currency manipulation.

The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and 42 other environmental came out against fast-track approval process in a letter sent out to Congress stating that lawmakers and the general public should have a more active role in the negotiations:

“U.S. involvement in trade negotiations should be guided by democracy, transparency, political accountability and must lead to a ‘race to the top’ that provides real protections for communities, workers and the environment. A new model of trade that delivers benefits for most Americans, promotes broadly shared prosperity, and safeguards the environment and public health is possible.”

Both Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Orrin Hatch, however, welcomed Obama’s decision to push TPA, with Hatch putting the burden squarely on the President’s Democrats to ensure the process moves smoothly, stating,

“Democrats in Congress can now either work with the President and Republicans to pass TPA and empower our country to compete, or they can throw up more roadblocks and cast uncertainty on our country’s trade agenda.”

On January 23, 2015, Sander Levin, ranking Democratic Congressman on the House Ways and Means Committee, took aim at Japan in the TPP, stating:

“Japan imports one American car for every 100 Japanese cars imported into the United States each year. The TPP agreement should eliminate tariffs and other charges by a date certain on virtually all products exported by the United States that decrease market opportunities for United States exports.”

On January 27, 2015, the House Ways and Means Committee held a full hearing on US Trade Policy with testimony by USTR Michael Froman. In his Opening Statement, which will be attached to my blog, Ways and Means Chairman Republican Paul Ryan stated in part:

“Expanding American trade is going to be one of our top priorities this year. And the reason why is pretty simple. Ninety-five percent of the world’s customers live outside the United States. I can think of few better ways to grow our economy than to grow our customer base. I believe Americans can compete with anybody, if given a fair chance. That’s why we have to break down barriers to our exports by completing trade agreements.

“Right now, there are several trade deals in the works—all of them very promising. We’re negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership with our friends in Asia, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with our friends in Europe, the Trade in Services Agreement with countries around the world, and several agreements through the World Trade Organization.

“And if done well, all of them would help create jobs and expand opportunity. And all of them would help shape the kind of economy we leave for our kids.

The fact is, if we don’t write the rules of the global economy, other countries will. They already are. Other countries, like China, are putting in place new trade agreements among themselves. So it’s a simple as this: If we’re not moving forward, we’re falling behind.

“And look at the record. If you add up all the countries that don’t have agreements with us, we run a manufacturing trade deficit. And if you add up all the countries that do have agreements with us, we run a surplus.

“So I think it’s pretty clear: Trade—and trade agreements—are good for our country. We need more of both. And the first thing we need to do to get there is pass trade promotion authority.

“Here’s the issue: When the United States sits down at the negotiating table, everybody at that table has to trust us. They have to know the deal the administration wants is the deal Congress wants—because if our trading partners don’t trust the administration—if they think it will make commitments that Congress will undo later—they won’t make concessions. Why run the risk for no reason?

“On the other hand, once our trading partners know we’re trustworthy—once they can see we’re negotiating in good faith—they’ll be more willing to make concessions. That’s why we have to pass this bill before negotiations are complete.

To get the best deal possible, we have to be in the best position possible. We can’t be negotiating with ourselves. We have to maintain a united front.

“Now, I’m not saying to maximize our leverage we have to maximize the administration’s power. I’d no sooner trust this administration with more power than I’d trust the Patriots with the footballs at Lambeau. What I’m saying is this bill would maximize Congress’s power.

“Let me explain. Nothing stops a president from negotiating a deal without instructions from Congress. So, if we waited till after the negotiations are done to make our views known—if we simply reacted to what the administration put in front of us—we might scuttle the whole deal. That means we have to get involved before the deal is done, not after it’s finished. We have to be proactive, not reactive.

“That’s what TPA does. We call this process ‘trade promotion authority.’ But I think of it more as a contract. We say to the administration, if you want this up-or-down vote, you have to meet three requirements: Number one, you have to listen to us. Number two, you have to talk to us. And number three, you have to remember: we get the final say

“First, TPA lays out all our negotiating objectives for our trade deals. In short, we tell the administration what targets to hit. It’s got to do things like eliminate barriers to our exports, protect our intellectual property, and eliminate unnecessary regulatory barriers in other countries.

“Second, TPA requires the administration to consult with Congress. Any member can meet with our trade representative’s office at any time. Any member can read the text. Any member can attend the negotiations. It’s like a TPA hotline.

“And third, just to avoid any confusion, we put it right in the bill text: Congress gets the final say. If a trade deal requires any changes in our laws, Congress must approve them.

And if the administration violates any of these requirements, we can say, ‘No deal.’ If it doesn’t cooperate, it doesn’t get the up-or-down vote.

“We simply can’t get the best deals without TPA, and that’s why we’ve got to pass it as soon as possible.

“So TPA is front and center, but there are several other measures we must take to help the economy. . . .

“Finally, Congressman Brady has done solid work on the Customs Trade Facilitation and Enforcement Act. The bill would help streamline our customs procedures and enforce our trade laws. And Congressman Boustany has tackled the problem of trade remedy evasion in a creative and effective way. We’ve got to get this legislation across the finish line. . . .

At the January 27th hearing, in a statement, which will be attached to my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, USTR Michael Froman stated in part:

The Obama Administration’s economic agenda of creating jobs, promoting growth, and strengthening America’s middle class is supported by the work we do at USTR: opening markets and leveling the playing field to ensure that American workers, farmers, ranchers; manufacturers and service providers; innovators, creators, investors and businesses – both large and small – can compete in the world’s fastest growing markets.

Building on Record Breaking U.S. Exports

In 2014, USTR built on record-breaking exports, market opening initiatives, intensive engagement, and trade enforcement to achieve strong results for America’s economy. The data is compelling: Unemployment has dipped to 5.6 percent and we are creating more than 200,000 jobs per month. Those jobs include a gain of 786,000 new manufacturing jobs over the last five years. Manufacturing exports have grown by 9 percent a year on average. Our total exports have grown by nearly 50 percent and contributed nearly one-third of our economic growth since the second quarter of 2009. In 2013, the most recent year on record, American exports reached a record high of $2.3 trillion and supported a record-breaking 11.3 million jobs.

It’s clear, more exports means more good jobs and more jobs are dependent upon exports than ever before. That’s why we’ve worked hard to open more markets to Made-In-America goods and services, agricultural products, innovation, and investment. In the last four years, the increase in U.S. exports has supported 1.6 million more good jobs, which typically pay 13-18 percent more on average than jobs not related to exports.

Done right, trade policy unlocks opportunities for Americans. Done right, trade policy promotes not only our interests, but also our values. And it gives us the tools to make sure others play by the same rules as we do. The United States is an open economy and our borders are already open to trade. But other countries still erect real barriers to our exports. . . .

But we know that the status quo is not an option to compete in the global economy. And we know that our workers are competing against workers in countries that lack even the most basic labor rights. Our businesses are competing against companies that get subsidies from their governments or that don’t have to maintain any environmental standards. If we sit on the sidelines, we will be faced with a race to the bottom in global trade instead of continuing to promote a race to the top. That’s not how we want to compete. As the President said last week, we should be the ones to engage and lead. We want to take the field, establish the rules of the game that reflect our interests and our values, and do so with all the tools we need to win.

Our trade agreements will support American jobs by boosting Made in America exports from our businesses, farms, and factories. In fact, for every $1 billion we export, between 5,400 and 5,900 jobs are supported here at home. By opening rapidly expanding markets with millions of new middle-class consumers in parts of the globe like the Asia-Pacific, our trade agreements will help our businesses and workers access overseas markets, where 95 percent of the world’s consumers and 80 percent of the world’s purchasing power reside. Combined with our supply of energy, highly skilled work force, and culture of innovation, our trade agreements will help once again make America the global production platform of choice. . . .

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) . . . .

In 2014, we significantly advanced negotiation of the TPP, a state-of-the-art trade agreement that will guarantee expanded U.S. access to the rapidly growing economies in the Asia Pacific. Together with the 11 other TPP countries, we have made important progress in the market access negotiations for agricultural products, industrial goods, services and investment, and government procurement. We have also made substantial progress on ambitious, high-standard trade rules that will promote U.S. commercial interests and values in the region, in such areas as intellectual property, digital trade, competition with State-owned enterprises, and labor and environmental protections. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that TPP will add $123.5 billion to U.S. exports each year when it is fully implemented.

We continue to make progress in closing gaps related to autos, agriculture, and other market access issues in our bilateral negotiations with Japan. Japan agreed upfront to provide the longest staging of any TPP products for U.S. autos and truck tariffs, and we continue to work with Japan to address the long-standing barriers to American autos in the Japanese market. We will continue to closely consult with our auto workers and industry as the negotiations proceed in order to get the best deal possible for them. In agriculture, we continue to work hard to dismantle high tariffs, restrictive quotas, and complex administrative policies to create new opportunities for U.S. producers.

At the TPP Leaders meeting in November convened by President Obama, all 12 countries took note of the progress that has been made on TPP, and agreed that the end of the negotiation is now coming into focus. And the TPP countries reaffirmed their commitment to concluding a comprehensive, high-standard agreement, and to work toward finalizing the TPP agreement as soon as possible. . . .

Manufacturing

In 2013, the United States exported nearly $1.4 trillion in manufactured goods, which accounted for 87 percent of all U.S. goods exports and 61 percent of U.S. total exports. Here too, we expect that 2014 was a record year. In 2015, the Obama Administration will continue to pursue trade policies aimed at supporting the growth of manufacturing and associated high-quality jobs here at home and maintaining American manufacturers’ competitive edge. U.S. manufacturing is vital to our economy and the Obama Administration is committed to making sure that the United States is competitive in attracting businesses to locate here. This is why we support a dynamic manufacturing sector and research and development policies to support broad-based innovation and advanced manufacturing that will help U.S. workers and firms win the future. As American manufacturers increase their capacity to produce more advanced and value-added goods, consumers around the world continue to place a high value on Made-in-America products. Across our trade negotiations, we aim to create rules that ensure state-owned enterprises (SOEs) do not compete unfairly with private firms, and seek to ensure that rules of origin and global supply chain provisions create conditions for manufacturers to locate here in the United States.

Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Digital Economy

America’s economic growth and competitiveness depend on its capacity to innovate. Our trade agreements, including TPP and T-TIP, promote strong and balanced IP protection and enforcement while opening markets for U.S. produced IP-intensive goods and services. . . .

We will continue to support a free and open Internet that encourages the flow of information across the digital world. We know that the impact of digital trade is enormous, and thus that a supportive trade framework is critical for its continued expansion. Therefore, among the other twenty-first century issues we are addressing, we are modernizing our trade agenda to promote growth in the digital economy in particular. We will continue to work closely with Congress and all our stakeholders on a wide range of trade issues related to the protection and enforcement of copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and other forms of IP. We will also work to push back against efforts by our trading partners to improperly use geographical indications to limit the ability of our farmers and exporters to use common food names and trademarks for their products.

The theft of U.S. intellectual property puts American jobs at risk and generates counterfeit products that can pose a threat to the health and safety of consumers around the world. We utilize our annual “Special 301” Report to identify and resolve IP concerns with many trading partners. . . .

Enforcement Tools Utilized to Protect U.S. Trade Rights Around the World

As we work to open markets around the world, we are simultaneously working to hold our trading partners accountable for their commitments under existing agreements so that American workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers get the full benefit of all the economic opportunities the United States has negotiated over the years. From day one, the Obama Administration has shown an unwavering commitment to enforce our trade rights around the world. Within existing resources, we have undertaken a bold and ambitious trade enforcement agenda reflected in the scale, scope, and systemic importance of our disputes. And for every part of our economy, USTR is fighting on their behalf – from American auto workers to farmers to high-tech manufacturers that need rare earth metals to American service providers.

WTO Enforcement

USTR is building upon significant WTO victories for the United States as we move forward with a robust monitoring and enforcement agenda in 2015. We continue to build on our strong success with major victories in several WTO disputes. In June, the WTO found that China had breached WTO rules by imposing on American cars and SUVs unjustified extra duties, which were assessed on over $5 billion of U.S. auto exports in 2013. In August, the WTO found that China again breached WTO rules by imposing duties and quotas on exports of rare earths, tungsten, and molybdenum, which discriminate against U.S. manufacturers of hybrid car batteries, wind turbines, energy-efficient lighting, steel, advanced electronics, automobiles, and more. . . .

For the 18 WTO complaints filed since 2009, every single case that has been decided has resulted in a win for the United States. And when you consider those victories I just mentioned – the range of trading partners, the types of trade barriers, and value and diversity of exports involved – the power of robust trade enforcement becomes clear. We’re absolutely committed to ensuring American workers get all the benefits of U.S. trade agreements because we’ve seen that trade, done right, supports high-quality, middle class American jobs.

Enforcement of U.S. Free Trade Agreements

The Administration also continued to vigorously monitor our FTA partners’ implementation of their obligations under Congressionally-approved FTAs. . . .

<Deepening our Trade and Investment Partnerships Around the World

The Administration continues to work to deepen our trade relationships around the world. This includes engagement with China, India, Burma, Sub-Saharan Africa and other regions to address concerns with our bilateral trading partners.

China

On China, the Administration made progress on a wide range of issues, including protection and enforcement of trade secrets and other intellectual property rights, as well as SOEs, investment, services, global drug supply chain integrity, and transparency at the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in July. These engagements yielded concrete changes which support jobs and exports from the United States. We also made significant progress on key issues like transparency and a level playing field in competition law enforcement, agricultural biotechnology, the protection and enforcement of trade secrets, and technology localization at the 25th Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade held in December. There was further progress in the pharmaceutical sector at the JCCT, where China agreed to streamline its approval processes for pharmaceutical and medical devices. We also intensified our negotiations toward a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with China and expect to initiate the critical “negative list” market access negotiations in early 2015. . . .

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)

Let me build upon the President’s remarks on trade at the State of the Union. As the President made clear last week, the Administration is committed to securing bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority. America has always been strongest when it speaks with one voice, and that’s exactly what Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, helps us do. TPA puts Congress in the driver’s seat to define U.S. negotiating objectives and priorities for trade agreements. It clarifies and strengthens public and Congressional oversight by requiring consultations and transparency throughout the negotiating process. It makes clear to our trading partners that the Administration and Congress are on the same page negotiating high standards in our trade agreements. There is no other area of policy that reflects closer coordination between the Executive branch and Congress than trade policy. And in return, I can promise you that we’ll continue working hard to strike balanced agreements that benefit our workers, employers, our environment and the economy at large. . . .

The Administration looks forward to continue working with this Committee and the new Congress as a whole to secure TPA that has bipartisan support. We also look forward to renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), which helps provide American workers with the skills to compete in the 21st century. . . .

Promoting Increased Engagement and Transparency in Negotiations

As we work to open markets to support more American jobs, an important part of that work is keeping the public, Congress, and a diverse array of stakeholders engaged and informed. We believe that public participation, Congressional input, and an open national debate enhance trade policy. And to ensure these agreements are balanced, we seek a diversity of voices in America’s trade policy.

The Administration has taken unprecedented steps to increase transparency. Those steps have resulted in more public dialogue and outreach on trade agreements like TPP and T-TIP than on any other free trade agreements in history. This includes the more than 1,600 consultations we’ve had on TPP alone. We have provided access to the current negotiating texts of both agreements to Members of Congress. We have previewed every new U.S. proposal with the Committees of jurisdiction before tabling them in both negotiations. And we have briefed interested Members of Congress before and after every negotiating round—seeking feedback at every stage of the game.

The Administration has also engaged with the public around its trade agenda in new ways. We have held public hearings soliciting the public’s input on the negotiations and suspended negotiating rounds to host first-of-a-kind stakeholder events so that the public can provide our negotiators with direct feedback on the negotiations. We have also shared information on the current status of the negotiations through an array of tools on our website.

We are always looking for new ways to engage the public and welcome input, including from your committee, which will help inform and guide our trade policy. Enhancing transparency will remain a priority, consistent with the ability to deliver on our ultimate mission, which is to deliver agreements that achieve the maximum possible benefit for the American people.

Conclusion

The Obama Administration’s trade agenda is focused on expanding opportunities to export more Made-in-America products, support jobs at home, and create economic growth by opening overseas markets and leveling the playing field for American workers, farmers, and businesses. In doing so, we will continue to advocate for strong, enforceable rules that promote core U.S. values and interests, including protection of U.S. creativity and innovation, access to medicines, fundamental labor rights, and robust environmental commitments. We can only accomplish these shared goals and priorities through strong bipartisan cooperation between Congress and the Administration. We look forward to working with you to ensure our trade policy creates opportunities for all Americans. . . .

In response to USTR Froman’s comments, the Democrats reacted. With regard to transparency, Ranking Democratic Congressman Levin welcomed the attempts to open up the talks for Congressional input, saying more must be done on that front. Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas echoed this point arguing that even though members of Congress are allowed to view trade negotiating texts, they are not allowed to take notes or share the documents with certain members of their staff.

As Congressman Doggett stated,

“There is a big difference between quantity and quality on transparency. That is not practicing transparency — it’s practicing secrecy. I can’t find a legal basis for that type of restrictive environment, and I would just urge you to take immediate steps to change it.”

On the same day January 27, 2015, after the Ways and Means hearing USTR Froman spoke to the Senate Finance Committee stating that the TPP talks are coming to completion, but would offer no time table. To see the hearing, follow the following link http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=5ef11836-5056-a032-5292-dc24774c7fe1.

To make the video work, slide the bar to minute 16 when the hearing begins.

In his opening statement, which will be attached to my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, stated in part:

Thank you Ambassador Froman, for being here today. I have to say that the trade agenda is looking up since the last time you testified.

Things seem to be improving with our ongoing trade negotiations. For example, while significant gaps remain, the administration seems to be inching ever closer toward a conclusion of a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

Morale at the Office of the United States Trade Representative, after a long period of decline, is beginning to rise. Of course, there is still a lot to be done. And, renewal of Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, is at the top of my list. But, even in that regard, things seem to be looking up.

Compared with this time last year, the administration is much more engaged at all levels in making the case for renewal of TPA. President Obama’s strong call for TPA in the State of the Union was welcome, though, in my opinion, it was long overdue. I hope that he’ll follow his latest call to action with a real concerted effort to help us get TPA through Congress.

Here in the Finance Committee, we’re doing all we can to help in this effort.

Although the bill I introduced last year with Chairmen Camp and Baucus received broad support, I am currently working with Senator Wyden to see if there is a way to address some additional issues he has raised. We’re working with Chairman Ryan as well.

While there may be some improvements we can make to the bill, I want to make one thing clear: The time for TPA is now.

TPA is how Congress tells the administration and our negotiating partners what a trade agreement must contain to be successfully enacted into law. And, TPA empowers our negotiators to get the best deal possible for American workers.

To succeed in getting TPA renewed, we will need an all-out effort by the administration to make the case for why TPA is so vital to our nation’s ability to fairly engage in international trade and to enhance the health of our economy.

Simply put, trade means jobs. Today 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States. These potential customers account for 92 percent of global economic growth and 80 percent of the world’s purchasing power. To maintain a healthy economy, we need the opportunity to sell American products in those markets.

Right now, the United States is engaged in some of the most ambitious trade negotiations in our nation’s history. The first, which I already mentioned, is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.

Renewal of TPA is key to the success of this agreement. Without TPA, the administration will not be able bring back the high-standard agreement Congress needs to ensure its enactment.

Let me be clear here: It would be a grave mistake for the administration to close TPP before Congress enacts TPA. Doing so may lead to doubt as to whether the U.S. could have gotten a better agreement, ultimately eroding support for TPP and jeopardizing its prospects for passage in Congress.

There are also some key outstanding issues that need to be resolved in TPP. As I have stated in the past, my support for TPA by no means ensures that I will support just any version of TPP that happens to be submitted to Congress for approval.

For me, the agreement must achieve a very high standard for the protection of intellectual property, including twelve years of data protection for biologics, and strong copyright and trademark protections. The intellectual property provisions of TPP must also effectively address the theft of trade secrets and ensure effective implementation and enforcement of IP obligations. Provisions to enhance digital trade and address state-owned enterprises are also critical, as is real market access for U.S. exports. …

Ambassador Froman, all of this represents a very ambitious agenda for your office and for the administration as a whole. But, if I haven’t been clear up to now, let me restate: TPA must be considered an essential element for all of these endeavors.

I believe Congressional renewal of TPA will unleash new energy in our international trade agenda, helping to propel our economy to greater growth and prosperity. History shows that trade agreements concluded with TPA in place create new economic opportunities and higher-paying American jobs.

This year we truly are at the precipice of opportunity. The only question is whether both parties in Congress and the Administration can work together to put in place the necessary tools to seize this opportunity. I certainly think we can, and I will do everything in my power as Chairman of this committee to ensure our mutual success.

In his opening statement, Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Finance Committee Senator Wyden of Oregon stated,

My bottom line on how the U.S. can improve its trade policy is this:

Today’s global economy moves at a million miles an hour, so clinging to yesterday’s outdated trade policies is a loser for the millions of middle-class American workers counting on political leadership to help create more high-skill, high-wage, middle-class jobs.

Trade agreements need to bulldoze barriers and open new markets to exports made by America’s middle class – the things we grow or raise, build or forge. Done right, trade agreements can help grow the paychecks of middle-class families. That will help take our economic recovery from a walk to a sprint.

According to a report by the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, many export-driven jobs – from precision welding to engineering design – offer higher pay and more generous benefits than jobs that aren’t tied to exports. Workers who design and build products like machinery, electrical gear or transportation equipment get into the winners’ circle when the goods they make are exported. The goal of trade agreements should be to take the fruits of American labor and ship them to markets around the world.

With that said, it’s easy to understand why many American workers are frustrated when they haven’t gotten a meaningful raise in decades – or worse, they’ve lost jobs and fallen out of the middle class. When discouraged Americans argue that they’ve been hurt by trade, their voices should not be ignored. They must be heard. Those who favor a trade agenda that takes on the challenges of a hyper-competitive global economy have a responsibility to make the case that it will work for America’s middle class.

I bring that up because the President said during the State of the Union address that, “…past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype.”

So, Ambassador Froman, I’d like you to outline today how the administration plans to change that with fresh trade policies that will lift wages, help create middle-class jobs, and expand the winner’s circle.

I hope to discuss what safeguards will be in place to ensure that any workers impacted by trade have access to retraining, health coverage, and other sources of support that connect them with new opportunities. And perhaps most importantly, I hope to hear how the administration will make the case to America’s workers that these modern policies will deliver for them.

To keep my remarks brief, there are a few specific issue I’ll address.

The first is tough enforcement. There has never been a greater need for the U.S. to back its workers and businesses by strongly enforcing our trade laws and agreements. And in the face of unfair schemes by foreign governments and companies that undercut American jobs and exports, trade enforcement works.

Just ask any one of the hundreds of Oregonians who work at SolarWorld, a solar-panel manufacturer in my home state. When Chinese companies made an end-run around our trade laws that threatened SolarWorld and its employees, SolarWorld fought back and won. That victory preserved 900 good Oregon jobs. And American trade enforcers have to keep at it, because China and other governments won’t stop trying to get around the rules anytime soon.

With 21st century trade agreements, tough enforcement also needs to hold foreign governments accountable for commitments to uphold strong labor rights and environmental protections. Those are bedrock elements of trade agreements, and they are not to be ignored or pushed to the periphery.

The second issue to address is technology. Just as containers changed trade in the 20th century, the Internet is changing trade in the 21st, enabling more efficient ways to exchange goods and services internationally. . . . The nation’s trade policies must take advantage of economic areas where there is clearly “Advantage USA.” That means promoting and protecting a free and open Internet — keeping open what is, in effect, the shipping lane of the 21st century.

The third issue to address today is transparency. The American people have made it very clear that they will not accept secretly-written agreements that don’t see the light of day until the very last minute. That was too often the way things worked in the past, but that’s not good enough anymore. Nor is it enough to respond to important questions with the same inadequate refrain: that Americans will benefit from trade deals. People have the right to know what’s at stake in negotiations before they wrap up. Our trade policies are stronger when the American people are part of the debate – and when their elected representatives in Congress are able to conduct effective oversight.

Furthermore, transparency is also critical for a trade promotion authority bill. Once a bill is ready, it must be available to the public. And there must be a fair and open process for its review and consideration. I will work with Chairman Hatch to develop a process along these lines.

No matter where members of this committee stand, I know everyone here is ready to have a serious debate on how to make trade policy work best. My focus will be on finding new opportunities to sell red, white and blue American goods overseas, helping businesses create jobs, and growing the paychecks for middle-class families. I’m eager to find ways for this committee to work on a bipartisan basis with the administration to accomplish those goals.

USTR Froman repeated his remarks before the House Ways and Means Committee earlier that day. Froman further stated that “the contours of a final agreement are coming into focus” and vowed to correct the failures of past trade deals in areas such as labor, environment and state-owned enterprise rules. Froman pledged to be as open as possible stating:

“As we move ahead, we’re committed to providing maximum transparency consistent with our ability to negotiate the best agreements possible. We look forward to working with this committee and others in Congress to determine the best way to achieve that goal.”

Froman added that his office expects to make the text of the TPP public after it is signed and before it goes to Capitol Hill for a vote but cautioned that the U.S. was consulting with other parties in the agreement on possible areas of sensitivity.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. argued against TPP because of currency manipulation:

“I can’t support a TPP agreement if we do not at the same time enact new statutory law that includes objective criteria to define and enforce against currency manipulation. I will not support moving this trade agreement forward if we’re not fighting to make sure we have the necessary tools to protect the American middle class and American jobs.”

During the question and answer, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) stated that the administration needs to step up its arguments to Democrats, in particular, to get TPA cleared by the Senate stating, in part,

“[I] if we are going to get trade promotion authority passed, [the president is] going to have to work the telephones one-on-one with some senators to get us to the 60-vote threshold,” to avoid a filibuster.

With regard to currency manipulation, Froman stated that “Currency is a great concern to us,” but went on to state that the Treasury Department takes the lead on the issue. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said she was not seeing any indication that currency issues would addressed in TPA or TPP, commenting that this was a serious problem.

Stabenow also questioned Froman on a press report asserting that the U.S. was dropping a request to lower standards on auto imports to Japan in exchange for Japan agreeing to more rice imports from the U.S. Characterizing the report as “categorically wrong,” Froman said both auto and agriculture negotiations with Japan were continuing “on parallel tracks.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) stated that Canada’s dairy market was not sufficiently opened as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement and many of the tariff rates on dairy products range from 200 percent to 295 percent. Canada’s dairy policies are a priority, Froman said. The U.S. is engaged with Canada on a whole range of outstanding issues, “and they know that this is very important to us, and we’re working towards hopefully a successful conclusion there.”

After the hearings on Capitol Hill, on January 27th, US Pork producers came out in support of Trade Promotion Authority. In a mass letter to members of Congress, the National Pork Producers Council said that TPA is vital to their industry stating,

“Significant progress has been made with respect to Japan’s market access offer on pork, thanks to the hard work of U.S. trade officials and the strong support of the U.S. Congress.”

The pork producers said that since the passage of the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement in 1989, their exports increased 1,550 percent in value — and they credited TPA for enabling such a boost.

On January 28th at closed door remarks at the House Democratic retreat, President Obama strongly hinted that there would be no currency manipulation language in the TPP according to Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). President Obama stated that there would be no currency chapter, stating that this issue was under the Treasury Department’s authority.

Obama’s opening remarks to the caucus did not mention trade, but during a question-and-answer session, Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) asked Obama how to make the case for trade agreements to skeptical constituents. Kilmer’s question was the first one the president took.

In response, the President largely reiterated the arguments he has previously made in favor of trade agreements, including that the U.S. needs to sets the rules for trade or China will do so. Sources stated that he did not explicitly mention Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or urge House Democrats to support it.

The president said he recognized that previous trade deals were “not perfect,” and conceded that no new trade agreement will fix all of the real challenges that arise from globalization and past trade agreements, according to a source who attended the session. It was in this context that Obama raised currency manipulation as one challenge that cannot be fixed through TPP, another source said.

On January 29th, the House Ways and Means Committee sent out the following e-mail, which will be attached to my blog, stating in part that newspapers around the Country are calling on Congress to enact TPA.

WAYS AND MEANS JANUARY 29, 2015 . . . .

As Republicans and Democrats work to put in place bipartisan trade promotion authority, editorial boards from coast to coast are rallying behind the effort. Trade Promotion Authority—or TPA—empowers Congress to set the negotiating objectives when pursing trade agreements with other countries and helps the United States get the best deal possible. Here’s a sampling of what newspapers have had to say about TPA:

Wisconsin State Journal: Congress needs to pass trade promotion authority’

“Free-trade zones across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans would lower tariffs and smooth commerce for all while encouraging higher environmental and labor standards. Past trade agreements ‘haven’t always lived up to the hype,’ Obama acknowledged. But ‘95 percent of the world’s customers live outside our borders.

We can’t close ourselves off from those opportunities.’ No, we can’t — especially in a top manufacturing and dairy state such as Wisconsin, where research and technology are strong.”

San Francisco Chronicle: ‘California will be a winner if Congress blesses a Pacific trade treaty’

“Global trade is an enormous chunk of California’s present and future. It needs to be nurtured, improved and given rules and treaty agreements to protect this thriving financial lifeline.”

The Seattle Times: ‘Congress should enact trade-promotion authority’

“Congress must not delay in approving TPA. [It] would have substantial and lasting effects on the state’s and nation’s economies.”

Washington Post: ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership can help the U.S. counter China’s expansion’

“Both economically and geopolitically, the Trans-Pacific Partnership would perpetuate the United States’ stabilizing role in Asia; it is one of the Obama administration’s brightest ideas. All that’s left now is for both the president and Republican leaders in Congress to keep their promises and make it happen.”

Houston Chronicle: ‘Expansion of international trade agreements would mean a whole lot of good for the U.S.’

“President Obama and the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate can demonstrate that they are capable of agreement on important issues that will result in good jobs and more exports for farmers and the manufacturing, service and tech sectors.”

Minneapolis Star Tribune: ‘More trade means more Minnesota jobs’

“Rising exports mean more jobs. Minnesota has the natural and human resources to compete at the highest global level, meaning that state workers can benefit from expanded free trade.”

Chicago Tribune: ‘TPA is essential for overcoming the inevitable fight against vested interests’

“TPA empowers Congress to establish negotiating objectives, and enhances its ability to set priorities. The U.S. is legally bound to a trade agreement only if Congress votes to approve it. TPA, which has been essential to reaching trade deals since the 1930s, has proven to be fully consistent with the Constitution and supportive of U.S. sovereignty.”

On January 30, 2015, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch stated that the new legislation reviving the administration’s trade negotiating authority will closely resemble a bill he introduced last year, touting the need for strict rules on intellectual property, currency manipulation, and other areas. Senator Hatch declared the U.S. trade agenda to be “at the precipice of opportunity.” Hatch further stated,

“The U.S. needs to lead on trade. We need to establish rules that hold other nations accountable for their unfair trade practices. And we need to tear down barriers that block our goods from foreign markets. We can only do that if we renew TPA and do so soon.”

Hatch declined to give a hard and fast timeline for the bill, saying only that he was working with Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to settle certain differences and introduce the legislation “in short order.”

“We need to see commitments from our partners in ongoing trade negotiations to avoid manipulating exchange rates to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other parties to the agreement, a standard reflecting commitments parties have made in the International Monetary Fund. It is essential that Congress know how the administration intends to address his problem in ongoing negotiations.”

On February 3, 2015, USTR Froman pushed state-level agricultural officials stating that their support will be critical to ensure swift movement of the White House’s robust trade agenda, touting the benefits of the administration’s two biggest negotiating efforts for U.S. food producers. Froman stated,

“We need you to remind farmers and ranchers in your states that trade agreements are how we can level the playing field for our workers, farmers, and businesses and protect America’s competitiveness for the next generation. We need you to remind them how important exports are to more good jobs here in the U.S.”

Froman again claimed that the shape of a final TPP deal is “coming into focus” and that the U.S. is looking to chip away at large tariffs on poultry, beef and pork in countries like Canada, Australia, Japan and Vietnam.

On February 5, 2015, at the Senate Finance Committee, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew stated that the Obama administration is not prepared to insert a section into future trade agreements to stop currency manipulation, stating that such a confrontational move might undermine its ongoing efforts to tackle the issue diplomatically. Facing pressure from numerous members of the Senate Finance Committee, Lew said the administration had been successful in pushing back against currency manipulation in its bilateral engagements with countries like China, adding that punitive language in trade deals could stop that progress.

As Secretary Lew stated,

“I think the challenge in the context of a trade agreement is how to address the issue in a way that helps and doesn’t hurt. I would be concerned that the effectiveness we have dealing through the existing channel could be diminished in some ways, if some approaches were taken.”

“When we push back, there is a response where we’ve, I think, been quite successful pushing back on even the hint of interventions that have those characteristics in a time that we’ve been here.”

An odd situation is arising in the US Congress where liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans are working together to stop TPA. An alliance between Tea Party Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert and Dana Rohrabacher, two of the more conservative members, and two strong liberal Democratic Congresswomen, Rosa DeLauro and Louise Slaughter is emerging. The Tea Party Republicans object to giving such trade negotiating authority to the President, and the liberal Democrats are objecting to the impact of any trade agreement on US jobs and labor unions.

Dana Rohrabacher, a Tea Party Republican, stated, “This president has tried to rule by dictate in a number of arenas. He’s issued executive orders in a way that is totally out of sync with what executive orders are supposed to be about. A lot of people think this president has been much more aggressive in centralizing power.”

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro echoed the statement by the Tea Party Republican,

“We have trusted and trusted for years and years, and it’s only been to the detriment of American workers. Members of Congress are fed up with this. The trust factor, whether it’s Barack Obama or anyone else, is not there any longer.”

As the New York Times observed in a February 10, 2015 article,

The White House understands that trade promotion authority will be a tough sell with Democrats. Instead, the president’s strongest supporters include two men he has frequently battled: the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader.

The Times goes on to state:

But even as most liberal Democrats have become disenchanted with the trade agenda advocated by a variety of American business interests, it is the erosion of support in the rank-and-file right that has Mr. Obama sweating the most. In 2002, the last time Congress approved such authority, the House passed it by a bare majority, 215 to 212, with 190 Republicans carrying the load, and only 27 Democrats coming along for the ride.

That was for George W. Bush. This time, Mr. Boehner, prominent committee chairmen like Mr. Ryan and an alliance of business and agricultural groups are going to have to persuade dozens of conservatives to confer power on a president they say has seized too much authority already. Tea Party groups are already flexing their muscle with Republicans they helped elect, pressuring them to oppose anything that strengthens Mr. Obama’s hand and, they argue, weakens United States sovereignty over economic policy.

As the Times Article further states, although the Administration and the pro-trade Coalition stated that the have the numbers to pass trade promotion authority:

they have work to do. About 150 of the House’s 188 Democrats have already signed on to letters opposing fast track, an ominous figure for the president, since Mr. Boehner said last Congress he would need as many as 50 Democratic votes.

In 2013, 22 House Republicans signed on to their own opposition letter, of which 17 remain in Congress.

On February 12, 2015 the House Ways and Means Committee issued the following e-mail release on Currency Manipulation opposing the implementation of a bill to unilaterally hit countries on Currency Manipulation:

FEBRUARY 12, 2015

Currency Manipulation: Finding the Right Solution

There is great unease today about currency manipulation abroad—and rightfully so. Some countries—particularly China—have distorted exchange rates to gain an advantage in the world market, hurting American exports by making their goods cheaper and ours more expensive.

It’s a legitimate problem that deserves a real response. The United States holds the world’s reserve currency. We have a unique ability to pressure countries to stop the manipulation, and we must do more. That’s why Trade Promotion Authority legislation (TPA) raises fighting manipulation to a primary negotiating objective and provides the administration more tools to tackle the practice.

At the same time, some in Congress have called for a more confrontational approach.

Opposed by the administration and many in Congress, including Chairman Ryan, this counterproductive tactic would trigger higher tariffs on any country believed to be manipulating its currency, either through unilateral U.S. action or through a mechanism in trade agreements. While possibly appealing on its face, this approach presents significant problems. It could:

Lead to a tariff war that will increase barriers to trade and cost jobs;

If the United States begins unilaterally levying tariffs, our trading partners will no doubt do the same, leading to a dangerous cycle that would undermine the very purpose of trade agreements—to break down barriers—and, more importantly, hurt American competitiveness and jobs.

Capture the wrong culprit and put the U.S. at risk of manipulation charges;

There is no clear definition of currency manipulation or simple calculation for it, and trying to legislate such a complex matter poses the risk of triggering a trade war in response to innocent currency movements. At the same time, it would not be difficult for other nations to assert the U.S.’s monetary policy is intended to tilt the playing field.

<Risk putting the U.S. in violation of international obligations and out of WTO

compliance;

Pursuing a unilateral approach would likely cause the United States to be a target for retaliation by countries like China, harming our businesses and their employees.

Make the U.S. vulnerable to lawsuits and jeopardize our ability to set our own

monetary policy;

Even pursuing provisions in trade agreements that would allow us to increase tariffs on manipulators would expose us to litigation, whether justified or not, when countries challenge our monetary policy. And even if the United States ultimately prevails, litigation would distract from broader efforts to address currency manipulation and shield real currency manipulators.

Threaten the U.S. dollar’s standing as the world’s leading currency;

The United States has become the holder of the world’s reserve currency not by accident or by any law, but rather through strength and steadiness. And the status provides the U.S. immeasurable benefits. Maintaining stability and pursuing currency grievances through multinational forums are critical to protecting this valued position we hold in the world.

Derail the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its potential benefits to the U.S.;

Creating mechanisms to increase tariffs through trade agreements because of currency policy would no doubt cause nations with which we are currently negotiating a significant trade agreement to rethink whether the United States is a viable trading partner, causing them to pull out of these negotiations. Missing out on a good TPP agreement would be a critical blow to America’s credibility and an enormous missed opportunity to create good jobs.

And, for all the downside, it probably wouldn’t work.

With all the damage such an approach would do to the United States and our standing in the world, it provides no real incentive for bad actors to change behavior. What’s more, monetary and domestic fiscal policy have much greater impact on the value of a currency than would the type of market interventions targeted by this proposal.

So what is the right solution?

For starters, let’s put in place multinational rules that have proven to yield results. The G-7, G-20, and IMF efforts have had success in limiting attempts to manipulate currency and in some cases outright stopped market interventions. For example, as a result of commitments taken by the G-7, Japan has not intervened in foreign currency markets in an effort to lower the value of the yen in the last three years.

But we can—and must—do more. That’s why TPA legislation would make fighting currency manipulation a primary negotiating objective for all trade agreements. In addition, TPA provides the administration with tools such as “cooperative mechanisms, enforceable rules, reporting, monitoring, transparency, or other means, as appropriate” to address currency manipulation. It is incumbent upon the administration to continue pursuing efforts to rein in the practice, and Congress must continue to press for better results.

Finally, another important step we can take is put in place more trade agreements. A more interconnected global marketplace will have even less tolerance for manipulation. And as Chairman Ryan has said, “If we don’t write the rules of the global economy, somebody else will—somebody who may not have our best interests at heart. And if we don’t like the way the global economy works, then we have to get out there and change it.”

That’s why enacting trade legislation like TPA with a thoughtful approach toward currency manipulation is so critical. Currency manipulation is a legitimate threat, but our response must be one that advances, rather than undermines, our trade agenda and our economy.

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSITANCE PROGRAM—REAUTHORIZATION

As stated in my last blog posts, I have made the case for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Firms/Companies, which is presently funded at $16 million nationwide.

At the end of 2014, because of the efforts of Senator Sherrod Brown and Congressmen Adam Smith, Derek Kilmer and Sander Levin in the House, the TAA for Firms/Companies program was reauthorized in the Cromnibus Bill, which went through the Senate and the House and was signed into law by President Obama. Although Senator Brown advocated that the assistance for US companies in the TAA for Firms program be increased to $50 million, in fact, the program was cut from 16 million to $12.5M.

Recently we have learned although President Obama preaches a good game, the Commerce Department has proposed reducing trade adjustment assistance for companies to $10 million. This very small amount is to help all companies nation- wide hurt by imports?? Yet, if we can save the companies, we save the jobs that go with those companies

According to the Commerce Department’s Economic Development Agency’s 4th annual report, 882 trade-impacted firms have received assistance through TAA for Firms (TAAF) in 2013. These firms employed over 76,000 workers at the time of their entry into TAAF and at least one firm was located in 48 of the 50 states throughout the country.

As Democratic Congressmen stated in a December 8, 2014 letter to Speaker Boehner and Minority leader Nancy Pelosi:

TAAF is another critical component of this program that effectively assists U.S. companies impacted by imports remain competitive. TAAF offers a matching fund for outside expertise to help companies adjust their business models allowing them to regain their competitive advantage in the marketplace. The program makes it possible for companies to avoid layoffs, or, where layoffs have occurred, to rehire workers as the companies regain their competitive footholds. In the most recent report by the Department of Commerce on T AAF, it is reported that all the U.S. companies that were beneficiaries in 2011 were still in business in 2013.

TAA is a critical part of our nation’s competitiveness strategy in the face of a rapidly evolving world economy and its reauthorization enjoys bipartisan support. Congressional leadership and action to reauthorize TAA is needed to stop the termination of an effective program that helps American workers and firms compete, innovate, strengthen, and diversify America’s economy. We must do all we can to save jobs by helping firms readjust and workers regain their edge and competitiveness in the global marketplace.”

As the TPP, TTIP and other trade agreements come into force changing the US market by government action with the force of a government tsunami, TAA for firms/companies is the only program that will give companies the tools they need to adjust to increased trade/import competition from so many different countries.

US APPROVES TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT

In addition to Hong Kong, on January 23, 2015 the US government officially ratified the WTO trade facilitation agreement. The TFA is expected to cut Customs red tape at ports around the World. Experts have estimated that the TFA could add billions to the World economy.

CHINA ANTIDUMPING CASES AGAINST US

On January 28, 2015, the Chinese government reported that it has three outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders against the United States: Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel, Broiler (Chicken) Products; and Solar-grade Polysilicon.

RUSSIA—US SANCTIONS AS A RESULT OF UKRAINE CRISIS

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.

On December 22, 2014, Russian oil giant Rosneft NK OAO on Monday dropped its bid to buy Morgan Stanley’s oil-trading and storage business, citing an “objective impossibility” of gaining regulatory clearance amid tense international relations in the wake of ongoing sanctions against Moscow.

On January 26th, Adam Szubin, the director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a top US Treasury official, stated that more targeted sanctions could be coming against Russia as the violence in eastern Ukraine escalates.

On February 9th, Chancellor Merkel met with President Obama and the decision was to leave the sanctions in place. On February 11th, Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia are expected to have talks in Belarus in an attempt to establish a peace agreement in the Ukraine.

MADE IN USA—NORDTROM AND LAND’S END BOTH HAVE PROBLEMS

On January 27, 2015, a California Federal Judge denied Nordstrom’s motion for an interlocutory review of a proposed class action accusing them of falsely marketing jeans as “made in the USA.” California has a much stricter “Made in USA” law than the Federal FTC law or any law in the rest of the United States.

On the same day, Land’s End moved to end a proposed class action case in California alleging that the clothing retailer inflated prices on its clothes by labeling foreign-made apparel as produced in the USA.

IP/PATENT AND 337 CASES

SUPREMA ORAL ARGUMENT

On February 5, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held an oral argument in the Suprema case to determine whether section 337 can be used to bar imports that induce patent infringement. It was reported that the CAFC judges appear split on whether “articles of infringement” in section 337 refers only to the imported items themselves, and not how they will be used upon sale in the U.S.

Plaintiff argued that Articles of infringement mean only imports that infringe the patent at the time of entry into the US and the imports did not infringe the patent at time of entry.

The ITC lawyer argued that the Commission must analyze the patent as a whole in determining which items infringe. The ITC lawyer stated;

“The invention is the process.” Isolating the items from their ultimate use is “not how [patent cases] are adjudicated.”

NEW 337 CASE AGAINST CHINA

On February 9, 2015, a new 337 complaint was filed by Andreas Electronics Corp on Audio Processing Hardware and Software and Products against Acer Inc., Taiwan; Acer America Corp., San Jose, CA; ASUSTEK Computer Inc., Taiwan; ASUS Computer International, Fremont, CA; Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX; Hewlett Packard Co., Palo Alto, CA; Lenovo Group Ltd., China; Lenovo Holding Co., Inc., Morrisville, NC; Lenovo (United States) Inc., Morrisville, NC; Toshiba Corp., Japan; Toshiba America Inc., New York, NY; Toshiba America Information Systems Inc., Irvine, CA; and Realtek Semiconductor Corp..

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

On January 13, 2015 Azure Networks Inc. filed a patent case against ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. AZURE ZTE COMPLAINT

On January 21, 2015, Music City Metals Co. filed a trademark case against Xiao Jin Hua, Hou Huanqing, King Shin International, King Jing LLC, King Shin International Co., Ltd. KZNG SHZN International Co., Ltd. and BBQ Parts Ltd.MUSIC CITY COMPLAINT Complaint 3-15cv67

On January 27, 2015, Robertshaw Controls Company filed a trademark unfair competition case against Ningbo Ranco Machinery & Equipment Co., Ltd.NINGBO TRADEMARK CASE

On January 28, 2015, Spy Optic Inc. filed a trademark, unfair competition case, against Alibaba.com, Albaba.com Hong Kong Ltd., Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.,ALIBABA TRADEMARK CASE

On January 30, 2015, Consolidated Work Station Computing LLC filed a patent case against Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. and Huawei Device USA Inc. CONSOLIDATED HUAWEI

On February 3, 2015, Thingcharger Inc. and P3 International Corp. filed a patent case against Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc., Viatek International LLC, Foshan Um Electronics Co., Ltd. Foshum complaint

On February 4, 2015 Paxton Sales, Inc. filed a copyright and unfair competition case against Vogue Furniture Direct Inc., Guozhi Qiao, and Zhejiang Chairmeng Furniture Co., Ltd. PAXTON FURNITURE COPYRIGHT COMPLAINT

On February 6, 2015, Avionqs LLC filed a patent case against Air China Cargo Company. CHINA CARGO PATENT CASE

On February 9, 2015, United States Pumice Company filed a trade secrets unfair competition case against Seung Joon Lee and Yiwe Xianxue Company Ltd. dba Ipumice.comPUMICE CHINA CASE

On February 12, 2015, Toyo Tire and Rubber Co and Toyo Tire USA Corp. filed an unfair competition, trade dress case against CIA Wheel Group, Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre Co., Tire Industrial Co., Ltd. and Double Star Group Corp.  QINGDAO TYRE CASE

On February 13, 2015, eDigital Corp filed a patent case against Shenzhen Gospell Smartphone Electron Co., dba Ocea Camera, Ividem Ltd., New Sight Devices Corp. SHENZHEN CASE

CHINESE INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTION IN UNITED STATES—FOREIGN INVESTMENT FILING REQUIREMENTS

On December 4, 2014, Mellissa Krasnow, a Dorsey attorney, published the following article about the filing requirement for Foreign Investments in the United States:

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently launched the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. See http://www.dorsey.com/eu-be-13-new-foreigndirect- investment-in-us/. There are civil penalties, injunctive relief and criminal penalties for failing to file BE-13 when required, so whether BE-13 needs to be filed must be determined and the obligation to file must be complied with. Questions for companies to ask regarding acquisitions completed since January 1, 2014 (data is being collected retroactively back to January 1, 2014) and going forward include:

  1. Has your company made foreign investment filings with the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis?
  2. Has your company been contacted by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis in 2014?
  3. Is the total cost of the transaction greater than US$3 million and:

Did a foreign entity or an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign entity acquire a voting interest in a U.S. enterprise, segment or operating unit? If yes, consider the requirements for BE-13A at https://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/be13/be13a-fillable.pdf;

also consider the requirements for BE-13C at Https://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/be13/be13c-fillable.pdf.

Did a foreign entity or an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign entity establish a new legal entity in the United States? If yes, consider the requirements for BE-13B at

https://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/be13/be13b-fillable.pdf.

Did an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent acquire a U.S. business enterprise or segment that it then merge into its operations? If yes, consider the requirements for BE-13C at https://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/be13/be13cfillable.pdf.

Did an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent expand its operations to include a new facility where business is conducted? If yes, consider the requirements for BE-13D at https://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/be13/be13dfillable.pdf.

Does the U.S. business enterprise not meet all of the above requirements? If yes, consider the requirements for BE-13 Claim for Exemption at https://www.bea.gov/surveys/pdf/be13/be13-claimfillable.pdf.

These filings are due within 45 days after the acquisition is completed, the new legal entity is established, or the expansion is begun.

US LITIGATION ORDERING FOREIGN COMPANIES TO BREAK ATTORNEY CLIENT WORK PRODUCT

Dorsey lawyers for the Bank of China are attempting to overturn a US judge’s order to release materials to plaintiff collected during the Bank of China’s internal investigation. Dorsey lawyers for the Bank are arguing that the documents were prepared under the direction of outside counsel in anticipation of potential litigation and should not be released to the Plaintiffs because of attorney-client privilege.

The Federal Judge faulted the Bank for failing to provide information as to when it began communicating with its original outside attorney at Preston, Gates about the matter, and that it failed to state the dates and nature of his involvement, including whether he “directed or claims to have directed any aspect of the investigation”.

In the objection to the order, Bank of China’s lawyer Lanier Saperstein at Dorsey & Whitney said that “Judge Gorenstein has effectively created new rules for establishing work-product protection and attorney-client privilege,” adding that the new rules would prevent a business like Bank of China “from communicating with an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice unless the attorney first directs the client to do so.” Saperstein argued that Judge Gorenstein’s order is contrary to a Second Circuit ruling in United States v Adlman where the court established that work-product protection applies if “the documents can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation”.

Saperstein also rejected the assertion that only communications made at the request of the attorney apply for attorney-client privilege. Limiting privilege “to only those communications made at the direction of the attorney would lead to perverse results,” Saperstein said, adding: “Under this requirement, a client who describes his situation to an attorney before asking for advice would receive no protection.”

Saperstein further stated: “I’m particularly thrown by the theme that runs through the decision, which is that you need to establish the counterfactual world, and show what you would have done had the facts been different.”

He said the decision places a very high burden on companies, stating:

“I’ve never submitted an Upjohn declaration stating what we would have done had we not anticipated litigation. [I’m] not entirely sure how one does that, because it moves away from the factual situation to a hypothetical one. How would one attest to what you would have done in a different scenario?”

ANTITRUST

There have been major developments in the antitrust area both in the United States and in China.

VITAMIN C ORAL ARGUMENT

On January 29, 2015, oral argument was held in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Vitamin C Antitrust Case against Chinese companies. In that appeal, two Chinese companies Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp., along with China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) are trying to reverse a $153 million dollar award against the two Chinese companies from a Brooklyn, New York in an antitrust class action over price-fixing of vitamin C exports to the US from China. During the argument, MOFCOM’s counsel argued that the proceedings are seen “as an affront to the Chinese government,” especially the notion that China tried to tweak its laws after the fact.

But William Isaacson of Boies, Schiller, the Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that Chinese law, or its possible evolution, was not before the jury and urged the panel to respect the vigorously litigated proceeding and voluminous record below, stating:

“It shows no disrespect to a government to disagree with them. The good people of Brooklyn were not asked to decide what Chinese law says,” only to decide whether the government made the companies fix their prices. “If there’s no actual compulsion, there’s no comity issue.”

Augustine Lo, a Dorsey Trade and Corporate lawyer, attended the oral argument and reported as follows:

The Second Circuit oral argument in the Vitamin C antitrust case was interesting. Counsel for the two Chinese companies who went to trial (Wilson Sonsini), counsel for MOFCOM (Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin LLP), and counsel for plaintiffs (Boies Schiller) presented their arguments. The panel consisted of Chief Judge Cabranes, Judge Hall, and Judge Wesley.

As you may recall, Federal District Court Judge Cogan of Eastern District New York (same judge as Arab Bank trial) ruled that MOFCOM’s statement in support of the Chinese companies was insufficient to prove that the PRC government compelled the antitrust violation at issue. In effect, the Federal District Court Judge decided that plaintiffs’ explanation of Chinese law and ambiguous translations of witness statements concerning the lack of strict enforcement were more authoritative than MOFCOM’s statement. MOFCOM was furious.

Defendants-Appellants’ counsel focused his argument on the comity issue – that the District Judge failed to defer to the MOFCOM statement and failed to acknowledge the international relations conflict between price fixing authorized by Chinese law and prohibition of the same conduct under U.S. antitrust law. Plaintiffs-Appellees’ counsel explained that the District Judge properly excluded the Chinese regulation from the jury because the interpretation of the regulation was a question of law that the judge previously settled under Rule 44.1. Plaintiffs contend that the jury was able to decide there was no compulsion based on the record evidence. In rebuttal, defendants countered that the translations on the record regarding the companies’ voluntary conduct were ambiguous, which militates even more strongly in favor of deference to the MOFCOM statement.

Judges Cabranes and Hall seemed more receptive to defendants-appellees’ comity arguments. I predict a 2-1 vote in favor of reversal on the issue of comity. It’s unclear whether they will remand for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (as requested by defendants), or whether they may remand for new trial and require the District Court Judge to accord proper evidentiary weight to the MOFCOM statement.

CHINA ANTI-MONOPOLY CASES

QUALCOMM

On February 9, 2015, it was announced that Qualcomm Inc. agreed to pay $975 million to end the Chinese government’s antitrust investigation under China’s anti-monopoly law into whether it used its position as the world’s largest smartphone chipmaker to charge discriminatory fees to patent licensees. The settlement came after meetings on February 6th between Qualcomm and China’s National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”). Qualcomm also agreed to lower its royalty rates on patents used in China and to change its licensing practices as part of the deal.

Derek Aberle, Qualcomm’s President, stated:

“We are pleased that the investigation has concluded and believe that our licensing business is now well positioned to fully participate in China’s rapidly accelerating adoption of our 3G/4G technology. We appreciate the NDRC’s acknowledgment of the value and importance of Qualcomm’s technology and many contributions to China, and look forward to its future support of our business in China.”

The NDRC ruled that Qualcomm violated China’s anti-monopoly law with its patent licensing practices, and the company agreed not to contest the finding.

Apparently, the Chinese market and the potential for large profits are just too big for US companies to ignore.

JCCT TALKS

On December 19, 2014, the Chinese Daily reported on the December 16-18 JCCT talks between the US government and the Chinese government stating, “China said it will treat all market entities equally in anti-monopoly enforcement and allow foreign companies’ legal advisers to observe meetings between litigants and anti-monopoly enforcement agencies.”

In the fact sheet, which was circulated at the end of the talks, the Commerce Department stated regarding the Chinese government’s agreement at the JCCT talks:

COMPETITION LAW

U.S. industry has asserted that China’s competition policy enforcement authorities seem to be targeting foreign companies and at times use Anti-monopoly Law investigations as a tool to protect and promote domestic national champions and domestic industries. U.S. industry also has expressed concern about insufficient predictability, fairness and transparency in China’s investigative processes, as well as pressure from the Chinese authorities not to seek outside counsel or have counsel present at meetings. China’s commitments below help to address several of these concerns.

  1. In order to build on the recognition of the United States and China in the Sixth Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue that the objective of competition policy is to promote consumer welfare and economic efficiency, rather than promote individual competitors or industries, and that the enforcement of their respective competition laws should be fair, transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory, and China’s commitment that its three Antimonopoly Enforcement Agencies (AMEAs) are to provide to any party under investigation information about the AMEA’s competition concerns with the conduct or transaction, as well as an effective opportunity for the party to present evidence in its defense:
  2. a) China clarifies that in enforcing the AML, all business operators shall be treated equally.
  3. b) Where AML violations are found, China clarifies that it is to impose enforcement measures that address the harm to competition, and not to impose enforcement measures designed to promote individual competitors or industries.
  4. China clarifies that its AMEAs will, (1) when undertaking administrative actions, strictly follow statutory limits on their authority, procedures, and requirements as laid out in China’s relevant laws, regulations and rules; and

(2) before imposing penalties, notify the parties of the facts, grounds, and basis according to which the administrative penalties are to be decided, notify the parties of the rights that they enjoy in accordance with the law, and provide the parties with the right to state their cases and to defend themselves.

  1. China clarifies that all administrative decisions that impose liability on a party under the AML will be provided in writing to the party and include the facts, reasons, and evidence on which the decision is based. China clarifies that it will publish the final version of administrative decisions that impose liability on a party under the AML in a timely manner. Administrative decisions made public in accordance with law should not include contents involving what are legally commercial secrets.
  2. China will ensure that, upon request from a party involved, the three AMEAs are to allow Chinese practicing lawyers to attend and participate in meetings with any of the three AMEAs. China will ensure that, upon request from the party involved, and after obtaining approval from the AMEA, which shall be granted as normal practice, the following persons may attend the meetings with any of the three AMEAs: (1) representatives of foreign law firm representative offices established in China, who are permitted to attend and advise on international law and practice and provide information on the impact of the Chinese legal environment, but not permitted to conduct activities that encompass Chinese legal affairs, and (2) foreign legal counsel practicing in other legal jurisdictions, who are permitted to attend and provide information on the subject transaction or conduct and information on the laws or international practices of the legal jurisdiction where they practice.

In the Blog post describing the JCCT, Commerce states:

  • Competition policy enforcement: The United States was able to address a significant concern for many foreign companies, which have expressed serious concern about insufficient predictability, fairness and transparency in the investigative processes of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law enforcement. The Chinese side agreed that, under normal circumstances, a foreign company in an Anti-Monopoly Law investigation would be permitted to have counsel present and to consult with them during proceedings. China also made several additional commitments, including to treat domestic and foreign companies equally and to provide increased transparency for investigated companies.

ANJIE LAW FIRM

On January 21, 2015, Michael Gu, a Chinese antitrust lawyer at the Anjie Law Firm in Beijing, sent the following e-mail with attached several articles on Chinese antitrust law:

I would like to share with you my latest articles on the recent PRC antitrust development.

      Six Years After the Implementation of the Anti-Monopoly Law: Enforcement Trends and Developments of Anti-Monopoly Law Investigation in China (English and Chinese)2014 marks the six anniversary of the implementation of the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML), the National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China (“NDRC”) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (“SAIC”) have gradually strengthened their anti-monopoly law enforcement in terms of investigation with rounds of record fines. In particular, since early 2013, the investigations conducted by the NDRC are apparently speeding up with 11 high-profile cases investigated and closed with the total fines amounting to RMB 3,272.75 million. This article focus on the typical cases investigated and fined by the NDRC and the SAIC, analyzing in detail the recent trends and features, as well as future developments of anti-monopoly law enforcement. Also, we provide suggestions to companies with respect to their construction of antitrust compliance program under the new circumstances

MOFCOM Steps Up: Penalty Decisions Regarding Merger Control Published for the First Time (English) On 2 December 2014, for the first time ever, MOFCOM, the Chinese antitrust enforcement authority responsible for merger control, published three penalty decisions regarding concentration of undertakings. MOFCOM has announced that it was going to publicize its penalty decisions on undertakings which fail to file a notifiable merger as early as 21 March 2014, and now, here it comes. By publicizing these penalty decisions, MOFCOM conveys a clear message that it is enhancing the supervision and law enforcement on merger issues.

T&D MICROSOFT E-MAIL AND ARTICLE

On December 9th, John Ren of T&D Associates, a well-known, Chinese antitrust lawyer in Beijing, sent out an e-mail to all interested parties about the Chinese Ministry of Commerce’s (MOFCOM) recent decisions to hand out penalty decision in three cases. As John Ren states:

T&D has prepared an email to introduce three penalty decisions of MOFCOM to the clients. Please see below for your reference as well.

The Department of Treaty and Law (“DTL”) of the Ministry of Commerce of People’s Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) has published three Administrative Penalty Determination Letters on December 8, 2014 on its website to impose fines on Western Digital Corporation (“Western Digital”) and Tsinghua Unigroup Co., Ltd.(“Unigroup”) for their violation of antitrust law and regulations. Please find attached the English translations of the three documents prepared by T&D for your kind reference.

T&D would like to provide comments as below for your kind reference:

      1. The penalties imposed on Western Digital are aimed at its violation of commitments in MOFCOM’s conditional approval notice in accordance with Article 15 of the Measures for the Review of Concentrations of Undertakings (“Measures“), while the penalty imposed on Unigroup is aimed at its violation of notification obligation in accordance with Article 21 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (“AML“) and Article 13 of the Interim Measures for Investigating and Handling Failure to Notify the Concentration of Undertakings According to Law (“Interim Measures“).
      2.      On March 20, 2014, MOFCOM has published an announcement about disclosing the penalty determination after May 1, 2014 on the undertakings who implemented a concentration without filing before MOFCOM when it is needed in accordance with law. And it is the first time MOFCOM has published its penalty determinations on undertakings who violate the restrictive conditions in a conditional approval notice (regarding the Western Digital Penalty) and on undertakings who fail to notify before MOFCOM when it was needed in accordance with the law (regarding the Unigroup Penalty).
      3. These public penalty determinations show a trend of MOFCOM strengthening enforcement of antitrust law after May 1, 2014. In fact, there were several companies on which bureau-level penalties were imposed in the past by the Anti-Monopoly Bureau of MOFCOM and those penalties have not been disclosed to the public, while the disclosure of the administrative penalty this time by DTL of MOFCOM is a higher-level penalty which has a higher number of fine and needs consent from the minister-level to be implemented. Also, there will be other kinds of penalties if MOFCOM defines antitrust concerns during the review process in accordance with the AML, for example, to discontinue such concentrations, to dispose of undertakings’ shares or assets within a specific time limit, to transfer the business, to adopt other necessary measures to return to the status prior to the concentration, etc.
      4. In accordance with Article 48 of the AML, MOFCOM can impose a fine of no more than 500,000 RMB on the undertakings. Although compared to the transaction value and the turnover of some large-scale companies, this is not a significant figure, MOFCOM’s act of disclosing the penalty determination will seriously hurt the reputation of the companies and effect the compliance issues of those companies in their future operations in China. Therefore, we sincerely suggest that companies take it more seriously when evaluating the necessity of notification and perform the obligation of notification if necessary.
      5. As we can see, the penalty determinations aim at one foreign company and one domestic company, which shows a fair treatment and attitude by MOFCOM regarding antitrust law enforcement on both foreign and domestic companies.

T&D JANUARY REPORT

T&D also sent us their attached January report on Chinese competition law, TD Monthly Antitrust Report of January 2015. In that report, John Ren states in part:

Experts Predict Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement will Normalize and Regulate this Year

January 5, 2015

Anti-monopoly law enforcement advanced triumphantly in 2014.

This year, many well-known foreign companies such as Qualcomm, Tetra Pak, Microsoft, Mercedes, etc. have faced investigation by China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement; Japanese auto parts enterprises received the biggest fines since the birth of the anti-monopoly law; rare anti-administrative monopoly investigation cases have also arisen on suspicions of discriminatorily charging road tolls, and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) launched an anti-monopoly investigation on an administrative organ at the provincial level for the first time.

There are so many bright spots of “first times”, “largest,” and so on in 2014, leaving this year with a groundbreaking mark in the course of China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement.

This kind of strength has been accused of “selective law enforcement”, “lacking law enforcement transparency”, “lacking professionalism” and so on. As for the trend of the anti-monopoly law enforcement from now on, a majority of experts give prudent predictions. They think, in view of law enforcement difficulties, the strengthening of supervision by public opinion as well as the improvement on the Government Information Publicity System, anti-monopoly law enforcement in 2015 will become more prudent and precise, and strong law enforcement is likely to slow down.

Full bloom of anti-monopoly law enforcement

2014 is the year in which anti-monopoly law enforcement blossomed everywhere. Both for domestic enterprises and foreign enterprises, also both for natural monopolies and administrative monopolies, law enforcement and judicial organs all increased their engagement.

The anti-monopoly investigation on many multinational companies and foreign companies is a big characteristic of anti-monopoly in 2014. At the beginning of the New Year, the information of anti-monopoly law enforcement drew people’s attention. Qualcomm was under anti-monopoly investigation by the National Development and Reform Commission, and Tetra Pak and Microsoft were under an anti-monopoly investigation by China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce.

On May 29, the National Development and Reform Commission issued the first anti-monopoly fine for 2014. Because price monopolistic behavior violated the anti-monopoly law, five eyeglass production enterprises including Essilor, Bausch & Lomb, etc., were fined more than 19 million Yuan.

Into the summer, the National Development and Reform Commission targeted the import auto industry as a goal for a new round of anti-monopoly enforcement. On August 4, the anti-monopoly investigation team of the National Development and Reform Commission abruptly investigated Mercedes’ Shanghai office. A number of Mercedes executives were summoned for questioning, and many office computers were inspected. After then, luxury cars such as Chrysler and Audi reduced their prices one after the other in response to China’s anti-monopoly investigations.

At the same time, domestic enterprises are also undergoing anti-monopoly investigations and anti-monopoly penalties. So far, it is clear to see through the “Anti-monopoly Cases Release Platform” that all 16 anti-monopoly cases punished by the anti-monopoly enforcement authority in the industry and commerce system target domestic enterprises.

The “restricting administrative monopoly” provision in the Anti-Monopoly law has been plagued by the “decoration” question. On September 13, the NDRC anti-monopoly bureau director Kun Lin, Xu announced at a news conference in the State Council Information Office (SCIO) that the stipulation by Hebei province, that the bus in its province will be charged half price of toll fees but out-of-province buses will be charged full price, is suspected of violating the anti-monopoly law, and it is under the National Development and Reform Commission’s investigation. Relevant government departments in Hebei province soon put forward an improvement scheme, restoring prices to the same price charged for local vehicles and vehicle from other places.

Repeatedly refreshed anti-monopoly fines

In 2014, the anti-monopoly enforcement authority continued the intensity of punishment in 2013; anti-monopoly fines reached new highs repeatedly.

In sweltering mid-August, the National Development and Reform Commission offered a 1.235 billion Yuan penalty to 12 Japanese auto parts companies, and so far this is the biggest anti-monopoly fine in China. It is understood that since 2013 the National Development and Reform Commission has issued 7 anti-monopoly fines, each of which reached more than ten million Yuan.

On September 2, in view of the fact that the insurance industry association of Zhejiang province organized 23 provincial property insurance companies to hold a meeting about car insurance premiums and they violated the anti-monopoly law regulation, the National Development and Reform Commission decided to fine the insurance industry association of Zhejiang province 500,000 Yuan, and 110 million Yuan on the 23 property insurance companies involved. This is by far the biggest anti-monopoly fine in the insurance industry.

The media exclaims that anti-monopoly fines are higher and higher. Industry experts remind the public that the focus for anti-monopoly enforcement should not just be placed on the amount of the fine. Professor Jian Zhong Shi, a modification and review panel expert for the Anti-Monopoly Law of the State Council Legislative Affairs Office and a director in the competition law research center of China University of Political Science and Law, thinks that even if a fine is a “sky-high price”, the purpose of law enforcement is not for huge fines, but for restoring the normal order of market competition.

Super-national treatment is closed

The intensive law enforcement on foreign-funded enterprises soon triggered suspicion. The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China raised objection to the anti-monopoly investigations in China, considering that they have been treated unfairly. Others argue that there is a double standard in China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement. While there is strict law enforcement on private enterprise and multinational companies, the law enforcement on state-owned enterprise is passive.

As for this point of view, Mengyan, an associate professor in the law school of Renmin University of China, thinks that the business activities of multinational companies and foreign-funded enterprises in China enjoy “Super-national Treatment” in the initial stages of reform and opening-up. When faced with anti-monopoly law enforcement practices in China, foreign-funded enterprises should consider more, keep a low-profile, and reflect on whether their own pricing behavior violates the anti-monopoly provision.

Since the initiation of China’s anti-monopoly law in August, 2008, the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce did not “exert force” until the past two years. As for this point, Huangyong, deputy supervisor of the expert consultation group for the Anti-monopoly Commission of the State Council and professor in the law school of University of International Business and Economics, expresses that this phenomenon may be explained as that: For the new anti-monopoly law, law enforcement authorities are willing to set aside a period of time for market players to correct themselves before as the authorities themselves also need some time to learn professional knowledge and accumulate law enforcement experience. However, after six years, law enforcement authorities today both have the intention and the capability to fully open anti-monopoly law enforcement. To some extent, law enforcement authorities are cleaning “historical debts”. Law enforcement work is becoming normality.

Law enforcement transparency awaits improvement

The transparency of law enforcement has become a focus point for the general question in the foreign press on China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement.

On September 2, 2014, the National Development and Reform Commission announced its 0.11 billion Yuan anti-monopoly “ticket” on the insurance industry in Zhejiang province and published its full written decision of administrative penalty at the same time. However, the scrupulous reader can find that this written decision of administrative penalty has been made by the National Development and Reform Commission as early as the end of 2013, so why is it not published until today? Should the written decision of administrative penalty for anti-monopoly law enforcement be published timely?

Meanwhile, the publication of written decisions of administrative penalties for anti-monopoly law enforcement lacks unified legislation. This becomes another question raising suspicion of foreigners regarding anti-monopoly law enforcement transparency.

Insiders generally consider that anti-monopoly law enforcement will become normality from now on. However, considering law enforcement difficulties, the strengthening of the supervision of public opinions as well as the improvement on Government Information Publicity System, anti-monopoly law enforcement in 2015 will become more prudent and precise; the strong law enforcement is likely to slow down.

Professor Huangyong thinks that the focus for anti-monopoly law enforcement from now on should return to the legislative intention for the anti-monopoly law, that is to say, to safeguard a healthy market competition order. From now on, anti-monopoly cases will be more complex and involve more frontier domains. This puts forward a higher demand for the professionalism of anti-monopoly law enforcement. Thus, law enforcement authorities in our country should be well prepared and meet the challenge actively.

SECURITIES

PRC AUDIT FIRMS REACH SETTLEMENT WITH SEC

On February 8, 2015, Dorsey Partner, Tom Gorman, who used to work at the SEC Enforcement division, posted the following article about PRC Based Audit Firms and their problems at the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on his blog on securities litigation. In that post Tom Gorman states:

SEC – PRC Based Audit Firms Reach A Settlement

The SEC and the PRC based affiliates of five major accounting firms entered into a settlement of proceedings initiated over the failure to produce audit work papers for issuers with substantial operations in China. The settlement, which provides a mechanism for governing future productions, represents a significant step toward a resolution of these issues which ultimately stem from the intersection of far different cultures and regulatory systems.

The proceedings

In the Matter of BDO China Dahua CPA Co., Ltd., Adm. Proc. File No. 3-15116 (Dec. 3, 2012) is a proceeding which named as Respondents the PRC based affiliates of five major accounting firms: BDO China, Ernst & Young Hau Ming LLP, KPMG Huazhen (Special General Partnership), Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants Ltd. and PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Ltd.

The proceeding was based on Rule 102(e)(1)(iii) which permits the Commission to temporarily or permanently deny any person found to have willfully violated or aided and abetted the violation of the Federal securities laws. Section 106 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, was alleged to have been violated. That Section provides that a PCAOB registered firm that audits the financial statements of a U.S. issuer consents to produce its work papers on request by either the Board or the SEC.

In this matter, each Respondent is registered with the PCAOB. Each Respondent is alleged to have been engaged to audit the financial statements of a PRC based U.S. issuer. Each Respondent was served with a request by the Commission to produce all of its audit work papers for a designated period. Each Respondent declined, at least in part, based on their understanding that the law of the PRC precluded the production. The Order directed that a hearing be held before an ALJ to hear evidence.

Following the hearing the Law Judge issued an initial decision on January 22, 2014. In that decision, much of which was redacted, the Law Judge found that each firm should be censured. In addition, each firm, except BDO, was suspended from practicing before the SEC for six months. The Commission then granted petitions for review filed by Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC as well as the Division. See also In the Matter of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Certified Public Accountants Ltd., Adm. Proc. File No. 3-14872 (May 9, 2012)(subpoena enforcement action against the audit firm related to a different PRC based client).

The settlement

BDO China, Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC settled with the SEC, admitting certain facts which are the predicate of the proceedings as set forth in Annex A. There were no admissions that the Federal securities or other laws were violated.

Under the terms of the settlement each Respondent is censured and will pay a penalty of $500,000. The Order provides for a stay of the current proceedings for a period of four years. The continuation of the stay is contingent on the implementation of certain undertakings tied to the execution of future requests for work papers. Specifically, the undertakings provide that in the future the SEC will make requests for assistance to the CSRC under international sharing mechanisms which include the

IOSCO MMOU. At the same time the staff will make a request to one of the settling Respondents through its designated U.S. agent. The Respondent to whom the request is directed will provide the staff with a certification that the materials have been furnished to the CSRC, along with a log of any documents withheld based on privilege or PRC law provisions which include state secrets. The undertakings provide time limits for the completion of these tasks.

If the Respondent to whom the request is directed fails to provide the required certificates within the specified time periods the Commission can, under Rule 102(e), enter a partial bar as to that Respondent. That bar will have a term of six months and will preclude the firm from issuing an audit report or otherwise serving as a principal auditor for any issuer. If two such bars are ordered they shall run consecutively. There is no appeal from the entry of this order.

Alternatively, if the staff determines that the production made to CSRC is materially incomplete, after an opportunity to cure, a summary proceeding may be instituted before a Law Judge. The Law Judge will have the authority to issue a partial bar, a censure and a penalty of up to $75,000.

Finally, if the staff determines that a Respondent has provided materially deficient responses, there has been substantial delay, material has been withheld without justification under U.S. law and a summary proceeding has not been instituted, it may request that the Commission terminate the stay and restart the proceedings.

Comment

The settlement of these proceedings is one step in what has become a long and difficult process regarding the entry of PRC issuers into the U.S. and world capital markets. Issuers based in, or with substantial operations in the PRC, have sought entry into the U.S. and world capital markets.

Bringing those firms to markets which are heavily regulated and based on disclosure, however, represents a clash of culture and regulatory regimes.

Here that clash has been evident from the first. While SOX requires Board registered auditors to agree to produce work papers and subjects them to inspections, at the time of registration the firms involved in these proceedings did not provide the Consent to Cooperate. Nevertheless, the Board permitted their registration while reiterating its obligations.

As these proceedings demonstrate, effectuating the requirement that registered firms produce work papers has been difficult for the SEC and the Board. At the same time the Commission and Board have exercised restraint while negotiating resolutions of the issues involved here. For example, after significant efforts the Board was able to enter into an MOU with the CSRC regarding cooperation and the production of work papers. The materials in the underlying actions were produced.

Yet an agreement on inspection, while under discussion, has been elusive.

Viewed against this backdrop, the settlements here are significant. The firms were sanctioned, but not barred from appearing and practicing before the SEC. Rather, an additional mechanism for facilitating future requests was arranged under the threat of additional and more significant sanctions. The ultimate success of the process is, however, tied to the MOU negotiated by Board since the settlement only calls for delivery of the materials to the CSRC, not to the SEC. Recent productions by that agency suggest that in the future there will be more cooperation and transparency regarding issuers operating in the PRC. It may well be that the time has come for issuers operating in the PRC to enter the world capital markets.

See also Tom Gorman’s blog for more information about this case http://www.secactions.com/sec-prc-based-audit-firms-reach-a-settlement/

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (“FCPA”)

On December 15, 2014, the Justice Department announced that Avon China had pled guilty to violating the foreign corrupt practices Act by concealing more than $8 million in gifts to Chinese officials. As the Justice Department stated in an announcement, which will be attached to my blog:

Avon Products Inc. and Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd. Will Pay More than $135 Million in Criminal and Regulatory Penalties

Avon Products (China) Co. Ltd. (Avon China), a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York-based cosmetics company, Avon Products Inc. (Avon), pleaded guilty today to conspiring to violate the accounting provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to conceal more than $8 million in gifts, cash and non-business meals, travel and entertainment it gave to Chinese government officials in order to obtain and retain business benefits for Avon China. Avon China and Avon admitted the improper accounting and payments and Avon entered into a deferred prosecution agreement to resolve the investigation. In a proceeding today before United States District Judge George B. Daniels, the criminal Informations were filed against Avon and Avon China, and Avon China entered its guilty plea and was sentenced.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the Southern District of New York and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew G. McCabe of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.

“Companies that cook their books to hide improper payments will face criminal penalties, as Avon China’s guilty plea demonstrates,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “Public companies that discover bribes paid to foreign officials, fail to stop them, and cover them up do so at their own peril.”

“For years in China it was ‘Avon calling,’ as Avon bestowed millions of dollars in gifts and other things on Chinese government officials in return for business benefits,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara. “Avon China was in the door-to-door influence-peddling business, and for years its corporate parent, rather than putting an end to the practice, conspired to cover it up. Avon has now agreed to adopt rigorous internal controls and to the appointment of a monitor to ensure that reforms are instituted and maintained.”

“When corporations knowingly engage in bribery in order to obtain and retain contracts, it disrupts the level playing field to which all businesses are entitled,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge McCabe.

“Companies who attempt to advance their businesses through foreign bribery should be on notice. The FBI, with our law enforcement partners, is continuing to push this unacceptable practice out of the business playbook by investigating companies who ignore the law.”

Avon China pleaded guilty to a criminal information filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York charging the company with conspiring to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA. Avon, the parent company, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement today and admitted its criminal conduct, including its role in the conspiracy and its failure to implement internal controls.

Pursuant to the deferred prosecution agreement, the department filed a criminal information charging Avon with conspiring to violate the books and records provisions of the FCPA and violating the internal controls provisions of the FCPA. In total, the Avon entities will pay $67,648,000 in criminal penalties. Avon also agreed to implement rigorous internal controls, cooperate fully with the department and retain a compliance monitor for at least 18 months.

Avon settled a related FCPA matter with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today, and will pay an additional $67,365,013 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, bringing the total amount of U.S. criminal and regulatory penalties paid by Avon and Avon China to $135,013,013.

According to the companies’ admissions, from at least 2004 through 2008, Avon and Avon China conspired to falsify Avon’s books and records by falsely describing the nature and purpose of certain Avon China transactions. Specifically, the companies sought to disguise over $8 million in gifts, cash and non-business travel, meals and entertainment that Avon China executives and employees gave to government officials in China in order to obtain and retain business benefits for Avon China. Avon China attempted to disguise the payments and benefits through various means, including falsely describing the nature or purpose of, or participants associated with such expenses, and falsely recording payments to a third party intermediary as payments for legitimate consulting services.

The companies also admitted that in late 2005 Avon learned that Avon China was routinely providing things of value to Chinese government officials and failing to properly document them. Instead of ensuring the practice was halted, fixing the false books and records, disciplining the culpable individuals, and implementing appropriate controls to address this problem, the companies took steps to conceal the conduct, despite knowing that Avon China’s books and records, and ultimately Avon’s books and records, would continue to be inaccurate.

Court filings acknowledge Avon’s cooperation with the department, including conducting an extensive internal investigation, voluntarily making U.S. and foreign employees available for interviews, and collecting, analyzing, translating and organizing voluminous evidence.

BRUKER CORP.

On December 15, 2014 Massachusetts-based scientific instruments manufacturer Bruker Corp. agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by bribing Chinese government officials in an effort to win sales contracts.

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS

On December 2, 2014, Wayne Jewell filed a class action securities case against MOL Global, Inc., Tan Sri Dato, Seri Vincent Tan, Ganesh Jumar Bangah, Allan Sai Wah Wong, Eric He, Noah J. Doyle, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutchsche Bank Securities Inc., UBS Securities LLC and CIMB Securities (Singapore) PTD, Ltd. JEWELL MOL GLOBAL

On December 11, 2014, Chao Lu filed a class action securities case against Jumei International Holding Ltd, Leo Ou Chen, Yusen Dai, Mona Meng Gao, Yunsheng Zheng, Judge Paijley, Steve Yue Ji, Keyi Chen, Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC, Credit Suize Securities (USA) llc, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong) Ltd, Piper Jaffray & Co and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. JUMEI BROCK COMPLAINT

On December 31, 2014, Aram J. Pehlivian filed a class action securities case against China Gerui Advanced Materials Group Ltd, Mingwang Lu, Edward Meng, Yi Lu, Harry Edelson, J. P. Huang, Kwok Keung Wong, Yunlong Wang, and Maotong Xu. CHINA GERUI

On January 9, 2015, Steven Bocker, Sadie LaBerge and Jay Wise filed a class action securities case against Deer Consumer Products Inc., Yuehua Xie, Zongshu Nie, Arnold Staloff, Qi Hua Xu, Yongmei Wang, Man Wai James Chu, Walter Zhao, Edward Hua, Bill Ying he, Goldman Kurland Mohidin LLP, and Ahmed Mohidin. DEER SECURITIES

On January 14, 2015, Paul Fila filed a class action securities case against Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, Roy Yu, Jin Shi and Xuesong Song. PINGTAN MARINE Complaint

On February 2, 2015, Chao Sun filed a class action securities case against Daqing Han, Xiaoli Yu, Hong Li, Ming Li, Lian Zhu, Guanghui Cheng, Guobin Pan, Guangjun Lu, Yuanpin He, Mazars CPA Ltd, Mazars Scrl, Weisermazars LLP, and Telestone Technologies Corp. CHAO SUN TELESTONE

On February 4, 2015, Ming Huang filed a class action securities case against Alibaba Group Holding Ltd, Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Maggie Wei Wu. MING HUANG ALIBABA

On February 16, 2015, Myrtle Chao filed a class action securities case against Alibaba. MYTRLE CHAO ALIBABA

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–DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE , TAA, 337/IP, ANTITRUST AND SECURITIES

US Capitol South Side Fountain Night Stars Washington DC TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET”

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER NOVEMBER 25, 2014

DECEMBER 12, 2014 UPDATE–SOLAR NEGOTIATIONS AND NEW SOLAR ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASE IN CANADA

Dear Friends,

On January 21st, I will be speaking at the Brooklyn Law School in New York City on US China Trade Disputes. The invitation to the speech is set forth below.

I look forward to seeing any of my friends at the speech.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

Wednesday, January 21, 2015 * Subotnick Center, 250 Joraelmon Street * Brooklyn Law School

2 FREE CLE credits

Two judges from the US Court of International Trade * partners from two leading law firms handling China trade disputes * professors from four law schools * former chairman of Federal Trade Commission * former congressman focused on US-China trade * former general counsel of MasterCard

REGISTRATION PROGRAM RECEPTION
5:30 PM 6-8 PM 8 PM onward

WELCOME Professor Nicholas W. Allard

Joseph Crea Dean and Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

INTRODUCTION

Professor Robin Effron

Co-Director, Dennis J. Block Center for the Study of International Business Law, Brooklyn Law School

FIRST PANEL: PURE TRADE DISPUTES

MODERATOR

Geoffrey Sant, Esq.

Adjunct Professor, Fordham Law School

Special Counsel, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

PANELISTS

The Honorable Donald Pogue

Senior Judge, US Court of International Trade

Professor Bill Kovacic

Global Competition Professor, George Washington Law School

Former Chairman of Federal Trade Commission

  

Bill Perry, Esq.

Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Formerly in Office of General Counsel, US International Trade Commission; Office of Chief Counsel and Office of Antidumping Investigation, U.S. Department of Commerce

Don Bonker

Executive Director, APCO Worldwide, Inc.

Former US Congressman (D-WA); former Chairman of Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade

SECOND PANEL: DISPUTES BETWEEN TRADE PARTNERS

MODERATOR

  1. Augustine Lo, Esq.

Dosey & Whitney LLP

PANELISTS

Chris Cloutier, Esq.

Partner, King & Spalding LLP

Former Acting Deputy Director of Trade Remedy Compliance, US Department of Commerce (at US Embassy in Beijing, China)

Professor Thomas Lee

Leitner Family Professor of International Law, Fordham Law School

Noah Hanfft, Esq.

President; CEO of International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution

Former General Counsel of MasterCard

Professor Zhao Yun

Director of the Center for Chinese Law, University of Hong Kong

CLOSING REMARKS The Honorable Claire Kelly

Judge, US Court of International Trade

Trustee, Brooklyn Law School

RECEPTION

8 PM onward

THIS EVENT IS FREE, BUT RSVPS ARE REQUIRED

RSVP to events@cblalaw.org

About the Program The United States and China are major trading partners. Trade issues between the two nations take center stage as leaders negotiate new trade treaties and struggle to resolve disputes under existing legal frameworks. Brooklyn Law School and the Chinese Business Lawyers Association present an evening of dialogue among leading practitioners and professors who will examine current issues in trade disputes between the U.S. and China.

Sponsored by the Dennis J. Block Center for International Business Law, Chinese Business Law Association (CBLA), ABA Section of International Law, and the Trade Secrets Institute(TSI).

WE EXPECT ALL SEATS TO BE RSVP’D.  TO ATTEND, PLEASE RSVP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO events@cblalaw.org OR TO www.brooklaw.edu/tradedisputes

For directions, please visit: www.brooklaw.edu/directions

Thank you!

Geoffrey Sant, Director

Chinese Business Lawyers Association

This course provides two (2) CLE credits in the State of New York. Partial credit is not available. The credits are transitional and non-transitional and the category is Professional Practice.

US CHINA SOLAR NEGOTIATIONS

Several companies have asked me about a possible US-China settlement in the Solar Cells/Solar Products cases.  Today, December 12th, USTR Michael Froman acknowledged that Washington and Beijing have held talks about the Solar cases for “some time”.  During a conference call with Reporters, Froman stated that a stable environment for trade in solar products and polysilicon would have three components.  The first is to ensure that trade laws are being enforced. The second and third components are to enable the further deployment of clean technology and address issues like climate change, and “to maintain world class industries in both our countries to manufacture these important products.”

But knowledgeable people stated that talks have slowed in recent weeks, following a period of intense engagement prior to President Obama’s state visit to China in November, which ended without an agreement.  A major reason for this failure is because SolarWorld Americas, the petitioner in the U.S. trade remedy cases, stated that it could not accept the parameters that Chinese producers were willing to offer, and the U.S. government was unwilling to push the company to give ground.  In contrast to Europe, Canada, many other countries and even China, the United States does not have a public interest test in its US antidumping and countervailing duty laws and, therefore, the US government has less power to push a settlement.

The deadline for Commerce to accept a potential agreement to suspend the ongoing antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) cases against Chinese solar panels has long passed. Thus settling the dispute will require a broader agreement, such as in 2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement, under which Canada agreed to impose export taxes and/or quotas on its exports of softwood lumber to the United States, in return for the U.S. government stopping the collection of trade remedy duties on those products.

SolarWorld has stated that it could accept a package that would do away with the various trade cases if four key conditions were met. The first three are that the agreement be enforceable by Commerce, set a floor price on imports of Chinese solar cells, and include a quantitative restriction on the volume of imports. The fourth condition is that the floor price on imports of Chinese solar cells be indexed to the market price for polysilicon.  Knowledgeable sources, however, have said that the floor price is key sticking point.

Commerce Secretary Penny Prtizker also stated that she did not expect the final Solar Products determination to have any impact on the JCCT negotiations, which will soon take place in Chicago.

The bottom line is that the Solar Products case will go to Antidumping and Countervailing Duty order and any deal would have to be extremely unique, such as the US Canadian Lumber Agreement.  The chance of such an agreement is probably small.

CANADA SOLAR CASE

An importer has contacted me about a new Solar Module and Panel Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition filed in Canada. On December 5, 2014, the Canadian government initiated the investigation. See the attached petition and announcement of the Canadian government.  CANADIAN SOLAR COMPLAINT CANADIAN SOLAR ANNOUNCEMENT

The Solar Trade War with China is now beginning to follow a similar pattern with other trade wars against Chinese products. An antidumping/countervailing duty case is filed in the US or the EU followed by many, many cases around the World.

In the early 1990s, a US antidumping case was brought against Garlic from China. I represented a number of US importers in the case and tried to represent the Chinese exporters/producers. In a very unusual situation, an official at the Chinese Chamber of Commerce refused to let any Chinese company respond to the US antidumping case and since the Chamber controlled export licenses, the official had the power to stop participation.

As a result, the Commerce Department levied antidumping duties of 376% against Chinese garlic, and that antidumping order is in place today, almost 20 years after the petition was filed.  But that was not the worst part of the case, the Garlic case spread to numerous other countries, including EU, India, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Mexico and other countries. Pretty soon 20 to 30 countries had trade orders against Chinese garlic blocking all exports of Chinese garlic, and Chinese garlic prices dropped like a rock. Garlic was very cheap in Beijing.

Chinese solar cells and panels appear to be on the same trade path as Europe, the US, India and now Canada have brought antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China. Many countries may soon block Chinese solar cells and panels out of their market.

If anyone has any questons about this case or the ongoing US Solar Cells and Solar Products case, please feel free to contact me.

If anyone wants specific help on the Canadian case, please let me know and I will put them in touch with Canadian trade counsel.

NOVEMBER 25, 2014 POST

There have been major developments in the trade politics, trade, trade agreements, trade adjustment assistance, 337/IP, US/Chinese antitrust, and securities areas.

This month the blog post has grown substantially because there have been so many developments in the trade and political area, especially with regards to China.

TRADE POLITICS AND TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH CHINA

THE REPUBLICAN WAVE ELECTION CHANGES THE TRADE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IN WASHINGTON DC

No matter whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, in looking at trade issues, including the trade laws and the relationship between the US and China, one must deal with political reality in Washington DC. Elections have consequences, and the November 4th Republican wave election will have consequences for years to come.

Not only did the Republicans take the Senate, but no one expected the Republicans to take 8 seats with potentially another coming from Louisiana so Republicans at the end of January 2015 will control the Senate 53 or 54 to 47 or 46.

In the House of Representatives with 5 races still undecided Republicans gained 12 sets. They now hold 245 seats to 187. One can see how the political map has changed in the House by looking at http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/house/. In the House, the United States has turned into a red Republican sea.

As it stands now, this is the largest Republican majority since 1946. If 3 of the 5 outstanding House seats go Republican, it will be the largest Republican majority since the 1930s under Herbert Hoover, before Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President. To say that this election was historic is an understatement.

As Dana Milbank, a Washington Post columnist, who is not viewed as a Republican/conservative partisan, states in his November 14th Washington Post column:

“There are five 2014 House races still to be decided before we can answer the question of historical interest:

Was this the worst election for House Democrats since 1928? Or was it merely their worst since 1946?

Either way, the results do not reflect well on the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi – a conclusion that seems to have escaped Nancy Pelosi.

“I do not believe what happened the other night is a wave”, the former speaker informed Politico. . . . She preferred to describe what happened in the House elections as an “ebb tide.”

If Democrats lose three of the five undecided races, they will have ebbed all the way back to the day Herbert Hoover won the Presidency. To fail to see that as a wave, Pelosi must be far out to sea.”

The 2014 election for Democrats was not a wave. It was a tsunami, and now the political reality has changed dramatically in Washington DC. The most dramatic impact will be in the trade area because that is the one area that Senate and House Republicans can work on together with President Obama.

As indicated below, under the Trade Agreements discussion, President Obama’s problem in the Trade area is not with the Republicans, but with the Democrats. Although many Democrats want to call themselves progressive, because of substantial Union support, a number of powerful Democrats do not want progress on trade. They are opposed to Free Trade Agreements that lower barriers to imports. In fact, several Democrats want to raise barriers to imports.

Most Republicans are not opposed to the Free Trade Agreements because they firmly believe that Free Markets will result in more business and a substantial increase in economic activity for US companies and more jobs for US workers.

On November 5th the day after the election, many former US government officials were predicting that Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”), which will lead to the Free Trade Agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), would be one of the first issues taken up by the new Republican majority.   TPA is the centerpiece of the administration’s trade policy, as it will set forth negotiating priorities for the next several years.

While a bipartisan TPA bill emerged earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev refused to introduce the bill on the floor. The change of the majority to the trade-friendly Republicans removes that problem.

According to former United State Trade Representative (“USTR”) Clayton Yeutter, with the Obama administration pushing for a final 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership as soon as possible, securing TPA will be the number one objective and will likely rise to the top of the Republican agenda. As former USTR Yeutter stated:

“The challenge will be to get fast-track done as early as possible and I believe that all the folks in congressional leadership positions understand that fully. I would look for it to be one of the very first issues on the Congressional agenda next year.”

Present USTR Michael Froman also expressed optimism, stating:

“I think ultimately this is an area where there’s a lot of bipartisan support for trade. It’s one of the areas that cuts across party lines, one area that we think we can make progress in, and we look forward to working with Congress after the election on Trade Promotion Authority and on our trade agenda more generally, in a way that has broad bipartisan support.”

In addition, the new Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee will be Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and he has a close working relationship with the present Chairman, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. As indicated in past newsletters, Senator Hatch has been very open about the need to pass TPA through the Congress and he will be very active on this issue.

The chances of passing a fast-track bill in the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress are slim because the objective according to recent reports is to end the session on December 11th.  In the new Congress, however, TPA will be very important because Republicans have publicly warned the Administration not to conclude the TPP talks before TPA is concluded. As indicated below, without TPA no final deal will be concluded because countries like Japan and Canada will not put their best proposals on the table.  Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, for example, in particular, will be reluctant to strike a deal if there is a chance it could be altered legislatively at a later date.

As former USTR Yeutter stated:

“It will be exceedingly difficult to wrap up TPP without TPA. Abe and Japan don’t want to have to make tough political decisions twice.”

As a further example, in the attached e-mail, WAYS AND MEANS TRADE A PLUS on November 13, 2014, the House Ways and Means Committee released an article by Bryan Riley from The Hill stating:

Free Trade is a Winner in Recent Elections

By Bryan Riley, The Hill contributor

Riley is the Heritage Foundation’s Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy.

In Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts and North Carolina, the midterm elections proved that candidates shouldn’t be afraid to talk about the benefits of trade. They also demonstrated that candidates tempted to employ protectionist scare tactics in their campaigns should think twice.

In Iowa, Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst’s campaign argued: “Congressman [Bruce] Braley’s Anti-Free Trade Votes are bad for Iowa Farmers.”

According to Politico: Iowa Republicans, in one of the tightest Senate races in the country, are trying to capitalize on Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley’s record of voting against trade agreements to help hand their candidate, Joni Ernst, the victory. Braley, whose state is heavily dependent on farm exports, voted against free trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama in 2011, even after President Barack Obama’s administration re-negotiated several provisions to round up more Democratic support. “The South Korean trade deal was huge,” Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey told POLITICO in an interview. “Everyone knew it was a clear, clear win for agriculture and it would have been a terrible not to have it. For him to vote against that I just think is a major red flag.”

Ernst defeated Braley, 52.2 percent to 43.7 percent.

In North Carolina’s Senate race, Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan said:

“Unfair trade agreements have contributed to the loss of more than 286,000 North Carolina manufacturing jobs in the last decade — the fourth-largest decline in the nation. It is time we start protecting jobs here at home.” Her campaign spokesman added: “Kay opposed trade agreements that ship North Carolina jobs overseas because she will always put North Carolina jobs first.”

Her Republican opponent, Thom Tillis, disagreed: “As agriculture exports increase, Thom believes we must promote policies that make trade with other nations free and efficient in order to stimulate our economy and allow North Carolina farmers and ranchers to expand their businesses.”

Tillis defeated Hagan, 49.0 percent to 47.3 percent.

In Massachusetts, the Democratic Governors Association released an ad attacking Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker: “Baker won the Outsourcing Excellence Award at the ‘Oscars of Outsourcing’ for his work destroying jobs here at home.” Baker replied that outsourcing some jobs to India allowed Massachusetts insurer Harvard Pilgrim to save thousands of jobs at home. Former Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly (D) called the outsourcing attacks “exactly the kind of nonsense that drives people away from the political process.”

Baker defeated Democrat Martha Coakley, 48.5 percent to 46.6 percent.

In Georgia, Democratic senatorial hopeful Michelle Nunn attempted to smear her Republican opponent David Perdue for outsourcing jobs to other countries: “David Perdue, he’s not for you,” her ad proclaimed. When a reporter asked Perdue to defend his use of outsourcing, he replied: “Defend it? I’m proud of it. … It’s the lack of understanding of the free enterprise system that I’m running against here.”

Perdue beat Nunn, 53.0 percent to 45.1 percent.

After the Massachusetts and Georgia elections, Computerworld reported:

“Offshore outsourcing fails as election issue: A longtime Democratic bludgeon isn’t enough to move needle.” In contrast, candidates who embraced the benefits of trade, like Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis, emerged victorious.

Promoting free trade is good economics, too. A comparison of trade policy around the world, developed by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal in the annual Index of Economic Freedom, shows a strong correlation between trade freedom and prosperity.

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein observed that outsourcing saves U.S. businesses and consumers billions of dollars each year:

“Those savings and those extra profits aren’t put under the mattress. Most of it is spent or invested in the United States in ways that are hard to track but have surely created hundreds of thousands of jobs in other companies and other industries. Those who hold those jobs would have no reason to know that they are beneficiaries of the process of outsourcing and globalization. But in a very real sense, they are.”

Most economists agree that criticizing trade is bad policy. Last week’s election results suggest it may be bad politics, too.

But as also indicated below, that is where Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies comes into play.  Trade Agreements are a result of Government action that will change the market, not only around the World but also in the United States. With market barriers dropping in a number of different countries, many US competitive companies will see their exports increase.  Experts predict that the TPP, for example, could increase economic activity by $1 trillion.

But this Government action will also change the US market place, and a number of US companies will face a market that has completely changed, a trade tsunami created by Government action.  Because Government action has created the trade tsunami, the Government has an obligation to help companies adapt to the new marketplace conditions.  When I say companies, I mean not just the management, but the workers in the company too.

As explained more below, the Government has a responsibility to help US companies swim in the new competitive marketplace sea that has been created by the Trade Agreements.

FORMER CONGRESSMAN DON BONKER’S CHINA DAILY ARTICLE ON THE IMPACT OF THE ELECTION ON US CHINA RELATIONS

APCO Executive Director Don Bonker, a former Democratic Congressman and an expert on the political issues in US China Trade Relations, published the following November 7th article in the China Daily on the election, which can be found at http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2014-11/07/content_18881045.htm.  Don puts the November 4th election into a historical perspective:

Election results a mixed blessing for China

By Don Bonker (China Daily USA)

Republicans exceeded early predictions scoring big time in Tuesday’s election, taking full control of the US Senate, increasing their margin in the House of Representatives along with many victories across the country.  For the next two years, the United States will have a truly divided government with the Republicans claiming a new mandate to push an alternative agenda.

While many factors were in play in the 2014 election (Obama’s poor ratings, huge amounts of campaign spending, etc), the fundamentals in recent history clearly favored the Republican Party.  The party of whoever occupies the White House in mid-term elections suffers nominal loses of Senate and House seats and predictably weakens the President’s political standing. As we are reminded by David Schanzer and Jay Sullivan in the New York Times, “This is a bipartisan phenomenon; Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4-5 Senate seats in mid-terms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats respectively.”

How will the election results affect the US-China relationship?

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have well-defined or predictable policies toward China. In recent years, a small group in Congress has attacked China on a select number of issues but such actions are not part of either Congressional leader’s agenda.  Existing Federal laws, such a CFIUS, provide opportunities for a single Congressman to go after China, often to lend support to a company in his state.

Republicans, known to be pro-trade and pro-business, taking control of the Senate should be a healthy sign in building closer relations with China, especially since governors in their states are leading trade missions to China, seeking Chinese investments and pursuing markets for their exporting companies.

However, individual Republican Senators have sent letters to CFIUS and other Federal agencies opposing China-related investments and transactions. Many senior Republicans in Congress have expressed skepticism over China due to its government’s Communist Party control, reported human rights concerns, US support of Taiwan and Japan, China’s military build-up, economic espionage and geopolitical or national security threats that could put pressure on the Obama Administration to be more assertive with China.

Several well-positioned Republican Congressmen have caused the biggest headaches for China. The issue, or fear, is rooted in cybersecurity threats and economic espionage that has led to Congressional investigations and legislation that greatly restrict China companies, such as Huawei and ZTE, from having access to telecommunication and related technology markets in the US. The two Congressmen who were responsible for these actions are retiring at the end of this year. The question is whether their replacements will continue such policies.

A related concern is the so-called Tea Party’s growing influence that has put Republican Congressional leaders in a difficult position given the Tea Party’s enduring political base and its extreme views on major issues (education and trade). It will likely affect the China relationship in negative ways, particularly on trade (“protect American jobs”) and on cyber and economic espionage issues.

The Democrats have their own agenda which occasionally proves hostile to China. Several occupy leadership positions on committees that preside over government agencies and assert their political clout to press for higher import tariffs and related trade restrictions. This has more to do with politics than economics, particularly in the election season when labor unions pressure, if not intimidate Democratic candidates to “protect American jobs”. Such protectionist policies are now prompting China to take reciprocal actions that may be placing China and America on the path of a trade war.

Despite the encouraging bilateral discussions on the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BIT), there is no guarantee what happens once it arrives on the doorstep of the US Capitol.

Overall, the newly established Congress preparing for 2015 may be more favorable to China given the departures of some if its Capitol Hill critics, but a great deal of anxiety about China will continue – mistrust, economic and security threats and China’s economy surpassing the US’ in the foreseeable future.

In the Senate, the Republicans taking control will create a different political paradigm but with little indication on how it will play out over the next two years. The new political alignment will offer a narrow window for Congressional Republicans to provide stronger leadership and promote their own agenda and could result in more favorable actions (approval of TPP and TTIP trade pacts).

But that is in the short-term. It is unlikely the Republicans maintain the Senate majority in the 2016 elections, but the House of Representatives will comfortably stay in Republican control (given the shape of Congressional districts) for some time into the future. With a Democrat occupying the White House this will likely guarantee continued gridlock in Washington for the next decade.

The 2016 presidential election may be more favorable to Democrats for the same reasons the Republicans scored well this year. Barack Obama is not on the ballot and the Democrats will be far more unified (under Hillary Clinton) than the Republicans (the party may likely be split).

In 2016, the Republicans will have 23 Senate positions on the ballot compared to 10 for Democrats (also likely retirements/resignations). And the voter turn-out will jump back to 53 percent, which greatly favors Democrats in presidential elections. So whether political history will prevail and the Democrats re-take the Senate in 2016 or Republicans will defy the odds and remain in power is the big question going forward.

BILATERAL US CHINA TRADE AGREEMENTS

APEC AND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S TRIP TO BEIJING

Right after the mid-term elections, President Obama made a major trip to Beijing, China for the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) meeting.  As indicated below, President Obama’s Administration had set a target date for completing the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) talks at the APEC meeting. That did not happen, but there were several historic agreements that did come out of the meetings with the US and Chinese Government.

In the attached White House Statement and Fact Sheet, WHITE HSE STATE CHINA VISIT PRESS CONF CHINA US the US and Chinese governments announced that China will now grant 10 year visas to US businessmen and tourists and that there will be enhanced enforcement against counterfeit goods.

During the attached Joint Press Conference, the two Presidents announced a new Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and an agreement on Climate Change. President Obama stated that a strong, cooperative relationship with China is at the heart of the United States’ policy to Asia, and stated that the United States needs the world’s second-largest economy and the most populous nation on Earth as its partner in order to lead in addressing global challenges. As President Obama stated, “[I]t is a fact that when we work together, it’s good for the United States, it’s good for China, and it is good for the world.”

President Xi Jinping of China made several important points in response to questions, but several of the most important are:

“The strategic significance of China-U.S. relations is on the rise. . . . Both President Obama and I believe that when China and the United States work together, we can become an anchor of world stability and a propeller of world peace. China stands ready to work with the United States to firm up our confidence, exercise our wisdom, and take action to strengthen our coordination and cooperation bilaterally, regionally and globally; and to effectively manage our differences on sensitive issues so that we can make new gains in building the new model of major-country relations between China and the United States, which serves the fundamental interests of our two peoples and the people elsewhere in the world.

China and the United States have different historical and cultural traditions, social systems, and faces of development. So it’s natural that we don’t see eye to eye on every issue. But there have always been more common interests between China and the United States than the differences between us. Both sides respect each other’s core interests and major concerns and manage our differences in a constructive fashion, full dialogue and consultation so as to uphold the overall interests of stable growth of China-U.S. relations. . . .

China and the United States are different countries in the world. It’s perfectly normal for there to be different views expressed about us in the international media. And I don’t think it’s worth fussing over these different views. And I don’t see any of the regional free-trade arrangements as targeting against China. China is committed to open regionalism. And we believe the various regional cooperation initiatives and mechanisms should have positive interaction with each other, and that is the case at the moment.”

On Tuesday November 12th, President Obama’s state visit to China ended with the ITA and Climate agreements, joint pledges to continue talks on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), a new international deal curbing export credits, and continued dialogue regarding their persisting differences over the use of agricultural biotechnology.

President Obama had planned to press China on several other issues, including alleged discriminatory enforcement of its anti-monopoly law (AML), intellectual property (IP) protections, including cyber theft of IP, and China’s slow approval process for biotechnology traits. Only biotechnology, however, was addressed in a White House fact sheet on U.S.-China economic relations, stating:

“The United States and China reached consensus to intensify science-based agricultural innovation for food security. The United States and China commit to strengthen dialogue to enable the increased use of innovative technologies in agriculture.”

At the Press Conference, President Obama stated that he did address IP, “I stressed the importance of protecting intellectual property as well as trade secrets, especially against cyber-threats.”

The other major announcement that came out of Obama’s visit to China was in the area of climate change. On that issue, the two sides reached an agreement on the targets for the cuts they will make to carbon emissions post-2020.

Last week CSPAN, the US Public Affairs station, did a 45 minute interview with Dorsey Partner, Tom Lorenzen on the US China Climate Change agreement. Until joining Dorsey in 2013, Tom was at the Justice Department from 2004 where he was the Assistant Chief in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). During that time, he supervised the federal government’s legal defense of all Environmental Protection Agency rules, regulations and other final actions judicially reviewable under the various federal pollution control statutes. See the video at http://www.c-span.org/video/?322770-3/washington-journal-thomas-lorenzen-uschina-carbon-reduction-deal.

On November 12th, the China Daily stated with regards to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA):

“The two countries reached a breakthrough on Tuesday in Beijing to accelerate the expansion of the World Trade Organization’s Information Technology Agreement (ITA), which could help eliminate $1 trillion in tariffs on high-tech product sales globally. The deal would allow the “swift conclusion” on talks to enlarge the ITA at the WTO meeting in Geneva later this year.”

USTR Michael Froman stated in Beijing that it was good news for US companies that are keen to see global tariffs further cut on products such as medical equipment, GPS devices, video game consoles and next generation semiconductors.  The agreement now covers more than $4 trillion in annual trade.

With regards to ITA, the US government announced on November 10th that it had convinced China to eliminate tariffs on tech goods like advanced semiconductors and medical devices. The Chinese government has agreed to U.S. demands to eventually eliminate tariffs on advanced semiconductors known as MCOs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, and high-tech testing equipment, but the deal does not include tariff elimination on flat-panel displays.

But the Agreement between China and the United States in the High Tech area will lead to additional negotiations with other countries at the WTO in Geneva, which are scheduled to resume in December. The ITA negotiations broke down in November 2013, after the U.S. and other participants rejected China’s tariff offer as insufficient. Since then, the U.S. and European Union have been trying to persuade China to come back to the table with a better offer.

The agreement between the U.S. and China does not mean the ITA talks are concluded. The two parties will now have to go back to the more than two-dozen other participants – including the European Union, Japan and South Korea – to negotiate a final ITA package. But sources in Geneva are cautiously optimistic that the deal could move forward. The expanded ITA would also eliminate import duties on a range of additional technology products including high-tech medical devices, video cameras, and an array of high-tech ICT testing instruments.  A White House fact sheet stated that the expansion of the ITA pact would eventually eliminate tariffs on roughly $1 trillion in annual global sales of information technology products and boost the annual global GDP by an estimated $190 billion.

On November 14th it was reported that sources in Geneva predicted that the ITA agreement could result in a final deal this December. Although other countries are not expected to block the deal, other countries will push for changes. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom stated that she welcomed the U.S.-China understanding and that the EU “[intends] to take all necessary steps to finalize the agreement in the coming weeks.”

If the agreement is completed, it will take very little for the U.S. to implement the lowered tariffs. This is because Congress had already authorized further tariff reductions when it passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994. This is in contrast to the TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”), which are two new agreements that would require congressional authorization before they went into effect.

On November 12th, President Obama and President Xi also announced an agreement to speed up talks on a comprehensive Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”), which is considered to be the foundation for future United States-China trade agreements. At the Press Conference President Xi announced that “We agreed to accelerate the negotiations of the BIT, and we will make efforts to reach agreement on the core issues and the major articles of the treaty text.” The two countries also agreed to “work together to promote innovation in agriculture and food security.”

Trade pundits were reporting that the Republican victory along with the movement in Beijing will give a much-needed boost to the WTO and Obama’s ambitious trade agenda. This has led to a bullish optimistic attitude about the next two years of trade policy.

As indicated below, this victory in Beijing with the close of the APEC meeting was followed on November 13th by a break through with India on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (“TFA”), which the Indian Government had held up on food security grounds.  On November 13th U.S. and Indian trade officials announced they had reached a deal to end the impasse over the WTO trade facilitation Agreement.  Under the deal, India agreed to drop its opposition to the trade facilitation pact in exchange for a commitment from the U.S. to keep in place a so-called peace clause that would shield developing countries’ food security programs from legal challenges until the WTO agrees on a new set of rules governing those programs.

Numerous observers, including new European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, hailed the bilateral agreement as a boost for the WTO, which had been criticized as irrelevant as a forum for global trade talks in light of the trade facilitation breakdown. Commissioner Malmstrom stated, “I am particularly pleased today as the breakthrough gives new momentum to the WTO and restores trust among members and the credibility of multilateral trade negotiations.”

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS—TPA, TPP, TTIP/TA AND BALI/DOHA ROUND—NO FINAL DEAL AT APEC MEETING IN BEIJING

TPA FACED HEADWINDS IN CONGRESS BUT THEN THE ELECTION HAPPENED

As mentioned in past newsletters, in the trade world, the most important developments may be the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trans-Atlantic (TA)/ the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP negotiations and the WTO.  The TPP is a free trade agreement being negotiated by officials from the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. These trade negotiations could have a major impact on China trade, as trade issues become a focal point in Congress and many Senators and Congressmen become more and more protectionist.

This has been a problem because the protectionism is coming from the Democratic side of the aisle.  Democratic Senators and Congressmen are supported by labor unions.  Although Democratic Congressmen have expressed interest in the TPP, to date, President Obama cannot get one Democratic Congressman in the House of Representatives 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 elections as soft on trade.

As mentioned in prior newsletters, on January 29, 2014, the day after President Obama pushed the TPA in his State of the Union speech in Congress, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the TPA bill would not be introduced on the Senate Floor.

But then came the November 4th Republican wave election changing the Trade Politics dramatically in Washington DC.  Elections have consequences and in 2015 Republicans will take the Senate and increase their numbers in House.

To summarize, on January 9, 2014, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, which is posted in my February post, was introduced into Congress. 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.

On April 9, 2014, the new Senate Finance Committee Chairman Senator Ron Wyden announced at a speech to the American Apparel & Footwear Association Conference that he was introducing a new TPA bill, what Senator Wyden calls Smart Track.  But to date no details have been given about exactly what Smart Track will mean, and the Republican victory on November 4th probably means that Smart Track will be washed away by the Republican wave.

On July 17th, all Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee sent the attahed letter to USTR Froman, HOUSE REPS WAYS MEANS, urging the Administration to build support for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and directing the Administration not to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) before TPA is enacted into law.

Now the story continues . . . .

On October 15th in Tokyo, acting Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Wendy Cutler emerged from four days of meetings in Tokyo stating that both sides are working “as hard and creatively as possible” to resolve their bilateral issues. She went on to state:

“We were encouraged by the progress we made this week during our negotiations, but we need to underscore that the issues before us are tough. The issues range from achieving meaningful market access across all agricultural products to establishing a strong and effective dispute settlement mechanism in the auto sector.”

The difficult negotiating areas include five agricultural categories—rice, wheat and barley, beef and pork, dairy products and sugar—as well as autos and auto parts.

After ending the talks with his counterpart, Japanese negotiator Hiroshi Oe added, however, that both sides have “mountains of work to do. We are far from saying, ‘We did it.’ We still have the most difficult areas that have yet to be resolved.”

The U.S.-Japan meetings closed just a day after Mexico’s top trade official, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo, speaking in Washington, D.C. made clear that the rest of the TPP countries view the US Japan negotiations as a critical step toward progress in the full negotiations,  “It is clear for anybody that knows about trade negotiations that if these two big trading partners, Japan and the U.S. do not come to an agreement, it has domino consequences on the rest of the 12 countries.”

But then came Sidney and then Beijing with no breakthrough in part because of no TPA Agreement.

Meanwhile, on October 16th, according to analysis of the document by Public Citizen, it was reported that a leaked draft of the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter obtained by WikiLeaks could lead to delayed access to pharmaceutical drugs in a dozen countries, including the U.S., and would contradict White House policies aimed at cutting Medicare and Medicaid costs. According to Public Citizen, at issue in the draft is a U.S. proposal to give an advantage to the pharmaceutical industry and “provide long automatic monopolies for biotech drugs or biologics” contradicting the pledge included in past White House budgets to shorten the same monopoly periods to reduce cost burdens on Medicare and Medicaid.

Public Citizen said it remains concerned that these provisions would give large brand-name drug firms a way to “impose rules” on Pacific Rim economies that “will raise prices on medicine purchases for consumers and governments. If the TPP is ratified with this U.S.-proposed provision included, Congress would be unable to reduce monopoly periods without risking significant penalties and investor-state arbitration.”

In Sidney the leaked IP draft resulted in a number of civil society organizations and Australian lawmakers voicing opposition to the deal citing many trouble spots.  A group of Australian politicians along with public health and copyright experts convened at Australia’s Parliament house lawn to condemn possible TPP trade-offs as talks resumed in Canberra.  Australian green party Sen. Peter Whish-Wilson stated that “the leaked documents indicate that the government is on course to hand over protections for human rights, public health, the environment and Internet freedom.”

On October 24th, in a letter six Congressmen, including Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., and John Thune, R-S.D., the ranking members of the Senate Finance and Commerce committees, stated that USTR Michael Froman should oppose any proposals in the TPP negotiations that would needlessly limit internet traffic, including the cross-border transfer, storage or processing of data, and protect the unfettered transfer of commercial data and digital trade.  According to the letter, eight countries, including TPP members Mexico and Vietnam, have or are considering policies to limit their Internet traffic.

As a result of all these concerns, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich, ranking Democratic Congressman on the House Ways and Means Committee, traveled to Sydney, Australia, to closely observe the status of the TPP talks. Levin took the unusual step of arranging meetings with trade ministers from the TPP nations during their Oct. 25-27 session in an effort to gather more information about TPP’s more contentious unsettled areas. Levin, who is from Detroit, has long been an advocate of the U.S. automotive industry, which has been blocked out of the Japanese market for decades. More broadly, Levin also called for the final TPP to bind its member countries to upholding the highest possible environmental, labor and human rights protections.

On October 27th in Sidney, Australia trade ministers for countries negotiating the TPP hailed “significant progress” in the talks during their three-day meeting in Australia, but stopped short of announcing a breakthrough.  Opening the meeting, USTR Michael Froman stressed that the outstanding TPP issues are among the most contentious in the agreement, but that negotiators have taken efforts to ensure that they are resolved as smoothly as possible.  President Obama had targeted the APEC meeting in Beijing on November 10th as a “deadline” to conclude the negotiations, but critical to the conclusion of the 12-nation TPP talks are the bilateral deliberations between the U.S. and Japan, which also continued in Australia.

After returning from Sidney, Congressman Levin expressed his concern about the current status of the TPP talks in Australia calling for more transparency in negotiations and an increased focus on its details.  Levin stated that “it is “vital to have an open door for a broad understanding and involvement on how they should be resolved, with increased transparency.”

Levin said that although a compromise he helped negotiate, referred to as the “May 10 agreement,” had significantly improved the TPP in the realms of workers’ rights, environmental protections and access to medicines, it is “vital that TPP build on them, not weaken them.” Levin noted the opportunities and challenges inherent with the diversity of economies represented within the TPP membership, pointing out Malaysia’s and Vietnam’s “very different” economies from the U.S.

On October 27th, following the negotiations in Sidney, the Ministers and Heads of Delegation for the TPP countries issued the attached statement, TPP ACTUAL JOINT STATEMENT AUSTRALIA, which provides in part:

“We consider that the shape of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced deal is crystallizing. We will continue to focus our efforts, and those of our negotiating teams, to consult widely at home and work intensely with each other to resolve outstanding issues in order to provide significant economic and strategic benefits for each of us. We now pass the baton back to Chief Negotiators to carry out instructions we have given.”

On October 30, 2014, despite a push from numerous business groups, it was reported that it would be very difficult to pass TPA in the lame duck session, which is the time between the election on November 4th and the inauguration of the new Congress in January 2015.

On October 31st, USTR Mike Froman made clear that the 12 nations negotiating the TPP deal did not expect a final deal at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) conference in Beijing. As Froman stated:

“No, we do not expect to have a final agreement on TPP at APEC. All the TPP leaders will be present, so it will be a good opportunity to have conversations with each other about TPP, about whatever outstanding issues are left … and to give more political impetus to getting it done.”

Froman said that negotiators are still at work on the deal:

“We are making very good progress in closing out issues, narrowing the differences on remaining issues but we still have a ways to go and we are going to continue to work. We think the substance of the negotiation ought to drive the timetable. We’re not going to live by an arbitrary deadline but we are all focused on getting it done as soon as possible.”

On November 6th, after the election, business Leaders announced that they were increasing pressure to take up the TPA during the lame duck, but Mike Dolan, Teamsters’ legislative representative, said that fast track “won’t go anywhere during Lame Duck.” A broad coalition of labor, consumer groups sent over half a million petition signatures to Congress opposing TPA for the pending TPP.

In response to a question about the chance for a vote in the remaining weeks of the current Congress, Senate Finance Committee ranking Republican Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated, “Whether that happens during the lame duck is ultimately up to Democratic leadership.” Senator Hatch also stated that he believes there would be strong support to pass trade promotion authority in the “lame duck” session of Congress if Senate Democratic leaders decide to allow a vote. Senator Hatch, the new Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced the TPA bill along with former Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, now the U.S. ambassador to China, and House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich.

On November 10th in Beijing President Barack Obama and the leaders of the other 11 countries negotiating the TPP stated that a final agreement is now “coming into focus,” but declined to set a firm deadline for the completion of the talks. The 12 leaders, meeting on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Beijing, issued a joint statement commending the progress made by their negotiating teams over the past several weeks and kept up the pressure to finalize the TPP in the near future. The leaders stated:

“With the end coming into focus, we have instructed our ministers and negotiators to make concluding this agreement a top priority so that our businesses, workers, farmers and consumers can start to reap the real and substantial benefits of the TPP agreement as soon as possible.”

On November 11th, John Ivison, a Canadian reporter, issued an opinion piece in the National Post of Canada stating that any “‘significant progress’ made on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is pure bureaucratic BS.” See http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/11/john-ivison-any-significant-progress-made-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-pure-bureaucratic-bs/.

As Ivison stated:

Trade sources suggest two major problems with negotiations that run contrary to the sunny optimism of the official statement.

One is that the Americans have approached the talks on a bilateral basis, preferring to hammer out deals country by country. “This is a typical U.S. approach, trying to run it like a hub-and-spoke negotiation,” said Mr. Clark.

Without knowing the outcome of talks between the two largest TPP participants — the U.S. and Japan — no one else has tabled a serious offer.

“Things are no closer than they were six months ago. No country will make an offer setting the starting point for ‘level of ambition’ without knowing the ambition levels of the U.S. and Japan.  You only give further from your first offer,” said one person with knowledge of the negotiations.

The second impediment to real progress is lack of Trade Promotion Authority — fast-track — on the part of President Barack Obama. No one wants to strike a deal that then becomes a bargaining chip in the internecine politics between the president and Congress.

There have been some suggestions that the newly empowered Republicans in the Senate might offer fast-track authority, in return for the president giving the Keystone XL pipeline the green light. But for now, President Obama cannot sign off on a deal using his executive authority.

Canada’s intransigence on supply management of poultry and dairy is likely to become a problem at some point.

In Beijing, TPP trade ministers highlighted the four areas where issues remain unresolved in the proposed deal: intellectual property, state-owned enterprises, the environment and investment. The ministers called intellectual property “one of the most complex and challenging areas of the agreement.”

On November 13th, over 200 business groups sent a letter to leaders of both the House and Senate, urging them to pass a new fast-track trade bill during the lame-duck legislative session this year. Specifically, the Trade Benefits America Coalition sent the letter urging passage of bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on behalf of more than 200 U.S. associations and companies including the American Farm Bureau, National Foreign Trade Council and National Association of Manufacturers.  The letter concluded, “With 95 percent of potential customers outside the United States and more than one in five American jobs supported by trade, we need to seize on opportunities — such as ongoing and future U.S. trade agreements — to expand U.S. commerce with other countries.”

On November 15th President Obama vowed to continue pushing toward a swift TPP deal, which he said has the potential to yield a “historic” trade deal. At the G20 meeting Obama stated:

“It is our chance to put in place new, high standards for trade in the 21st century that uphold our values. It’s about a future where instead of being dependent on a single market, countries integrate their economies so they’re innovating and growing together. That’s what TPP does. That’s why it would be a historic achievement.”

On November 18th, Prime Minister Abe in Japan called a snap election on December 14th to seek a mandate for his economic decisions, but this too will complicate the TPP negotiations.

On November 18th Deputy USTR Robert Holleyman stated that the U.S. is seeking provisions in the TPP requiring civil and criminal responses to the theft of trade secrets. As Holleyman stated:

“Many in this room have certainly paid attention to the damage that’s being caused by the theft of valuable trade secrets in foreign marketplaces. And in the TPP agreement, we’re seeking both civil and criminal responses to this problem, including to the issue around the growing problem of cyber-theft of trade secrets.”

TTP FOR CHINA??

But what about China? Could it eventually join the TPP?

On October 15th, the Peterson Institute for International Economic (”IIE”) released a study touting the benefits of a theoretical free trade agreement between China and the United States, including increased income and export gains, while also acknowledging that such an agreement could lead to 500,000 to 1 million lost U.S. jobs over a 10-year span.

There are clear signs that China is interested in joining TPP. Citing an unnamed high-ranking U.S. official, Bergsten of IIE said “not a week goes by” that the administration does not receive an inquiry from China about TPP. But China has not officially sought entry into the initiative because it believes it would be denied at this stage in the negotiations. U.S. officials have made clear they want to close the deal with the current 12 participants.

The study predicts that a comprehensive agreement between China and the U.S. would create income gains for the U.S. of up to $130 billion while creating $330 billion in income gains for China. Under the agreement, the U.S. is projected to achieve export gains of $373 billion, and China — $472 billion. Similarly, U.S. exports to China would increase 108 percent and Chinese exports to the U.S. would increase 40 percent, according to the study.

But the study also finds that if a bilateral agreement is reached, the U.S. would suffer “adjustment costs” in the magnitude of 50,000 to 100,000 U.S. workers losing their jobs each year over a 10-year period. In other words, the deal could cost the U.S. economy up to a million job losses over a decade.

That is where Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies comes into play. The Peterson study contends that because the economic benefits equate to roughly $1.25 million in national income gains per job lost, the U.S. should consider policy alternatives to offset job loss rather than simply abandon an FTA with China. Such alternatives could include a bolstered trade adjustment assistance program, lengthy phase-ins of the liberalization of sensitive sectors, and larger wage-loss insurance and training and relocation programs.

Over the past year, China has undergone a radical shift in its stance on TPP because Beijing realizes it stands to suffer financial losses if it is not a member of the agreement, according to the authors of the study. The study claims that if TPP is concluded, China would lose $82 billion in gross domestic product and $108 billion in export revenue due to diverted trade flows.

CHINA AUSTRALIA FTA

To add more fuel to the fire, on November 17th, Australia and China signed a free trade agreement to allow greater Australian agricultural exports and greater investment in China and increased Chinese exports to Australia. According to the Australian Prime Minister, the Agreement is predicted to add billions to the Australian economy create jobs and drive higher living standards.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott stated:

“It greatly enhances our competitive position in key areas such as agriculture, resources and energy, manufacturing exports, services and investment. Australian households and businesses will also reap the benefits of cheaper goods and components from China, such as vehicles, household goods, electronics and clothing, placing downward pressure on the cost of living and the cost of doing business.”

When the deal takes effect, more than 85 percent of Australian goods exports will be tariff free and that number will climb to 95 percent. Those goods were previously saddled with tariffs of up to 40 percent. US companies that attempt to export products to China can face very high tariffs, some in the 40 to 60 plus percent range.

China, meanwhile, will face less scrutiny in its investments in Australia per the deal. The Chinese government told Australia it estimates it will spend $1.3 trillion over the next decade in investments in Australia.

TTIP FTA WITH EUROPE

Meanwhile the TTIP FTA with Europe moves forward on November 16th with President Obama and prominent EU leaders ordering their respective negotiating teams to continue negotiations. A Joint Statement provides:

“We remain committed, as we were when we launched these negotiations in June 2013, to build upon the strong foundation of our six decades of economic partnership to promote stronger, sustainable and balanced growth, to support the creation of more jobs on both sides of the Atlantic and to increase our international competitiveness.”

But former USTR Clayton Yeutter predicted that despite the problems, the negotiations would likely finish up after Obama leaves office in early 2017. As Yeutter stated:

“There were a lot of miscalculations as to how long TTIP was going to take. This is not a negotiation that’s going to conclude anytime soon. In my view there is no practical chance of doing it during the Obama presidency.”

On November 18th the new EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom responded to criticisms that the TTIP will only serve the interests of large multinational Corporations by stating that the Agreement must benefit consumers:

“Trade agreements can lower prices, widen choice and create high-quality jobs. TTIP must do exactly that.”

Malmstrom also called for the negotiations to be more transparent, stating that the agreement needed input from “the whole range of civil society groups: trade unions, business associations, environmental organizations and, of course, consumers.”

INDIA BILATERAL DEAL WITH THE US MOVES TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED IN BALI FORWARD

Many World Trade Organization (“WTO”) and US officials have warned that India’s decision to block the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (“TFA”) negotiated in Bali has had a “freezing effect” on the WTO’s work in a number of different areas. But after substantial pressure from the APEC countries, India and the US announced a breakthrough in the negotiations over the Agreement.

On July 31st, the WTO announced that the Trade Facilitation Agreement negotiated in Bali would not be implemented on schedule because of the substantial opposition from developing nations led by India as a result of food security initiatives.

On September 30th, in his first meeting with President Obama, although indicating that a solution should come soon, Indian Prime Minister Modi reaffirmed his government’s position linking the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement with support for the deal to act on food security issues.

On October 16, WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo reported to the Trade Negotiations Committee:

As a result we missed the deadline for the adoption of the protocol of amendment on the Trade Facilitation Agreement, which was the first deadline that Ministers set us in Bali. I said at the time that I feared there would be serious consequences. . . . as I feared, this situation has had a major impact on several areas of our negotiations. It appears to me that there is now a growing distrust which is having a paralyzing effect on our work across the board. . . .

it is my feeling that a continuation of the current paralysis would serve only to degrade the institution — particularly the negotiating function. . . . This could be the most serious situation that this organization has ever faced. I have warned of potentially dangerous situations before, and urged Members to take the necessary steps to avoid them. I am not warning you today about a potentially dangerous situation — I am saying that we are in it right now.

At the Trade Negotiations Committee meeting, Deputy USTR and U.S. ambassador to the WTO Michael Punke slammed India and the other opponents of the TFA protocol for perpetuating an “unnecessary and counterproductive crisis.” Those members’ inability to concede their position on food security has “significantly undermined” the entire Bali package and may doom any prospects for a “fully multilateral agreement.”

Although some of the trade pundits were suggesting that India be dropped off the back of the bus and the TFA move forward without India, others indicated that the real role of the TFA was symbolic—a way to get the WTO negotiating function going again.

On October 31st, Director-General Roberto Azevêdo reported to heads of delegations that there had been progress, and on November 10th, Azevedo asked APEC members, who were meeting in Beijing, to help push the TFA Agreement through. On that same day trade ministers for the 21 APEC countries, including China, vowed to throw their full weight behind resolving the current stalemate in the World Trade Organization surrounding the implementation of a trade facilitation agreement and the expansion of a tariff-cutting pact. In the attached statement released in Beijing, APEC ANNOUNCEMENT BALI TPP, the APEC Ministers stated:

2014 APEC Ministerial Meeting

  1. We, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers, met on 7-8 November 2014, in Beijing, China. The meeting was co-chaired by H.E. Wang Yi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, and H.E. Gao Hucheng, Minister of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China. . . .
  1. We welcome the participation in the meeting of the Director General of the WTO . . . .
  1. We reaffirm our confidence in the value of the multilateral trading system and stand firmly to strengthen the rules-based, transparent, non-discriminatory, open and inclusive multilateral trading system as embodied in the WTO.
  1. We highly commend the Bali Package achieved at the 9th Ministerial Conference (MC9) in Bali, Indonesia. We express our grave concern regarding the impasse in the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) which has resulted in stalemate and uncertainties over other Bali decisions. These developments have affected the credibility of the WTO negotiating function. In finding solutions to the implementation of the Bali decisions, APEC will exert creative leadership and energy together with all WTO members in unlocking this impasse, putting all Bali decisions back on track, and proceeding with the formulation of Post-Bali Work Program, as a key stepping stone to concluding the Doha Round.
  1. Bearing in mind that open markets are vital for economic growth, job creation and sustainable development, we reaffirm our commitment and recommend that our Leaders extend a standstill until the end of 2018, and roll back protectionist and trade-distorting measures. We remain committed to exercising maximum restraint in implementing measures that may be consistent with WTO provisions but have a significant protectionist effect and to promptly rectifying such measures, where implemented. In this context, we support the work of the WTO and other international organizations in monitoring protectionism.

Emphasis added.

Significantly, India is not a member of APEC, and the ministers’ statement made clear that they would exhaust all resources in order to convince New Delhi to change its stance and enable the WTO to carry on with its more substantive work.

On November 12th, in Beijing President Obama expressed optimism saying that he was “actually confident that there’s an opportunity for us to resolve them fairly soon.”

On November 13th, the US and India announced that they had reached an agreement to move the TFA forward. Under the bilateral deal, India agreed to drop its opposition to the TFA to streamline international customs procedures while the U.S. agreed to leave a so-called peace clause shielding India’s food stockpiling measures from legal challenges in place until the WTO crafts a permanent solution on that issue.

On November 14th Azevedo predicted that the implementation of a deal streamlining global customs procedures would earn quick approval from the WTO members within two weeks following the Indian government’s move to drop its opposition to the pact.

On November 16, the G-20 leaders in Australia welcomed “the breakthrough” between the U.S. and India that would allow for the “full and prompt” implementation of the TFA. The leaders also pledged to implement other agreements in Bali and swiftly define “a WTO work program on the remaining issues of the Doha Development Agenda to get negotiations back on track,” which it said would “be important to restore trust and confidence in the multilateral trading system.”

A 21st TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSITANCE PROGRAM—A MODEST PROPOSAL—RESPONSE TO OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

As stated in my last newsletter and in my October blog post, I have made the case for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Firms/Companies, which is presently funded at $16 million nationwide. With only a relatively small part of that low budget, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”) has been able to save 80 percent of the companies that participated in the program since 1984.

In my last newsletter and my blog, I also argued that President Reagan himself indirectly approved of the TAA for Firms/Companies (“TAAF”) program because it does not interfere with the market in any ways and yet has been able to save a number of US companies. In fact, the TAA programs could be funded by the over $1 billion collected every year by the US government in antidumping and countervailing duties.

But there are two programs. The first program is the $500 million to $1 billion program of TAA for workers and then there is the $16 million TAAF program for companies. Congress should consider reworking the two programs to accomplish the objective of saving the jobs and the companies that are hurt by trade liberalization. There needs to be more coordination between the two programs.

One way to adjust the programs is put the TAAF for Companies program first and give it more funding so it can help larger companies, such as Steel and Tire Companies, where more jobs are located. TAAF for Companies could be used to create a program where the best of technologies and advisory services could be brought to bear to help US companies challenged by globalization and trade liberalization. The Worker program then comes afterwards, after the jobs have been lost. Data that is needed for the Worker program can be supplied as part of the Company program.

But several questions have been raised that need to be answered.

  1. Isn’t TAAF for Companies crony capitalism?

Many opponents might argue that TAAF for Companies is simply crony capitalism. Under the TAAF program, however, very little money actually goes to the companies. Most of the money goes to business consultants that can help the company change its business model or change its marketing strategy.

In fact, as it stands now, the Program only provides $75,000 in matching funds, which means the Company itself must put in the matching $75,000. Although relatively small, the Federal money has been critical in helping US companies develop a strategy to deal with the new import competition in the market place and adjust to market conditions.

The TAAF program also cannot provide hard assets to the company, just business strategy advice and help on soft projects, such as help designing a marketing website, developing software for the company in its production process or designing a dam for an Idaho sheep farm. This is not corporate welfare because the company has to put much of its own assets in both money and labor into the assistance.

WTO also does not consider this a subsidy. No money or assets go to the company. The amount is low and does not harm international trade.

Although the TAAF program could be strengthened so that it could provide TAA for larger companies, such as Steel and Tire companies, the matching funds provision and the limitation on providing only soft projects and consulting is important so that the program cannot be targeted as simply another government subsidy.

TAAF for companies is not another Solyndra program.

  1. Isn’t TAA for Firms/Companies picking winners and losers in the market?

Any company that has been injured by imports/is being impacted by trade competition can apply to enter the program. At its core, the TAAF for companies program provides advice to the company on how to swim in the newly competitive marketplace from business experts, who know how to turn a company around.

In addition, the initial write up of the application is done by experts at TAA Centers around the country, who work with the companies at the local level on a one to one basis to develop a plan to fit the specific needs of the company. Because the program is implemented at the local level by neutral officials, there is no picking winners and losers. Although the final adjustment plan must be approved at Commerce, by that time the politics has been bled out of the situation and the question is can the company meet the criteria in the statute.

  1. Why shouldn’t TAA money go to workers and not companies?

TAA for firms/companies is not TAA for management. The company includes both the management and the workers. If you talk to workers, which have been hit by trade competition, they would rather have their job then just take assistance from the Federal Government.

Although Unions have pushed unfair trade cases, in fact, many of these unfair trade cases do not work. They do not protect the companies, and more importantly the workers from import competition. It is impossible to bring antidumping and countervailing duty cases against every country in the World.

I have met workers at a company that has been saved by the TAA for Firms/Companies program, which helped the company adjust its business plan to compete in the new trade impacted market. The worker in question had been at the factory for over 30 years and was very grateful that the program had saved his job.

In fact, the split between workers and management may be one of the problems that should be addressed by TAA. Often with the small companies, however, the employees and management have been together for years and look upon each other as one in the same. They are all in the company boat together.

Also TAA for Firms/Companies is not an entitlement, a net flow out of the US government. The TAAF program keeps the company alive and keeps the taxes from the company and the company’s management and workers flowing to the US and State Treasuries, which is money going into the US and State treasuries. That is real bank for the buck.

  1. Why can’t Private Investment/Equity funds pick up the slack and thus there is no need for TAA for Firms/Companies?

Private investment companies are often targeting short term profits so if the company cannot achieve short term profits, the company is closed and the assets are sold. Mitt Romney’s company, Bain Capital LLC, invested substantial money into GS Industries, the parent company of Georgetown Steel.  Although Bain made money, it did so by cutting more than 1,750 jobs, closing a division that had been around for 100 years and eventually Georgetown Steel sank into bankruptcy.

TAAF for companies is working long term to save the company and the jobs that go with that company. This is the only long term assistance program in the US government. So the short term profitability of the company is not the issue. The issue is can the company be turned around so that it can become profitable and very profitable in the long term.

Private Equity Firms and TAAF have very different objectives.

  1. What makes TAA for Firms/Companies different from other Economic Assistance to US companies?

TAAF for companies is a trade program, not just a Government assistance program. Trade problems for companies often happen because Government action has changed the US market, be it a free trade agreement, such as the TPP, or a change in government regulations, which has exposed the US companies to import competition.

Since the Government has created the problem in the short term by its own action, it has a responsibility to help US companies and workers that have been impacted by this Government action.

Under the Constitution Congress controls trade, not the President. TAAF is a program that was started to allow Congress and the Administration to negotiate international trade deals, which help the US economy as a whole, but have the effect of creating winners and losers in the US market.

To help building public support for these Free Trade Agreements, TAA has been provided to companies and workers to help them adjust to increased import competition. Although over time, the TAAF for companies program has declined in funding, with the new trade agreements, such as the TPP and the TTIP, the program needs to be built up again to help companies that have been hurt by changes in the US trade laws, which encourage US exports, but also imports from other countries. As stated at the top of this newsletter, trade is a two way street.

In addition, the TAAF program is the only long term assistance program in the US, and it monitors the companies to make sure they implement the plans that they have agreed to.

  1. The TAAF Program Is Too Small To Be Effective

The $16 million TAAF program may be small, but it is very effective.  Since 1984, NWTAAC has been able to save 80% of the companies in the program.

The 2013 NWTAAC report from Commerce points out that all the companies that entered the program since 2011 are still alive today.

In fact, TAAF should be expanded so it can help larger companies, such as Steel and Tire companies, deal with increased competition in the US market as trade agreements reduce barriers to imports.

  1. Why help old line US industries and companies that technology and changing trade patterns have left behind and should die a natural death?

This is the basic creative destructionism argument from famous Harvard economist, Joseph Schumpeter, and it is true if companies do not change with changing market conditions, they will die a natural death.

But TAAF for companies gives companies the opportunity to change and adapt to the changing market conditions. Many TAAF employees that have been working at the Centers for years firmly believe that any company that enters the program can be helped. It may be a new marketing strategy or a change in company equipment, or improvements in their business strategy.  The staff has seen too many success stories to not believe in the power of the program.

In Seattle we had a company making ceramic flowerpots that was being injured by imports of flower pots from Mexico. The company came into the program and as a result started producing ceramic molds for titanium parts for Boeing.  Changing the business plan is one of the best strategies to keep the company alive and the jobs that go with that company.

TAA REAUTHORIZATION NEEDED BY DECEMBER 31ST

On November 20th, in the attached announcements CONGRESS E-MAIL Reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance Before It Expires on December 31 REAUTHORIZATION SEAL, House and Senate Democrats urged Congress to reauthorize TAA before it expires December 31st. Although the emphasis is on the TAA for Workers program, the Reauthorization would also apply to TAA for firms/companies. As it stands now, as of January 1, 2015, TAA will no longer be able to provide trade adjustment assistance to new companies that want to enter the program. If TAA for Companies is not reauthorized by June 1, 2015, all the TAAC centers around the country will close their doors and the program will cease to exist.

As indicated below, funding TAA is the essence of compassionate conservatism.

CONGRESSIONAL E-MAIL NOTICES

Reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance Before It Expires on December 31, 2014

From: The Honorable Adam Smith Sent By: Mina.Garcia@mail.house.gov Bill: H.R. 4163 Date: 11/20/2014

November 20, 2014

Reauthorize Trade Adjustment Assistance Before It Expires on December 31, 2014

Dear Colleague,

We write to draw to your attention to five stories that illustrate the importance of reauthorizing the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. TAA provides financial support and re-employment training for workers whose jobs are lost due to trade. It also provides assistance to U.S. companies that have been injured by imports so they can continue to remain competitive and not resort to mass lay-offs or closures.  Funding for service workers expired at the end of 2013. Funding for the remainder of the program – which supports manufacturing workers, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and firms – will expire on December 31 unless we act to renew it.

In 2013, 100,000 workers qualified for TAA and the results prove the program’s success.  More than 75% of workers who completed the program found jobs within six months, and of those, 90% were still employed a year later.  More than 75% of workers who completed training in 2013 received a degree or industry-recognized credential.   Here are five TAA success stories:

  •  A 74 year-old Seattle die forging firm experienced trade impact and entered the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms program (TAAF) in the mid 2000’s. With the assistance of the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NWTAAC), the firm implemented a strategy of adopting certain innovations to develop capabilities in advance of competitors worldwide. NWTAAC assisted the firm in three ways that relied heavily on outside expertise: implementation of a data management system; commercialization of a new alloy; and a revision of the Firm’s website. Two years after completing TAAF, the Firm has increased employment by 11% and sales by 141%.
  •  Rodney Cox worked for 13 years on machinery, most recently at a local hospital in rural Oregon.  He was laid off in September 2010 and could not find another job.  With only a GED, he realized he would need more education to make the wage he had earned as a millwright.  Working with a TAA case manager, he opted to attend a community college that offered an Associate’s degree in Biomedics.  His TAA benefits allowed him to live, temporarily, near the training facility 177 miles away from his home (and family).  Rodney earned his degree and accepted a position as a Bio-Medical Equipment Technician.  He is earning a wage higher than what he earned when he was a millwright.  Of TAA, Rodney said, “Things couldn’t have worked out better for me.  My case managers helped me every step of the way.  I was hired two days after I moved back home with my family.”
  •  Kim Franklin is a single mother with two children.  She worked for a manufacturing company.  When she was laid off, she could not find a similar job.  She realized she needed to consider a new career and to get new skills. Through TAA, she completed Medical Assistance training.  She is now employed as a medical assistant at a health clinic in her community.
  •  Juan Bustamante worked as a machine operator in California for over 11 years making aluminum rims for cars.  When the nearby car facility moved operations out of the country, Juan – and 300 of his colleagues – lost their jobs.  Through TAA, Juan was able to obtain remedial education in English, Math, and Speech at the Los Angeles Valley College Job Training Center.  After completing the coursework, Juan qualified for the Transportation Metro Bus Operator Bridge Training Program.  After completing that program, he received a position with LA Metro and has full benefits.
  •  Judith Fischer worked for a publishing firm in New York and lost her job.  Through TAA, she explored career options and decided to pursue occupational therapy, concentrating on the psychological effects of diminished quality of life issues.  She earned an Associate’s Degree and received a job as a Community Rehabilitation Instructor and Case Manager, working with the developmentally disabled.  Judith plans to pursue a Master of Science in Social Work.  Of her new career, Judith said that it is “rewarding in every way, especially being able to connect with these children and I feel all the love they have to give.”

These examples demonstrate that TAA helps workers find new jobs and firms stay in business when they face new competition from abroad. We urge you to extend the program before it expires on December 31.

/s/                                                                             /s/ SANDER LEVIN                                                         ADAM  SMITH Member of Congress                                                   Member of Congress

/s/                                                                             /s/ CHARLES B. RANGEL                                               DEREK KILMER Member of Congress                                                   Member of Congress

/s/ RON KIND Member of Congress

 United States Congress

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Contact: Rep. Smith- Ben Halle, (202) 570-2771

            Rep. Levin- Caroline Behringer, (202) 226-1007

            Rep. Kilmer- Jason Phelps  (202)-225-3459

            Rep. Rangel- Hannah Kim, (202)-225-4365

House Dems Urge Congress to Reauthorize TAA Before it Expires December 31st

Washington, D.C.- Today, Senator Sherrod Brown introduced a Senate companion bill to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Act of 2014, introduced by Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA), Sander Levin (D-MI), Derek Kilmer (D-WA), and Charles B. Rangel (D-MI). These bills would renew TAA, which is set to expire on December 31, 2014. Reps. Smith, Levin, Rangel, and Kilmer released the following statement calling for the immediate passage of the TAA:

“It is critical that Congress pass Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation before it expires at the end of the year. Both the House and Senate TAA bills provide critical work training, income support, and health care to help dislocated American workers transition and learn new skills for new careers in competitive industries.  This vital assistance helps American workers and businesses adapt and compete in a rapidly evolving world economy.”

Background: Congress created the TAA program in 1962 in response to the loss of jobs among hard-working Americans as a result of increasing global competition, as well as to promote American competitiveness.  TAA benefits have several components: training assistance, income support while in training, and job search and relocation assistance.  The program assists workers dislocated by the elimination of tariffs and other barriers to trade.  Additional programs assist farmers, fishermen, and firms with the development and implementation of business plans to enable them to regain a competitive foothold. Click here for the full text of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Act of 2014.

TAA by the numbers:

  • 2,192,910:  The number of workers served by TAA since it was created in 1974
  • 104,158:  The number of workers eligible to apply for TAA in 2013
  • 50:  The number of states with workers eligible for TAA benefits in 2013
  • 75%: The percentage of TAA workers who got a job within six months of finishing the program
  • 90%: The percentage of those TAA workers who remained employed at the end of the year

ANTIDUMPING, COUNTERVAILING DUTY AND OTHER TRADE CASES

THE MAGNESIUM CASE — WHY MARKET ECONOMY IN ANTIDUMPING CASES AGAINST CHINA IS SO IMPORTANT FOR US PRODUCERS

As stated in numerous past newsletters, market economy for China is important for US end user production companies. The importance of market economy for the United States is illustrated by the Magnesium from China antidumping case. Recently a large Western company came to me because they were thinking of exporting Chinese magnesium to the United States to help the US magnesium die casting industry. But after discussions, at least in the short term, the company gave up because there is no longer a viable magnesium die casting industry in the United States. The Antidumping Order on Magnesium from China has killed the downstream industry.

In antidumping cases Commerce does not use actual prices and costs in China to determine whether a company is dumping. Dumping is defined as selling at prices in the United States below prices in the home market or below the fully allocated cost of production.

As mentioned before, however, in contrast to Japan, Korea, India, Iran and almost every other country in the World, China is not considered a market economy country in antidumping cases. Commerce, therefore, refuses to look at actual prices and costs in China to determine whether a Chinese company is dumping. Instead Commerce constructs a cost for the Chinese company by taking consumption factors from the Chinese producer for all inputs used to produce the product in question, including raw materials, energy, and labor, and then goes to a Third Surrogate Country to get Surrogate Values often from Import Statistics in the surrogate country to value those consumption factors.

In the past Commerce looked for surrogate values in only one country, India, but recently Commerce looks at numerous countries, including Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Bulgaria, Columbia, and Ukraine to name a few and those countries and import values can change from annual review investigation to annual review investigation.

Thus, it is impossible for the Chinese company to know whether it is dumping because it cannot know which surrogate value that Commerce will pick to value the consumption factors and thus the US importer cannot know whether the Chinese company is dumping.

In the Magnesium from China antidumping case, one of the key inputs is electricity. Electricity from hydro power in China, where many of the Chinese companies are located, can be as low as 3 cents a kilowatt hour. The average electricity cost in the US is 6 cents a kilowatt hour. What price did Commerce use as a surrogate value for electricity in the recent Magnesium review investigation? 7 cents a kilowatt hour.

This is very important because as of February 2014, there were 121 Antidumping and Countervailing Duty orders. 75 of those orders are for raw material products, such as metals, chemicals and steel, which go into downstream US production.

The Commerce Department has broad discretion to determine surrogate countries and values and their choices can change from annual review investigation to annual review investigation, exposing US importers to millions of dollars in retroactive liability based on a process, which is inherently arbitrary, because Commerce does not look at actual prices and costs in China.

Not only is there a problem with retroactive liability for US importers, US end user companies are often blocked from using the competitive Chinese raw material input, which, in turn, exposes the US downstream producers, such as foundries, automobile and chemical producers, to competition from Chinese companies and foreign companies that do have access to the lower cost raw materials. In other words, the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, rob Peter to pay Paul.

One example of the devastating impact of the US Antidumping Law is the impact of the US Magnesium from China antidumping case on the US Magnesium Die Casters. As the North American Die Casting Association stated in June 2010:

North American Die Casting Association

June 7, 2010 ·

NADCA Supports Magnesium Die Casters with a Filing to Help Lift Tariffs

May 27, 2010 by NADCA in NADCA News Wheeling, IL

NADCA recently filed a response to the International Trade Commission (ITC) in hopes to help lift ITC’s tariffs on imported magnesium alloy. Since many die casters have been harmed by the excessive prices being charged by the sole magnesium alloy producer in the U.S., NADCA has filed this response in regards to the Sunset Review of this particular ITC tariff. . . .

NADCA is concerned about magnesium die casters having access to alloy magnesium in the U.S. at globally competitive prices. The antidumping duty orders effectively bar Russian and Chinese alloy magnesium from the U.S. market. Prices for alloy magnesium are higher in the U.S. than elsewhere due to the antidumping duty orders currently in place in the U.S. but not in other major consumer markets.

The lack of effective competition in the U.S. market ― there is only one significant U.S. producer of alloy magnesium, US Magnesium LLC ― has harmed die casters since the imposition of the antidumping duty orders in 2005. NADCA estimates that as many as 1,675 direct jobs and 8,000 supporting jobs have been lost in the die casting industry due to the imposition of these orders.

US Magnesium has not made significant efforts to maintain or increase its sales of alloy magnesium in the U.S. since the imposition of the antidumping duty orders. For example, US Magnesium has not joined in efforts initiated by magnesium end-users to develop new uses of magnesium.

Thus an antidumping order to protect more than 450 production jobs in Utah has resulted in the loss of 9,657 jobs in the downstream market.

What did the ITC do in the face of this argument?

Left the antidumping order against magnesium from China in place for another five years.

Now in 2014, what has been the effect of the ITC’s decision to leave the Antidumping Order on Chinese Magnesium in place—more closed companies and more lost jobs. In 2004-2005 43 US companies sold magnesium die castings in the US market.   According to NADCA, less than 12 US companies now produce magnesium die castings in the United States.

NADCA estimates that 31 US companies have ceased pouring magnesium in the United States because of the antidumping order against magnesium from China.  US companies, such as Lunt in Illinois, simply went out of business because of the Magnesium from China Antidumping order. In 2010, when NADCA did the survey, it estimated a job loss of 1,675 direct jobs. Now the jobs loss has swelled to over 2,000 and closer to 10,000 supporting jobs.

12 companies have survived because they fall into two categories. The major market for magnesium die casting is auto parts. The first set of companies use the magnesium die castings that they produce ( i.e. Honda).

The second set of US companies are those strong in other metals, such as aluminum, and have shifted from producing magnesium die castings to aluminum die castings.

Where did the magnesium jobs and companies go? Many companies and projects simply moved to Mexico or Canada.

Many OEM magnesium auto parts manufacturers moved all their production to Mexico. Five Tier 1 steering wheel manufacturers, for example, have magnesium die casting and wheel assembly plants in Mexico, including TRW, AutoLiv, Takata, Key Safety Systems and Neaton.

The other impact of the antidumping order on Magnesium from China has been to push North American car companies away from magnesium auto parts, necessary for light weight cars, especially powertrain, mainly because of the supply uncertainty.   Lack of access to 80% of the world’s production of magnesium in China and not having globally priced metal inputs is a huge risk to car companies. Magnesium powertrain die casters, such as Spartan, have simply switched to aluminum further reducing magnesium die casting capacity and expertise in the US.

This further diminishes US auto makers acceptance of magnesium auto parts.  This US situation greatly contrasts with Europe where magnesium powertrain components are more than 50% of the magnesium auto applications. EU OEMs are much more advanced at building lighter cars now than their US peers.

Now NADCA has given up because it is “simply too difficult to fight city hall”. My potential client also told me that it was just not worth it to fight the Magnesium antidumping order because the downstream market for the product had simply died in the United States.

The Antidumping law in truth is a jobs destroyer, not a jobs creator.

THE WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE ANTIDUMPING CASE—NO HELP TO THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY BUT 100S OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RETROATIVE LIABILITY FOR US IMPORTERS AND BANKRUPTCIES

On November 18, 2014, in Mark David, a Division of: Baker, Knapp & Tubbs, Inc. et al v. United States, CIT MAOJI, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) affirmed a Commerce Department decision of a 216% rate for Maoji, a major Chinese exporter, in the Wooden Bedroom Furniture case creating probably 10s of millions of dollars in retroactive liability for US importers.

In that decision, Judge Tsoucalis stated:

“Maoji does not dispute that they failed to participate fully in the review, and that they therefor can be subjected to an AFA rate. The issue before the court is instead whether Commerce’s application of the 216.01% PRC-wide AFA rate to Maoji was reasonable. Plaintiff argues that the 216.01% PRC-wide AFA rate was neither reliable nor relevant. . . . According to Plaintiff, Commerce applied an “outdated” and “unsupported” margin that did not reflect Maoji’s commercial reality. . . .

Plaintiff does not appear to dispute Commerce’s finding that Maoji failed to rebut the presumption of government control in the Final Results. During the review Maoji notified Commerce that it was not practicable for it to provide a response to the Section D questionnaire or the supplemental Section A questionnaire. . . . Commerce determined that Maoji was a part of the PRC-wide entity. . . . Because Maoji failed to respond to Commerce’s questionnaires regarding its separate rate eligibility during the review, Commerce reasonably concluded that Maoji failed to demonstrate its absence of government control. . . .

Unlike Orient in Lifestyle I, here, Maoji failed to qualify for separate rate status. As a result it received the PRC-wide AFA rate. Because Maoji was part of the PRC-wide entity, Commerce was not required to calculate a separate AFA rate relevant to Maoji’s commercial reality. . . . Commerce was only required to corroborate the rate to the PRC-wide entity. . . . Therefore, Plaintiff’s reliance on Lifestyle I is misplaced. Lifestyle I does not call into question the PRC-wide rate as applied to the PRC-wide entity, rather it only discredits its application to Orient, which successfully established the absence of both de jure and de facto government control.”

Several years ago, an importer asked me to meet with Maoji in Shanghai and talk to them about the Wooden Bedroom Furniture case. From talking to the importer, I knew that Maoji was exporting a lot of furniture from different Chinese manufacturers and asked the Manager from Maoji, what would happen if Commerce picked Maoji as a mandatory respondent in the review investigation and it had to report factors of production/consumption factors from all Maoji’s suppliers? Instead of replying, the Manager got mad and started yelling at me, “Who told you we would have to supply production information for all our suppliers?” End of conversation.

In this case, apparently Maoji could not supply its response to Section D of the questionnaire because it was not practicable. Section D of the questionnaire requires the exporters to report consumption factors for its wooden bedroom furniture suppliers/producers. Too many producers apparently did not want to cooperate with Maoji and supply their production information.

But now all the importers that imported from Maoji are exposed to retroactive liability of 216% on imports. Based on my past experience, this means that importers will owe millions and possibly 10s of millions of dollars on these imports.

A month ago while in Beijing during a meeting with the Chamber of Light Industrial Products, a Chinese Chamber official told me that he regarded the Wooden Bedroom Furniture case as a victory for Chinese companies. My response was that this same case has created retroactive liability of close to, if not more than, $1 billion for US importers. Last year, exports of furniture from Vietnam went by exports of furniture from China. So if the Wooden Bedroom Furniture case was a victory, I would hate to see a loss. In fact, this case has been a disaster.

But this case along with the comments of the Chamber official indicate that Chinese companies simply do not understand the impact of these cases on US importers and in some cases, simply do not care. I have met with company owners in High Point, North Carolina, who have seen their entire $50 million dollar blow up because they had the temerity to import Chinese wooden bedroom furniture from China under an antidumping order.

The irony of the Wooden Bedroom Furniture case is illustrated by the December 2010 ITC determination in the Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China Sunset Review investigation, where ITC Commissioner Pearson stated the antidumping order has not helped the US industry:

this investigation . . . raises some troubling questions. . . . This industry would have faced difficulties during the period of review under any circumstances, given the depth of the recession and its extensive effects on the housing market. But even before the recession began, the industry was not apparently gaining much benefit from the imposition of the order. The domestic industry’s market share continued to decline after the order, as did production, capacity utilization, and employment. In the long run the domestic industry might have been expected to struggle to retain any benefits from this order as importers and retailers sought supply in other, lower-cost markets outside China. But the record here suggests that the domestic industry gained little even before those adjustments began to be made. . . .

I am mindful that the law does not require that an antidumping order or countervailing duty order be shown to benefit the domestic industry in order to reach an affirmative finding in a five-year review. . . .In this particular investigation, additional costs and distortions have been added by the use of the administrative review and settlement process, with little evidence that these distortions have yielded any benefits to the industry overall, the U.S. consumer, or the U.S. taxpayer.

So if the antidumping order does not benefit the US industry, why doesn’t the US industry simply lift the order? Two reasons, first the US industry and the lawyers representing the industry have made money from private settlements with Chinese companies and US importers. Second, although the AD order may not have helped the US industry directly, it has had the effect of eliminating a number of the US industry’s direct competitors, which are US importers forcing them into bankruptcy because they imported furniture under an antidumping order against China.

IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA

This is why the Import Alliance for America is so important for US importers, US end user companies and also Chinese companies. 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.

Recently, the Import Alliance established its own website. See 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 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.

Congressmen have agreed to meet importers to listen to their grievances regarding the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws. In addition to contacting US importers, we are now contacting many Chinese companies to ask them to contact their US import companies to see if they are interested in participating in the Alliance.

At the present time, Commerce takes the position that it will not make China a market economy country in 2016 as required by the WTO Accession Agreement because the 15 years is in a treaty and not in the US antidumping and countervailing duty law. 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.

On August 7, 2014, we held an organizational meeting in Beijing, China at the headquarters of China Ocean Shipping Company (“COSCO”) with interested Chambers of Commerce and Chinese companies to explain the project in more detail and to seek help in contacting US importers about the Alliance.

We spoke to about 40 attendees, including attendees from the legal departments of the top 10 chambers of commerce, including Chemicals, Machinery and Electronics, Light Industrial Products, and Food, and the Steel, Wood Products and Hydraulics and Pneumatics & Seals Association.

In addition to describing the Import Alliance and the issues regarding 2016 in the US China Accession Agreement, we also discussed the US China Trade War in general. Introductory videos for the Organizational Meeting from Cal Scott of Polder Inc., the President of the Import Alliance, can be found at the following link https://vimeo.com/103556227 and for former Congressmen Don Bonker and Cliff Stearns of APCO can be found at the following link https://vimeo.com/103556226. The PowerPoint we used to describe the Import Alliance, the specific provisions in the US China WTO Agreement and the Trade War in general is attached FINAL BEIJING IMPORT ALLIANCE POWERPOINT.

TRADE

SOLAR CASES—POSSIBLE SCOPE EXPANSION TO INCLUDE PANELS PRODUCED IN CHINA AND TAIWAN FROM THIRD COUNTRY SOLAR CELLS AND SEPARATE RATES PROBLEM

SOLAR PRODUCTS

On June 3, 2014, Commerce issued its preliminary countervailing duty determination against China in the Solar Products case. The fact sheet and preliminary Federal Register notice have been posted on my blog. The Countervailing Duty Rates range from 18.56% for Trina to 35.21% for Wuxi Suntech and all other Chinese companies getting 26.89%. On July 25th, the Commerce Department announced its preliminary antidumping determination in the Chinese solar products case establishing 47.27% combined rates (20.38% Antidumping, 26.89% Countervailing Duty) wiping out billions of dollars in imports of Chinese solar products into the United States.

Posted on my October blog post are the Commerce Department’s Factsheet, Federal Register notice, Issues and Decision memo from the Antidumping Preliminary Determination along with Commerce instructions to Customs in the Solar Products Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases, which will help importers understand what products are covered by this case. Also attached to the October blog post is the ITC scheduling notice for its final injury investigation in the Solar Products case. The ITC hearing is scheduled for December 8, 2014.

On August 15th, after an extension, the Chinese government filed a letter at Commerce, which is posted on my blog, expressing an interest in a suspension agreement, but no proposed formal agreement has been filed with the Department. Although some preliminary discussions have been held, no Agreement has been released for comment as required by the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty law.

Meanwhile, the case moves on and expands. In an October 3, 2014 memo, which is posted in my October post, on its own motion Commerce has proposed to expand the scope of the Solar Panels case to cover all panels produced in Taiwan and China from third country solar cells.

On October 16, 2014, on behalf of two importers that import solar panels with third country solar cells in it, we filed a brief to argue that a change this late in the Solar Products investigation expanding the products subject to investigation violates due process because of the lack of notice to US importers and Chinese exporter and producers. The problem with changing the scope this late in the antidumping and countervailing investigation is that Commerce Department’s record is now closed and those Chinese companies that exported solar panels with third country solar cells in them along with the US companies that import those products have no opportunity to prove that the Chinese companies are separate and independent from the Chinese government. The Chinese companies, therefore, will automatically get an antidumping rate of 167%.

Moreover, the entire antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at Commerce as well as the injury investigation at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) are based on the premise that the products covered by this investigation are solely those solar panels that have solar cells wholly or partially produced in the subject countries, Taiwan or China. If Commerce accepts the proposal, that will no longer be the case. The Solar Products cases will cover Chinese and Taiwan solar panels with third country solar cells in them when there is no specific determination at the Commerce Department that those Chinese and Taiwan solar panels with third country solar cells, in fact, were dumped or that the Chinese companies producing those panels received subsidies and no determination at the ITC that the solar panels with third country solar cells in them caused injury to the US industry.

One reason that Commerce may have decided to expand the scope is because the AD and CVD orders will be difficult to administer and enforce. It will be difficult for Customs officials at the border to determine where the components of a solar cell in a particular panel from China or Taiwan originated. But that is a problem with the scope in Solar World’s initial petition that it filed in this case. Substantially changing the game at this stage in the proceedings raises enormous due process questions in this proceeding.

We now await the Commerce Department’s final determination on December 16th.

SOLAR CELLS—THE SEPARATE RATES ISSUE

On November 20, 2014, in the attached Jiangsu Jiansheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd. v. United States decision, CIT JIANGSU SEPARATE RATES, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) granted the Commerce Department’s request to take another look at the separate rates issue regarding certain “state-owned” Chinese companies. In doing so the Court stated that even though there was a possibility of government influence that was not enough to deny a Chinese company separate rates. As indicated below, this decision seems to be at odds with the Diamond Sawblades case and the Tetrafluoroethane case.  As the Court stated:

“Specifically, SolarWorld argues that Commerce gave insufficient weight to evidence that Chinese laws permit the government to intervene in Chinese companies’ operations in a variety of ways. But by definition, the laws of an NME country will generally permit the government of such country to intervene in the operations of its companies. Thus to require NME companies to prove complete legal autonomy would introduce an internal inconsistency into the analysis. Instead, as Commerce explained in this case, the agency determines whether the legal possibility exists to permit the company in question to operate as an autonomous market participant, notwithstanding any residual authority for potential governmental intervention, and if so, whether that company should be exempted from the NME system-wide analysis because it in fact managed its production, pricing, and profits as an autonomous market participant. Here, Commerce first determined that, as a matter of de jure possibility, the respondents in question could have acted as sufficiently autonomous market participants to deserve separate rates; then, having made this threshold determination, Commerce determined that the evidence in the record reasonably supported the conclusion that these respondents in fact did act sufficiently autonomously in terms of managing production and profit and setting prices during the POI.

Commerce requests and is granted permission to reconsider the record evidence regarding whether certain respondents were sufficiently autonomous from the Chinese government in the conduct of their export activities as to qualify for rates separate from the PRC-wide entity. In doing so, Commerce need not require proof of complete freedom from any mere legal possibility of government control. . . .

Commerce has determined that the weight of the evidence suggests the contrary conclusion, and SolarWorld has not pointed to any specific nonspeculative evidence to cast doubt upon this determination. Accordingly, because Commerce has considered and relied upon sufficient evidence to reasonably support the agency’s conclusion that the respondents in question were sufficiently autonomous from government control over their export activities to qualify for a separate rate, and because SolarWorld presents no specific evidence to impugn these reasonable determinations Commerce’s findings with regard to these separate-rate recipients are supported by substantial evidence.. . . ,

SolarWorld also argues that Commerce’s decision to grant separate-rate status to these respondents was arbitrary because, in the past, Commerce has denied such status to respondents who submitted ownership evidence that was later contradicted at verification. But the issue presented here is not analogous to the prior decisions on which SolarWorld relies because the respondents in those cases had submitted ownership information that was contradicted at verification, whereas here there was no similar impeachment of any of the evidence submitted by the challenged separate-rate recipients . . . .

Essentially, SolarWorld believes that the potential for governmental control through such managers or board directors categorically precludes a finding that such companies in fact acted autonomously in conducting their own export activities. The core of SolarWorld’s argument is that these respondents failed to establish de facto autonomy because 1) some of these companies’ shareholders are SOEs (i.e., wholly state-owned companies), with the power to recommend or appoint the company’s board members and senior managers; and 2) some of these companies’ senior managers or board directors contemporaneously also held membership or positions within organizations such as the CPC, NPC, and/or CPPCC. But these facts alone are not dispositive of the de facto autonomy inquiry, because they speak solely to the possibility for governmental control over export activities through these persons, not whether such control was in fact reasonably likely to have been exercised during the POI.

Fundamentally, SolarWorld’s arguments regarding the de facto autonomy of the challenged separate-rate recipients suffer from the same analytical defect as its arguments regarding de jure autonomy – namely that, in an NME country, there will usually be state involvement and authority to intervene in these respondents failed to establish de facto autonomy because 1) some of these companies’ shareholders are SOEs (i.e., wholly state-owned companies), with the power to recommend or appoint the company’s board members and senior managers; and 2) some of these companies’ senior managers or board directors contemporaneously also held membership or positions within organizations such as the CPC, NPC, and/or CPPCC. But these facts alone are not dispositive of the de facto autonomy inquiry, because they speak solely to the possibility for governmental control over export activities through these persons, not whether such control was in fact reasonably likely to have been exercised during the POI. . . .

But this fact alone does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that all NME producers and exporters should be categorically treated as in fact setting their prices according to some centralized strategy. Here, each of the challenged separate-rate recipients submitted evidence that “(1) [t]heir [export prices] are not set by, and are not subject to, the approval of a governmental agency; (2) they have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) they have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their export sales and make independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses.” Moreover, “[a]ll of the separate rate respondents at issue reported that neither SASAC nor the government was involved in the activities of the board of directors.”

Footnotes omitted, emphasis added.

TETRAFLUORETHANE CASE—COMMERCE FINDS VERY HIGH ANTIDUMPING MARGINS, BUT ITC SAYS NO INJURY AND DISMISSES THE ENTIRE CASE

On October 15, 2014 in the attached fact sheetfactsheet-prc-1112-Tetrafluoroethane-ad-cvd-final-101514, Commerce found dumping and countervailable subsidization of Imports of 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane from the People’s Republic of China with antidumping rates for all of China of 280%, in part, by refusing to give Chinese state-owned companies their own antidumping rates. Such a high antidumping rate meant that all 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane from China would be excluded from the US market.

On November 12, 2014, however, the US International Trade Commission based on a 4-2 vote in the attached fact sheet, ITC NO INJURY VOTE TETRFLUORETHANE, determined that the US industry was not injured by reason of imports of 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorethane from China. The case, therefore, is dismissed and no antidumping and countervailing duty orders will be issued.

CAFC SAWBLADES CASE—NO SEPARATE ANTIDUMPING RATES FOR CHINESE STATE OWNED COMPANIES

On October 24th, in the attached one-sentence opinion, DIAMOND SAWBLADES CAFC DECISION, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States affirmed a decision by the CIT that found Chinese diamond saw blade companies had not done enough to show their independence from China’s government to deserve their own anti-dumping order rates, overturning 20 years of past cases by the Commerce Department. The CAFC affirmed the Commerce Department’s determination to provide Advanced Technology a 164.1 percent margin as the China-wide rate, not the 2.82 percent rate that had been assigned to them separately.

As stated in the September newsletter, in response to the CIT decisions in the Diamond Sawblades case, which are attached to my September blog post, Commerce is making it more difficult for Chinese state owned companies that are under the supervision of the PRC’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (“SASAC”) to get their own separate antidumping rate. Commerce continued that position in the 1,1,1, 2 Tetrafluoroethane from China case, but ITC threw out the case for no injury.

TIRES FROM CHINA ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASE

Although Senator Kay Hagan sent a letter to Commerce regarding the Tires case, she lost her reelection fight in North Carolina to Republican Tom Tillis apparently, in part, because of her position on trade issue. But there will still be substantial political heat on the Commerce Department over the Tires case.

On November 22, 2014, Commerce announced its preliminary determination in the Tires countervailing duty investigation.  Attached are the Federal Register notice and Commerce Department factsheet  factsheet-prd-passenger-vehicle-light-truck-tires-cvd-prelim-112414 Tires PRC CVD Prelim FR as signed (3). The CVD rates ranged from moderate to very high, with the average rate being moderate.  GITI Tire (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and certain cross-owned companies received 17.69%; Cooper Kunshan Tire Co., Ltd and certain cross-owned companies 12.50%; Shandong Yongsheng Rubber Group Co., Ltd. 81.29% and all other Chinese exporters receiving a rate of 15.69%.

Commerce has found critical circumstances applying countervailing duties to imports 90 days prior to the preliminary determination to cover imports as early as late August.  As it stands now, imports since late August will now be covered by the Countervailing Duty case exposing importers to millions of dollars in retroactive liability.

ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS

CIRCUMVENTION OF ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS ORDER??

On the other hand Senator Mitch McConnell sent a May 8th letter about circumvention of the aluminum extrusions antidumping order followed by a letter from Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Mitch McConnell in January will be the Senate Majority leader as the ranking Republican in the Senate, and Senator Orrin Hatch will be the new Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. So both Senators will have enormous influence in the new Congress.

On September 4, 2014, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Paul Piquado in a letter posted on my October blog post assured the lawmakers that the agency is “committed to the robust enforcement of the trade remedy laws” to help provide U.S. firms and workers the opportunity to “compete on a level playing field.”

CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL WIRE ROD FROM CHINA FINAL ANTIDUMPING DETERMINATION

On September 2, 2014, in a factual statement, which is posted on my September blog post, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) announced its affirmative preliminary determination in the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from the People’s Republic of China (China).  Since the Chinese companies failed to respond to the Commerce Department’s questionnaire, they received a preliminary dumping margin of 110.25 percent with the separate rate steel companies receiving a preliminary dumping rate of 106.19 percent.

Because no Chinese companies participated in the initial investigation, on November 13, 2014, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-prc-carbon-certain-alloy-steel-wire-rod-ad-cvd-final-111314, Commerce announced its final determination finding dumping and Countervailable Subsidization of Imports of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the People’s Republic of China. Commerce handed out 110.25 percent “adverse facts available” anti-dumping duty rates, countervailable subsidies ranging from 178.46 percent for Hebei Iron & Steel to 193.31 percent for Benxi Steel. All other Chinese producers not named were assessed a CVD rate of 185.89.

The agency found critical circumstances that warranted remedial, retroactive duties to be paid by US importers for imports of carbon steel wire rod three months prior to the Commerce Department’s preliminary determination from all Chinese companies in the CVD investigation and all but three Chinese exporters in the AD investigation.

ITC AFFIRMATIVE FINAL INJURY DETERMINATION MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE FROM CHINA

On November 17, 2014, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC MONOSODIUM Glutamate, the ITC determined that the US industry was materially injured by reason of imports of monosodium glutamate from China and Indonesia and antidumping and countervailing duty orders will be issued in that case.

COMMERCE DEPARTMENT AFFIRMATIVE PRELIMINARY ANTIDUMPING DETERMINATION—DOMESTIC DRY SEA CONTAINERS FROM CHINA

On November 20, 2014, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-prc-53ft-domestic-dry-containers-ad-prelim-112014, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary antidumping determination in the 53-foot domestic dry containers (domestic dry containers) from China case finding dumping margins ranging from 24.27% to 153.24%.

NOVEMBER ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE. REVIEWS

On November 3, 2014, Commerce published in the Federal Register the attached notice, NOV REVIEWS, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of October. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses, Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof, Fresh Garlic, Lightweight Thermal Paper, Paper Clips, Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip, Pure Magnesium in Granular Form, Refined Brown Aluminum Oxide, Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard Line, and Pressure Pipe, Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube.

The specific countervailing duty cases are:

Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses, Lightweight Thermal Paper, Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe.

For those US import companies that imported Carbon Steel Plate, Coated Paper, Diamond Sawblades, Garlic and the other products listed above from China during the antidumping period November 1, 2013-October 31, 2014 or during the countervailing duty review period of 2013 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. Recently in the Shrimp from China antidumping case, for example, almost 100 Chinese exporters were denied a separate antidumping rate.

On October 30, 2014, in the attached notice, OCT REVEW INVESTIGATIONS, based on requests in September, Commerce initiated several review investigations against a substantial number of Chinese companies in the Lined Paper Products, Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires, Freshwaters Crawfish Tailmeat, and Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge cases.

NEW ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASE AGAINST MELAMINE FROM CHINA

On November 12, 2014, Cornerstone Chemical Company filed a new antidumping and countervailing duty petition against Melamine from China and Trinidad and Tobago.  The petition alleges antidumping rates of 263.76 to 374.14 on imports of Chinese melamine.

Melamine is “a fine, white crystalline powder that is used primarily to manufacture amino resins, the major end uses of which include surface coatings, laminates, molding compounds, paper treatment, adhesives, and textile-treatment applications in the automotive, appliance, dinnerware, furniture, fabric, and wood paneling industries.

Attached are  a short version of the petition along with an Extract which includes a list of the Chinese companies and US Import Companies that are the targets of this case,  Petition on Melamine from PRC & Trinidad and Tobago ExtractPage1. The targeted Chinese companies are listed below.

Allied Chemicals Inc. China, Anhui Garments Shoes & Caps Industrial Group Co. China, Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., Anhui Sunson Chemical Group Co., Ltd., ChemChina, China Haohua (Group) Corp., Chengdu Yulong Chemical Co., Ltd., CNPC Urumqi Petrochemical General Factory, CNSG Anhui Hong Sifang Co., Ltd., Dalian Rion Chen Intl. Trade Co. Ltd. China, Dezhou Defeng Chemical Co., Ltd., Far-Reaching Chemical Co., Ltd. China, Forwarder Chinese, Fujian Sangang (Group), Full Shine Group Co., Ltd. China, Future Foam Asia Inc. China, Hebei Jinglong Fengli Chemical Co., Ltd., Hefei Tianfeng Import & Export Co Ltd China, Henan Jinshan Chemical Group Co., Ltd., Henan Yuhua Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., Henan Zhongyuan Dahua Group Co., Ltd., Holitech Technology Co., Ltd. China, Hubei Huaqiang Chemical Group Co., Ltd., JianFeng Chemicals, Jiangsu Heyou Group Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Sanmu Group Corporation, Kaiwei Investment Group, Kingboard (Panyu Nansha) Petrochemical Co., Ltd., M And A Chemicals Corp China, Nanjing Deju Trading Co Ltd China, Nanjing Jinxing Petrochemical Enterprise, Nantong Zixin Industrial Co., Ltd., OCI Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. China, Panjin Zhongrun Chemical Co., Ltd., Puyang San’an Chemical Co., Ltd., Qingdao Shida Chemical Co., Ltd. China, Shandong Jinmei Mingshui Chemical Co., Ltd., Shandong Liaherd Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., Shandong Luxi Chemical Co., Ltd., Shandong Sanhe Chemical Co., Ltd., Shandong Shuntian Chemical Group Co. China, Shandong Xintai Liaherd Chemical Co., Ltd., Shandong Yixing Melamine Co., Ltd., Shanxi Fenghe Melamine Co., Ltd., Shanxi Tianze Coal Chemical Group Co., Ltd., Sichuan Chemical Works Group Ltd., Sichuan Golden-Elephant Sincerity Chemical Co., Ltd., Sichuan Meifeng Group Co., Ltd., Sichuan Jade Elephant Melamine Scientific and Technological Co., Ltd., Sinopec Jinling Petrochemical Co., Ltd., Well Hope Enterprises Limited, Xinji Jiuyuan Chemical Co. Ltd. China, Zhejiang Fuyang Yongxing Chemical Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Medicines & Health Product Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd. China, Zhongyuan Dahua Group Company Ltd China, Zhucheng Liangfeng Chemical Co., Ltd.

RUSSIA—US SANCTIONS AS A RESULT OF UKRAINE CRISIS

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 are a copy of the powerpoint for the speech and a description of our Russian/Ukrainian/Latvian Trade Practice for US importers and exporters. US SANCTIONS RUSSIA RUSSIAN TRADE PRACTICE

There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty surrounding business with Russian companies. As sanctions continue to expand against Russia, any company interested in doing business with Russia must constantly check the regulations and hire legal counsel. Every single transaction with Russian entities is a potential target of the sanctions, and, therefore, any US company interested in doing business with Russia must be extremely vigilant. The US regulations mirror regulations in Canada and the EU, but there are differences.

There are two groups of US regulations. The most powerful regulations are administered by Treasury—Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). A second group of regulations have been issued by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) blocking exports of certain energy-sector technologies.

With regards to the sanctions administered by OFAC, US Presidential Executive Orders 13660, 13661, and 13662 define how U.S. Government will identify targets of sanctions (e.g., financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense sectors and government agencies and officials). The specific OFAC regulations regarding Ukraine are set forth in 31 CFR 589 –”Blocking”/“Asset Freezing” sanctions prohibiting transactions with specific persons and entities. The regulations have been posted on my blog, but they do change as the sanctions evolve.

Pursuant to the OFAC regulations, U.S. persons are prohibited from conducting transactions, dealings, or business with Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDNs). A US person must also block the property or interest in property of SDNs that they hold or that is located in the United States. 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.

On July 29, 2014, OFAC issued a new “Sectoral Sanctions Identification List” (the “SSI List”) that identifies specific Russian persons and entities covered by these sectoral sanctions. See: www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/pages/ssi_list.aspx. U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in certain transactions with persons and entities on the SSI List, but are not required to “freeze” or “block” property or interests in property of such persons and entities as if they were SDNs.

Thus companies or persons on the SSI list may become named SDNs in the future. SSI and SDN Lists are not static but evolving. Lists will likely expand and have expanded based on Russian behavior in Ukraine. Everything could change overnight. Do not rely on a dated list. Keep checking. www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/pages/ssi_list.aspx

On September 11, 2014, the US and the European Union announced new restrictions on Russian access to capital market. The new sanctions target Russian financial, energy and defense companies and make it more difficult to make loans to the five Russian state-owned banks, by tightening debt financing restrictions by reducing the maturity period of the new debt issued by those institutions from 90 days to 30 days. The companies targeted in the new round of OFAC sanctions include OAO Gazprom, Roseneft, Lukoil OAO, pipeline operator, Transneft, and Rostec, a Russian institution dealing in industrial technology products, along with the nation’s largest financial institution, Sberbank of Russia.

OFAC also added another set of Commerce export restrictions on certain oil development technologies by broadening the scope of the items that are banned and adding Gazprom, Lukoil and three other energy firms to the list of specifically banned export destinations.

On November 11, 2014, the White House indicated that the latest fighting between the Ukraine, which has been triggered by Russian aid to the separatists, is likely to trigger another round of sanctions. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes stated, “What Russia will find is, if they continue to do that, it’s a recipe for isolation from a broad swath of the international community.”

Putin’s isolation was indicated by his presence at the G20 talks in Australia, where he was given a very “frosty” reception, which, in part, led to a decision to leave the talks early.

CUSTOMS

We have observed many instances where Customs is cracking down on imports of Chinese solar panels with third country solar cells in them. Customs forces the company to provide extensive documentation to prove that the third country solar cells are actually in the Chines solar panels. Many importers are not able to comply and face antidumping rates as high as 250% on imports.

IP/PATENT AND 337 CASES

337 CASES

There have been developments at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in 337 cases and patent area.

SUPREMA CASE—INDUCED PATENT INFRINGEMENT 337 CASES

On October 15th, the ITC filed the attached brief, ITC COMMISSION BRIEF, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in the En Banc appeal in the Suprema Inc. V. US International Trade Commission case. In the prior panel decision, the CAFC held that the ITC could not use induced patent infringement to issue an exclusion order because at the time of the infringement, the imported products did not directly infringe the patents in question. The imported products infringed the patent only after arriving in the United States and being combined with other products in the United States. The ITC asked the entire CAFC to review the panel determination, and the CAFC agreed to an en banc proceeding before all the CAFC judges.

In the brief the ITC argues that the case will have “significant implications for patent holders that rely on inducement liability for protection of their inventions, especially those that hold claims to inventive methods and those that operate industries in the United States.”

The Commission went on to state in the brief:

“Appellants contend that when Congress prohibited the importation of “articles that—infringe” a patent under section 337, Congress meant to excuse the importation of articles intended to induce patent infringement. There is absolutely no support in the language of the statute or the legislative history of section 337 for Appellants’ construction. The importation of “articles that—infringe” via inducement under § 271(b) of the Patent Act is no less prohibited by section 337 than the importation of “articles that—infringe” directly under § 271(a).

The legislative history of the Tariff Act makes clear that it was intended to prevent “every type and form of unfair practice” in the importation of goods. . . . From the beginning, courts understood inducement of patent infringement to be an unfair practice within the scope of the Act. . . .

The only way the Court could adopt Appellants’ interpretation of section 337 would be to ignore the Patent Act, the language of section 337, the intent of Congress, and decades of established practice. This the Court should not do.

To prove the importation of “articles that—infringe” via inducement under section 337 requires proof of three essential elements: (1) importation of an article that is the means of infringement; (2) an intent that the imported article be used to infringe a patent, or willful blindness to infringement; and (3) an act of direct infringement involving the article. . . . The record on review contains substantial evidence of each element. . . .”

The US Government through the Justice Department filed the attched Amicus Brief, US GOVERNMENT SUPREMA BRIEF, which states in part:

Congress charged the International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “ITC”) with the responsibility to exclude from the United States “articles that . . . infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i). The Commission reasonably interprets that statutory command to prohibit the importation not merely of fully assembled patented inventions, but of all articles for which infringement liability may be imposed under the Patent Act. No one disputes that, in an ordinary civil action for infringement in district court, a person who imports articles in an intentional scheme to induce infringement of a patent within the United States “shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Commission sensibly construes Section 337 in pari materia with that undisputed interpretation of the Patent Act, treating the articles imported in such an infringing scheme as “articles that . . . infringe.”

The Commission acted well within its discretion in adopting that construction of the Tariff Act. The Commission has no choice but to exercise interpretative judgment in applying Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i). As appellants recognize . . ., nothing in the Tariff Act defines the phrase “articles that . . . infringe.” Nor do the patent laws speak in terms of infringing “articles.” Under the Patent Act, persons infringe, not things.  The article by itself cannot literally “infringe” under Section 271 any more than a tract of land can trespass. Thus, in enacting Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i), Congress necessarily expected and intended that the Commission would interpret “articles that . . . infringe” in a manner that appropriately translates the domestic in personam liability provisions of the Patent Act into the in rem framework of exclusion proceedings under the Tariff Act.

The Commission’s construction of Section 337 reasonably resolves that conceptual dilemma by construing the phrase “articles that . . . infringe” to encompass any article whose importation would support infringement liability under the Patent Act, including articles imported for the purpose of inducing patent infringement. That interpretation is consistent with the plain language of both Section 337 and Section 271(b) and with the underlying policies and purposes of the trade laws.

And it has the significant benefit of preventing importers from evading the prohibitions of the Tariff Act through “the most common and least sophisticated form of circumvention, importation of the article in a disassembled state.”

There is little doubt, moreover, that the Commission’s interpretation best effectuates Congress’s intent in 1988 when it enacted Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i). . . . In an uncodified portion of the 1988 legislation, Congress expressly found that Section 337 “has not provided United States owners of intellectual property rights with adequate protection against foreign companies violating such rights,” and declared that the purpose of the 1988 legislation was “to make [Section 337] a more effective remedy for the protection of United States intellectual property rights.”. . . .

That statutory declaration of purpose is impossible to reconcile with the panel’s view that Congress intended to render the Commission “powerless to remedy acts of induced infringement.” . . . By the time of the 1988 amendments, the Commission had for many years construed Section 337 to prohibit, as an unfair trade practice, the active inducement of patent infringement in the United States. It is difficult to imagine why a Congress seeking to enhance the protection of intellectual property rights in Commission proceedings would simultaneously have acted to strip the Commission of its power to redress such infringement.

And it is even more doubtful that Congress would have done so silently and obliquely, without any explanation or even acknowledgment in the legislative history. Congress does not, as the Supreme Court has observed, “hide elephants in mouseholes.” . . . .

In sum, the Commission construes Section 337 to provide remedies against the same forms of infringement at the border that district courts are empowered to redress through in personam infringement actions within the United States. Because that interpretation is reasonable and consistent with “the language, policies and legislative history” of the Tariff Act, it is entitled to deference. . . .

In addition, the atthached briefs were filed by ITC Trial Lawyers Association and Nokia in support of the ITC, ITC TLA Suprema BRIEF Nokia Suprema BRIEF.

SECTION 337 COMPLAINTS

NEW 337 COMPLAINT AGAINST FOOTWARE PRODUCTS FROM CHINA

On October 14th, Converse Inc. filed a new 337 IP case against footwear products/sneakers from China for infringement of Converse’s registered and common law trademarks. Relevant parts of the petition are posted on my October blog post along with the ITC notice. The respondent companies are set forth below:

Description: 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 Footwear Products . The proposed respondents are: Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Manhattan Beach, CA; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR; A-List, Inc., d/b/a Kitson, Los Angeles, CA; Aldo Group, Canada; Brian Lichtenberg, LLC, Los Angeles, CA; Cmerit USA, Inc., d/b/a Gotta Flurt, Chino, CA; Dioniso SRL, Italy; Edamame Kids, Inc., Canada; Esquire Footwear, LLC, New York, NY; FILA U.S.A., Inc., Sparks, MD; Fortune Dynamic, Inc., City of Industry, CA; Gina Group, LLC, New York, NY; H & M Hennes & Mauritz LP, New York, NY; Highline United LLC d/b/a Ash Footwear USA, New York, NY; Hitch Enterprises Pty Ltd d/b/a Skeanie Unit 3, Australia; Iconix Brand Group, Inc., d/b/a Ed Hardy, New York, NY; Kmart Corporation, Hoffman Estates, IL; Mamiye Imports LLC d/b/a Lilly of New York, Brooklyn, NY; Nowhere Co., Ltd. d/b/a Bape, Japan; OPPO Original Corp., City of Industry, CA; Orange Clubwear, Inc., d/b/a Demonia Deviant, Westminster, CA; Ositos Shoes, Inc., d/b/a Collection’O, South El Monte,CA; PW Shoes Inc., Maspeth, NY; Ralph Lauren Corporation, New York, NY; Shenzhen Foreversun Industrial Co., Ltd (a/k/a Shenzhen Foreversun Shoes Co., Ltd), China; Shoe Shox., Seattle, Washington; Tory Burch LLC, New York, NY; Zulily, Inc., Seattle, Washington; Fujian Xinya I & E Trading Co., Ltd., China; Zhejiang Ouhai International Trade Co., Ltd., China; and Wenzhou Cereals Oils & Foodstuffs Foreign Trade Co., Ltd., China.

On November 12, 2014, the ITC in the attached notice instituted the 337 case against Footwear from China, ITC INSTITUTION CONVERSE CASE. Chinese companies must respond to the complaint in about 30 days. If the Chinese companies fail to respond, they can be found in default and exclusion orders against their products can be issued.

On the same day that Converse filed the section 337 case, it also filed a trademark complaint for damages in the Federal District Court in Brooklyn, which is attached to my October blog post.

NEW 337 CASE AGAINST SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS FROM TAIWAN AND HONG KONG

On November 21, 2014, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor,LLC filed a section 337 case against Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip. The respondent companies are listed below:

NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, California; Biostar Microtech International Corp.. Taiwan; Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp., City of Industry, California; Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd., Taiwan; Elitegroup Computer Systems, Inc., Newark, California; EVGA Corp., Brea, California; Fuhu, Inc., El Segundo, California; Jaton Corp., Fremont, California; Mad Catz, Inc., San Diego, California; OUYA, Inc., Santa Monica, California; Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd., Taiwan; Toradex, Inc., Seattle, Washington; Wikipad, Inc., Westlake Village, California; ZOTAC International (MCO) Ltd., Hong Kong; ZOTAC USA, Inc., Chino, California.

PATENT AND IP CASES IN GENERAL

INTERDIGITAL WINS JURY CASE AGAINST ZTE

On October 28, 2014, in the attached jury form, ZTE Verdict, a Delaware federal jury determined that smartphones made by Chinese company, ZTE, infringed three patents of InterDigital Communications. The Jurors also determined that ZTE failed to prove the patents obvious. This jury verdict came after a series of setbacks for InterDigital, which lost a series of cases, including a 337 case at the ITC.

InterDigital creates revenue by licensing thousands of patents it develops to various high tech companies and filing cases against companies, such as ZTE and Nokia, that refuse to pay licensing fees.

MADE IN THE USA—FTC AND CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING PROBLEM

Recently cases involving the Made in US requirement have increased because of stricter requirements by the State of California. FTC guidelines state that an unqualified “Made in USA” label can go on any goods that are “all or virtually all” made domestically in the United States, but the words “virtually all” are open to interpretation based on the specific facts of the case.

But California has stricter guidelines than the FTC requiring the entire product to be made in the US. If even one small part of a product is foreign, California state law says calling the product “Made in the USA” amounts to false advertising. This law has provoked a number of consumer/class action lawsuits filed in California against US manufacturers and retailers.

The California law was passed in 1961 to shield domestic producers from competitors who might get a pricing edge by using large amounts of cheap imported parts to manufacture goods labeled “Made in USA.” The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to avoid using at least some imported content in a US product.

COURT REFUSES TO DISMISS JEANS CASE AGAINST NORDTROM AND MADE IN USA JEANS

On October 27th, in the attached David Paz v. AG Adriano Goldschmeid Inc. et al, JEANS COURT ORDER, a California Federal Judge refused to dismiss a case for falsely marketing jeans as Made in USA, which they actually contain foreign parts. The Judge stated:

“Although the laws set out different standards for the use of “Made in U.S.A.” labels, it would not be impossible for Defendants to comply with both laws. Outside California, Defendants could use the “Made in U.S.A.” labels, but inside California, they could not. This may be burdensome for Defendants, but it is not impossible for them to do so.” . . .

LAND’S END

On October 29th in the Elaine Oxina v. Lands’ End Inc. case, Elaine Oxina  filed a new Made in USA class action case against clothing retailer Lands’ End Inc. accusing the company of labeling foreign-made apparel as produced in the U.S., a tactic that a California consumer alleges has allowed the business to sell items at a higher price. The complaint alleges:

“Consumers generally believe that ‘Made in USA’ products are of higher quality than their foreign-manufactured counterparts. Due to Defendants’ scheme to defraud the market, members of the general public were fraudulently induced to purchase Defendant’s products at inflated prices.”

The complaint says that Oxina purchased a necktie from Lands’ End’s online store under the assumption that the product was produced domestically. The necktie “was described using the ‘Made in U.S.A.’ country of origin designation, when the product actually was made and/or contained component parts made outside of the United States.”

The complaint also states that an inspection of a fabric tag attached to the necktie revealed that the item “is wholly made” in China. The complaint asserts claims against Lands’ End for false advertising and violations of California’s business code, adding that the alleged damages are in excess of $5 million.

Many retailers are now facing class actions over California’s tough “Made in the USA” labeling law. Retailers are allegedly selling apparel marketed as being American-made, but including foreign-made fabrics, zippers, buttons, rivets and other components.

The lawsuits also illustrate why California differs from the Federal Trade Commission, which also oversees product labeling but has a more relaxed position that is followed by other states. Unlike California, which says every component must be domestic, the FTC allows for some flexibility, saying a “Made in the USA” label can be used if “all or virtually all” of a specific product is made domestically. Getting every component of a piece of clothing from the U.S. has become increasingly difficult as business supply chains have become global.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASES AGAINST CHINESE AND TAIWAN COMPANIES

On October 22, 2014, in the attached complaint, CHINA COY SUES US COY PATENT INFRINGE, a Chinese company sued Dongguan Prestige Sporting Products Co., Ltd. V. Merits Co. Ltd., a Chinese company, and Merits Health Product Inc., a Florida corporation, for patent infringement of a folding seat rack.

On October 30, 2014, in the attached compliant, CHINA TRADEMARK CASE, Samsung Techwin America, Inc. filed a grey market trademark case against Xtreme Micro LLC and Zhangzhou Peiyu Jinhe Trading Co., Ltd.

On November 5, 2014, Robert Bosch filed the attached patent case, NINGBO WINDSHIELD WIPER CASE, for wiper blades against Ningbo Xinhai Aiduo Automobile Wiper Blade Manufactory Co., Ltd.

On November 7, 2014, Aztrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Astrazeneca UK Ltd. filed the attached pharmaceutical patent case, TAIWAN PHARMA COMPLAINT, against a Taiwan company, Pharmadax USA, Inc., Pharmadax Inc., and Pharmadax Guangzhou Inc.

On November 10, 2013 Dura-Lite Heat Transfer Products Ltd., a Canadian corp., Glacier Radiator Manufacturing Ltd., and Philip Lesage filed the attached patent case, ZHEJIANG MACHINERY, against Zhejiang Yinlun Machinery Co., Ltd. and Yinlun USA, Inc.

On November 14, 2014, the attached complaint, CHANGZHOU KAIDI, was filed by Linak A/S and Linak U.S., Inc. v. Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co. and Kaidi LLC for patent infringement of innovative electric linear actuator systems for use in many product sectors, including hospital and healthcare equipment.

On November 17, 2014, Tenax SPA filed the attached trademark case, WUHAN TRADEMARK against Wuhan Keda Marble Protective Materials Co., Ltd. for imports of adhesive resins.

PRODUCTS LIABILITY

On October 17, 2014, Joan Kazkevicius filed the attached products liability case, CHINA PRESSURE COOKER CASE, regarding pressure cookers against HSN, Inc., HSNI LLC, W.P. Appliances, Inc., Wolfgang Puck Worldwide, Inc., W.P. Productions, Inc., Zhanjiang Hallsmart Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd., and Guangdong Chuang Sheng Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd.

FOOD AND FDA RESTRICTIONS

US LIFTS RESTRICTIONS ON CHICKEN AND CITRUS IMPORTS

Despite objections from public consumer groups, on November 5th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service stated that it had certified four Chinese poultry product producers to export processed chicken products to the U.S. The USDA accepted the certification of the facilities to export chicken products as long as they are heat-treated or cooked and made from birds originally slaughtered in the U.S. or another approved country such as Canada. The facilities still must be certified for this purpose by Chinese authorities.

The irony is that the Chinese government continues to block US chicken using its antidumping law.

Despite objections from US citrus growers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has proposed to open the continental United States to imports of citrus fruits from China. US citrus companies argue that the Chinese imports could introduce devastating pests to U.S. orchards and invite heavy economic competition from subsidized Chinese farmers.

SEAFOOD

On November 12th, the FDA announced that it may decrease port-of-entry inspections of farm-raised seafood from China and increasingly entrust Chinese authorities with verifying that the country’s aquaculture exports are free of illegal animal drug residues.

CHINESE RESTRICTIONS ON US FOOD PRODUCTS

On Aug. 22, 2014, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that California citrus farmers will be able to resume exports to China this season. A series of scientific exchanges between the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ) resulted in an agreement for California citrus to again be exported to China. APHIS and USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service worked closely with the U.S. citrus industry to ensure the successful outcome.

In April 2013, California-origin citrus was suspended from entering the Chinese market due to interceptions of brown rot (Phytophthora syringae), a soil fungus that affects stored fruit. Over the next year, USDA worked with China to address China’s plant health concerns and reopen the market for California citrus exports.

In a statement following the USDA announcement, Western Growers Association Executive Vice President Matt McInerney said China was the third-largest market for California citrus exports before the ban. The USDA release said California citrus exports have a total annual value of $30 million.

On September 15th, it was announced that USDA and USTR officials were in Beijing to discuss the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) and in particular a meeting of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) working group of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce Trade (JCCT), where the agenda will likely touch upon issues like China’s ban on U.S. beef and its regulatory process for approving biotechnology traits. China closed its beef market to U.S. exports due to a 2003 outbreak of bovine spongiform encelopathy (BSE) – or “mad cow” disease — and has since set a number of preconditions for opening it, including a U.S. livestock traceability system.

CHINA LIFTS RESTRICTIONS ON WASHINGTON APPLES

On October 31, 2014, in the attached statement from Washington State, CHINA LIFTS WASHINGTON APPLE SUSPENSION, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that China is lifting its suspension of red and golden delicious apple imports from Washington State. The Chinese market for Washington apples was valued at $6.5 million in calendar year 2011.

In 2012, China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) suspended access for Washington red and golden delicious apples due to the repeated interception of three apple pests AQSIQ considers significant: speck rot, bull’s-eye rot, and Sphaeropsis rot. To lift this suspension, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) worked with the U.S. apple industry to develop additional safeguarding measures that address China’s concerns about these pests. Some of these new measures include cold storage of apples and visual inspection of apples prior to shipping to ensure there is no evidence of disease.

CHINESE INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTION IN UNITED STATES

See the very powerful video about Chinese investment in the US creating 70 to 80,000 US Production Jobs. The investment is in the billions and includes textiles.

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/economy/2014/10/23/we-the-economy-made-by-china-in-america.cnnmoney/index.html?iid=HP_River

ANTITRUST—SOLAR AND MAGNESITE

There have been major developments in the antitrust area both in the United States and in China.

SOLAR ANTITRUST CASE DISMISSED

On November 3, 2014, a Federal Judge in Michigan, in the attached opinion, ACTUAL ORDER DISMISS CHINESE SOLAR ANTITRUST CASE, dismissed a $950 million antitrust lawsuit accusing several Chinese solar panel producers of participating in a price-fixing scheme by finding that the US company have failed to establish standing. The US Judge ruled that the Chinese companies did not have the power to set up barriers to entry into the solar panels market and therefore could not eventually charge supracompetitive prices to recoup losses from selling solar panels at below cost in order to gain market share. As the Judge stated: “The court finds that plaintiff has failed to allege a dangerous probability of recoupment and, therefore, has failed [to] allege antitrust standing.”

On November 17th, in the attached complaint, RECONSIDERATION SOLAR CHINA PRICE FIX, Energy Conversion Devices Inc. urged a Michigan federal judge on Friday to reconsider his decision. ECD accused the Chinese companies of orchestrating a complex price-fixing scheme to sell inferior solar panels in the U.S. at artificially low prices by dumping their products in the US and thereby achieve market domination. The Judge’s original dismissal opinion had found that below-cost pricing alone is not enough to prove antitrust injury.

NEW MAGNESIUM ANTITRUST COMPLAINT

In response to the Court order dismissing the Magnesium Antitrust case, with options to amend the complaint, which is attached to my last blog post, on November 3, 2014, Animal Science Products, Inc., Resco Products, Inc., and S&S Refractories filed the attached new antitrust complaint, NEW MAGNESIUM COMPLAINT. The complaint, which will be attached to my blog, is against Chinese magnesium companies, Xiyang Fireproof Material, Co., Ltd., Sinosteel Corp., Sinosteel Trading Co., Liaoning Jiayimetals & Minerals Co., Ltd., Liaoning Foreign Trade General Corp., Liaoning Jinding Mangnesite Group., Dalian Golden Sun Import & Export Corp., Haicheng Houying Corp., Ltd., and Haicheng Huayu Group Import & Export Co., Ltd, Haicheng Pailou Magnesite Ore Co., Ltd. and Yingkou Huachen (Group) Co., Ltd.

AUTO NEWS — CONFESSIONS OF A PRICE FIXER

On November 16, 2014 Auto News published an interesting article “Confessions of a Price Fixer”. See http://www.autonews.com/article/20141116/OEM10/311179961/confessions-of-a-price-fixer

The article described how a Japanese executive used to the comfortable expat life, was one of dozens of white collar criminals arrested and jailed for what has become the largest price fixing antitrust case brought by the US Justice Department. The article goes on to state that the Japanese executive’s guilty plea and prison time came with a special offer from the Japanese company for which he fixed the prices. You get to keep your job after you leave prison and the company “will support me for the rest of my life.”

Today, the Japanese executive has spent his time in prison, but is now back at work at the company. But that situation is not unusual, the unwritten rule in Japanese culture is that the Japanese executive gets rewarded for not spilling the beans and cooperating with the Government’s investigation.

In America, the case has already made history with record fines more than $2.4 billion. 31 auto parts suppliers, mostly Japanese, have pled guilty to prices for parts from wire harnesses to wiper switches. Forty-six individuals, almost exclusively Japanese, have been charged. No one has challenged the charges in court; 26 individuals agreed to prison instead. Another 20 have yet to enter pleas or are otherwise ignoring their indictments.

But most the executives are still employed by their companies, even though the executives were indicted by the U.S. government on felony charges, which carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine for individuals.

The corporate leniency has become a major international issue as U.S. Assistant Attorney General William Baer warned that his antitrust division would consider probation and corporate monitors for companies harboring sensitively placed executives who have not answered the charges against them.  As one Justice Department official stated, “A U.S. company would never keep employing those individuals. In the United States, the first thing they would want to do is fire everybody. But that’s not the instinct at Japanese companies.”

The Japanese company did play tough pressuring the Japanese executive to plead guilty because a company can expect lower fines if it cooperates promptly.

In exchange, the company would take care of his family while he was in jail and find a position for him after he was freed.

Price fixing in Japan is an administrative crime and there is no real enforcement in the criminal area, but Japanese companies and executives have become very afraid. Now the Japanese companies are facing private triple damage actions brought by angry consumers.

CHINA ANTI-MONOPOLY CASES

Although this issue was raised by President Obama at the meetings with the Chinese government officials in Beijing, nothing of substance was reported

T&D MICROSOFT ARTICLE

In the October 2014 report on Chinese antitrust law by the Chinese T&D Law Firm, T&D Monthly Antitrust Report of September 2014, Chinese antitrust lawyer John Ren had this to say about the allegation that the Chinese Anti-Monopoly law discriminates against foreign companies:

NDRC Responded to the Query about Unfair Anti-Monopoly Practices: All People Are Equal before Law

October 30, 2014

The Anti-Monopoly Law has been effective since 2008 and was reinforced with respect to law enforcement in 2013, and then several significant anti-monopoly actions caused great sensations this year. Throughout this period, all circles have increasingly focused on ruling markets by law, breaking down monopoly privilege, and ensuring fair competition among market players. In the meantime, law enforcement with regard to anti-monopoly has drawn great attention.

Recently, several foreign-funded enterprises and foreign brands have been under investigation, and some wonder “whether China’s anti-monopoly undertaking only focuses on foreign-funded companies and is thus unfair”. Concerning this situation, Li Pumin, Secretary General of NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission), stressed in today’s “NDRC with regard to Acceleration of Building Rule of Law Authorities” press conference that all people are equal before the law, and anyone violating Chinese law shall be punished, whether they are foreign-funded or domestic companies.

He pointed out that China’s anti-monopoly law enforcement was not just targeting foreign-funded enterprises; NDRC, in line with the Anti-Monopoly Law, enforced the law with regard to those enterprises and actions restraining fair competition, which involved not only domestic enterprises but also foreign-funded enterprises.

”The Anti-Monopoly system has been rigorously designed. A vast number of large enterprises are involved, various market players are concerned about the system, and NDRC has been promoting the system, as well. In the past few years, NDRC kept summing up and exploring, and has enacted regulations on anti-price monopolies and procedure of administrative execution regarding anti-price monopoly” said Li Kang, the Chief in Laws and Regulations Department of NDRC, in regard to the work that NDRC has done in improving anti-monopoly law enforcement.

Li Kang pointed out that anti-monopoly law enforcement shall be quantified, standardized, and elaborated upon, aiming at ensuring fair, just and open anti-price monopoly enforcement. He stated further that NDRC will expand the anti-monopoly law in both substantive and procedural aspects to raise its enforceability, and in the meantime will confine and normalize NDRC’s law enforcement activities. . . .

SECURITIES

CHINESE COMPANY PUDA COAL DEFAULTS IN SECURITIES CASE

On November 18, 2014, in In re: Puda Coal Inc., a Federal District Court entered the attached default judgment, DEFAULT JUDGMENT PUDA COAL. against Chinese company Puda Coal Securities Inc., which had been sued by an investor class, for selling its sole asset to a private equity firm without telling investors for months and lying about in its IPO plans.

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (“FCPA”)

DORSEY ANTICORRUPTION DIGEST 0CTOBER 2014

The attached Dorsey’s October 2014 Anticorruption Digest, Anti_Corruption_Digest_Oct2014, had this to say about China:

“National Development and Reform Commission

According to reports, Liu Tienan, former deputy of the National Development and Reform Commission, confessed in court to taking bribes from various companies, including a Toyota Motor Corporation joint venture. The court said that: “The oral representation made by the defendants Liu Tienan on the allegations is: I have taken the initiative to confess to these facts of the allegations.”

He and his son, Liu Decheng, were reportedly charged with taking $5.8 million in bribes. Reports indicated that Mr. Decheng collected most of the bribe money. The allegations indicate that between 2002 and 2011, Mr. Tienan took bribes to facilitate project approvals and filings for a number of companies such as Nanshan Group, Ningbo Zhongjin Petrochemical Co Ltd, Guangzhou Automobile Group, Guangzhou Toyota Motor Co Ltd and Zhejiang Hengyi Group. Mr. Tienan also reportedly aided in the approval procedures for several projects from Guangzhou Automobile Group, which in return hired his son as a special Beijing representative for one of the Group’s subsidiaries.

Mr. Tienan could face life imprisonment. However, reports indicated that he is more likely to receive a lesser sentence as a result of his confession.

Reports indicate that Mr. Tienan was fired from the National Development and Reform Commission after Caijing magazine’s deputy editor Luo Changping accused him of corruption, loan fraud and counterfeiting his degree.

Pharmaceutical sector

Last month, GSK was fined $489 million in China for corruption there. Further to the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court in Hunan province’s verdict, GSK’s Chief Executive, Sir Andrew Witty, reportedly said that: “Reaching a conclusion in the investigation of our Chinese business is important, but this has been a deeply disappointing matter for GSK. We have and will continue to learn from this. GSK has been in China for close to a hundred years and we remain fully committed to the country and its people. GSK fully accepts the fact and evidence of the investigation, and the verdict of the Chinese judicial authorities. Furthermore, GSK sincerely apologizes to the Chinese patients, doctors and hospitals and to the Chinese government and the Chinese people. GSK deeply regrets the damage caused.”

In the wake of the Chinese case, other major drugmakers have also been under increased review. It has been reported that Sanofi, the French drugmaker, informed US authorities that it was investigating allegations of employees paying bribes to healthcare professionals in the Middle East and East Africa to persuade them to prescribe its drugs.”

APEC RESOLUTION

At the end of the APEC meeting in Beijing, the APEC members issued the following resolutions about foreign corrupt practices:

“Anti-Corruption

  1. We resolve to strengthen pragmatic anti-corruption cooperation, especially in key areas such as denying safe haven, extraditing or repatriating corrupt officials, enhancing asset recovery efforts, and protecting market order and integrity.
  1. We endorse the Beijing Declaration on Fighting Corruption (Annex H), the APEC Principles on the Prevention of Bribery and Enforcement of Anti-bribery Laws, and the APEC General Elements of Effective Corporate Compliance Programs.
  1. We welcome the establishment of the APEC Network of Anti-Corruption and Law Enforcement Agencies (ACT-NET) with the finalization of its Terms of Reference. We expect to deepen international cooperation, information and intelligence exchange and experience sharing among anticorruption and law enforcement practitioners from APEC member economies through the ACT-NET and other platforms.
  1. We appreciate the efforts of the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Working Group in collaborating with other APEC fora to improve transparency in this region.”

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPEECH ON FCPA

On November 19, 2014 Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell in the attached speech, DOJ FCPA STATEMENT, spoke about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:

“At the Criminal Division, we are stepping up our efforts in the battle against corruption, at home and abroad. . . .

More relevant to this audience, we are also deeply committed to fighting corruption abroad. Now, more than ever, we are bringing to justice individuals and corporations who use foreign bribery as a way to gain a business advantage. In part, we are doing this using the tools and methods that have made our past enforcement efforts so successful – FCPA prosecutions and penalties. . . .

And now we also are prosecuting the bribe takers, using our money laundering and other laws. And, importantly, we have begun stripping corrupt officials of the proceeds of their corruption involving both bribes and kleptocracy, using both criminal and civil authorities. . . .

We also attack corruption at its source – by prosecuting and seizing the assets of the corrupt officials who betray the trust of their people.

Another big change – one that has been building for years but now has really developed momentum – is that we increasingly find ourselves shoulder-to-shoulder with law enforcement and regulatory authorities in other countries. Every day, more countries join in the battle against transnational bribery. And this includes not just our long-time partners, but countries in all corners of the globe.

Together with our foreign law enforcement and regulatory partners we are taking a truly global approach to rooting out international corruption. And make no mistake, this international approach has dramatically advanced our efforts to uncover, punish and deter foreign corruption. . . .

Since 2009, we have convicted more than 50 individuals in FCPA and FCPA-related cases, and resolved criminal cases against more than 50 companies with penalties and forfeiture of approximately $3 billion. Twenty-five of the cases involving individuals have come since 2013 alone. And those are just the cases that are now public. . . .

Fighting corruption is not a choice we have made. It is, increasingly, a global imperative. Given the critical nature of this mission, we are bringing more resources to bear than ever before – and we will continue doing so. We have achieved significant successes using our traditional FCPA enforcement tools. We are building on those successes and continuing to evolve our enforcement efforts. Especially with the power of so many countries now standing by our side, we are determined to use every lawful means available to hold the perpetrators of corruption to account. . . .”

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS

In the attached complaint on October 28, 2014, Dragon State International Inc. filed a class action securities case against Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., Chenfeng Tao, and Aichun Li.  KEYUAN PETROCHEMICAL

In the attached complaint, PINGYUAN FISHING, on November 24, 2014, Tyler Warriner fled  a class action securities case against Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhou, Roy Yu, Jin Shi, and Xuesong Song.

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–DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE, TAX, CUSTOMS, PATENTS/337, ANTITRUST AND SECURITIES

Benjamin Franklin Statue Old Post Office Building Washington DC“TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET”

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR BLOG UPDATE—SEPTEMBER 11, 2014

SEPTEMBER UPDATE

Dear Friends,

There have been major developments in early September in the Trade and Chinese antitrust areas of interest.

SPEECH IN VANCOUVER CANADA ON US SANCTIONS AGAINST RUSSIA—RUSSIAN TRADE LESSON

On September 3, 2014, I spoke 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 are copies of the powerpoint for the speech US SANCTIONS RUSSIA and a description of our Russian/Ukrainian/Latvian Trade Practice for US importers and exporters. RUSSIAN TRADE PRACTICEThe sanctions will be described more in my September newsletter.

But my speech started with a quote from the last paragraph of the September 3, 2014 Wall Street Journal editorial about the Russian crisis, entitled “Deterring a European War”, which states:

“The temptation of democracies is to believe that autocrats treasure peace and stability as much as we do. Europeans in particular want to believe that their postwar institutions and economic integration have ended their violent history. But autocrats often prosper from disorder, and they need foreign enemies to feed domestic nationalism. This describes Russia under Mr. Putin, who is Europe’s new Bonaparte. His goal is to break NATO, and he’ll succeed unless the alliance’s leaders respond forcefully to the threat.”

This powerful paragraph reflects the very serious military situation between Russia and the EC and the US. But let’s probe a little more deeply.

What is the difference between Russia and China and our relationship with the two countries—Trade. When I was a young attorney at the ITC, a former Chairman Catherine Bedell, who was the first woman to be elected to the US Congress from Washington State, came to speak to the ITC staff. Former Chairman Bedell emphasized in her speech that our work at the ITC was not just simple trade work. It was the work of promoting peace.

President Reagan understood this. More trade means more peace and less chance of a shooting war.

The United States has 796,000 US jobs dependent upon exports to China, and China has millions of jobs dependent on exports to the US.

But what about Russia? The answer is much less trade coming from Russia. In 2013, the United States imported approximately $27 billion from Russia as compared to $464 billion from China. Of the Russian imports, $19 billion was for oil, and the rest for raw materials, including iron and steel products, chemicals, metals, fertilizer and fish. With China, electronics leads the way.

Much of what Russia exports is oil, raw materials and steel products. Many steel products and urea, fertilizer, are blocked by US Antidumping Orders or a Steel Agreement. There is less trade and with less trade it is much easier to have a shooting war.

In 1986 when I was working at the Commerce Department, one of Russia’s most important exports, Urea, fertilizer, was attacked with an antidumping case, which resulted in an antidumping order on July 14, 1987. The case was so long ago that it was not against Russia. It was against the entire Soviet Union.

When the Soviet Union broke up, the Commerce Department issued antidumping orders against Urea from all the member countries in the Soviet Union. Most of the orders against the other member states in the Soviet Union have been lifted, but not the orders against Russia or Ukraine. Urea from both countries are still covered by antidumping orders from the original 1986 case. In early November 2011, the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) extended the antidumping orders for another five years. So we have had antidumping orders on Urea from Russia and Ukraine for almost 3o years.

One company, Eurochem, has been able to get through the antidumping order because in contrast to China Russia is considered a market economy country, but every other Russian company is blocked. Why is Russia considered a market economy country and not China? Because of 911, President Bush wanted Russian military bases to attack Afghanistan. President Putin of Russia, being a tough negotiator, said make Russia a market economy under the US antidumping and countervailing duty law. Secretary Evans of Commerce flew into Moscow and said it looks like a market economy to me. As CBS news stated about the announcement:

“The Russian leader has aggressively pursued closer ties with the West since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and many analysts had predicted the United States would grant Russia market economy status and help in its WTO bid in exchange for Putin’s strong support for the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-joins-club-capitalism/

But even with the change in the US antidumping law, Russian imports remain relatively low, and the United States has less influence. Because of the importance of the present situation with Russia and the interest of US exporters and US importers, my blog and newsletter will include a new section on trade with Russia and the US sanctions in place against trade with Russia. More will come out in the next newsletter and blog post.

NEW ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASE AGAINST BOLTLESS STEEL SHELVING FROM CHINA

On August 26, 2014, Edsall Manufacturing filed a new AD and CVD case against Boltless Steel Shelving from China. The alleged Antidumping rates are 33 to 267%.

The ITC will hold its preliminary conference on September 16, 2014. Attached are the ITC notice and the relevant pages of the petition.  ITC PRELIMINARY NOTICE STEEL SHELVING SHORT PETITION

SEPTEMBER ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On September 2, 2014, Commerce published in the Federal Register the attached notice, SEPT REVIEWS ,regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of September. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat, Foundry Coke, Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Lined Paper Products,   Magnesia Carbon Bricks, Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge, New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires, Raw Flexible Magnets, and Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars.

The specific countervailing duty cases are:

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Magnesia Carbon Bricks, Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge, New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires, and Raw Flexible Magnets.

For those US import companies that imported Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat, Foundry Coke, Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Lined Paper Products,   Magnesia Carbon Bricks, Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge, New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires, Raw Flexible Magnets, and Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars and the other products listed above from China during the antidumping period September 1, 2013-August 31, 2014 or during the countervailing duty review period of 2013 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 final determination in the Wood Flooring Case, for example, although the rates were very low for many Chinese exporters, only 5%, 20 Chinese exporters had their rates go to 58% because they did not participate in the review investigation and did not file a no shipment certification, separate rate application or separate rate certification at the Commerce Department.

NEW MAJOR 337 PATENT CASE AGAINST PERSONAL TRANSPORTERS FROM CHINA

On September 9, 2014, Segway filed a major 337 patent case against imports of personal transporters from a number of Chinese companies in Beijing and Shenzhen. The ITC notice is below and the relevant parts of the Petition are attached. SHORT PERSONAL TRANSPORTERS 337 Complaint Segway is requesting a general exclusion order to exclude all personal transporters from China and other countries and also cease and desist orders to stop importers from selling infringing personal transporters in their inventory.

Chinese companies must respond to the complaint in about 60 days, 30 days for Institution and 30 days from service of complaint. If the Chinese companies fail to respond, they can be found in default and exclusion orders against their products can be issued.

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

Dorsey & Whitney has substantial expertise in the patent and 337 areas. Recently, we were able to win a major 337 case for a Japanese company in the Point-to Point Network Communication Devices 337 case.

Docket No: 3032

Document Type: 337 Complaint

Filed By: David F. Nickel

Firm/Org: Foster & Murphy

Behalf Of: Segway Inc. and DEKA Products Limited Partnership

Date Received: September 9, 2014

Commodity: Personal Transporters

Description: 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 Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Manuals Therefor . The proposed respondents are: PowerUnion (Beijing) Tech Co. Ltd., Beijing; UPTECH Robotics Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing; Beijing Universal Pioneering Robotics Co., Ltd., Beijing; Beijing Universal Pioneering Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing; Ninebot Inc.,(in China) Beijing; Ninebot Inc., Newark, DE; Shenzhen INMOTION Technologies Co., Ltd., Guangdong; Robstep Robot Co., Ltd., Guangdong; FreeGo High-Tech Corporation Limited, Shenzhen; Freego USA, LLC, Sibley, IA; Tech in the City, Honolulu, HI; and Roboscooters.com, Laurel Hill, NC.

Status: Pending Institution

RISE IN CHINESE ANTI-MONOPOLY CASES CREATES INTENSE CONCERN FROM US AND FOREIGN COMPANIES

In September 2014, the US China Business Council and the US Chamber of Commerce published the attached major reports/survey from US Companies about the impact of the Chinese anti-monopoly law on US business in China.  US CHINA BUSINESS COUNCIL REPORT CHINA AML The Executive Summary of the US China Business Council report states as follows:

Executive Summary

  • China’s increased level of competition enforcement activity and the high-profile reporting of its competition investigations have prompted growing attention and concern from US companies. Eighty-six percent of companies responding to the US-China Business Council’s (USCBC’s) 2014 member company survey indicated they are at least somewhat concerned about China’s evolving competition regime—although more so about the potential impact than actual experience so far.
  • China’s competition regime framework is relatively new. The Antimonopoly Law (AML) came into force in 2008 after Chinese authorities spent more than a decade drafting the law and consulting with foreign competition authorities from the United States, the European Union, and other jurisdictions. The AML draws from elements of both the US and EU competition laws, though it is more closely tied to the EU model and contains some elements unique to China.
  • The rise in competition-related investigations has corresponded to the buildup in personnel at regulatory agencies following the AML’s implementation.
  • USCBC monitoring of publicly announced cases indicates that both foreign and domestic companies have been targets of AML-related investigations, but that foreign companies appear to have faced increasing scrutiny in recent months.
  • The perception that foreign companies are being disproportionately targeted is also fueled by China’s domestic media reporting, which has played up foreign-related investigations versus those of domestic companies.
  • Targeted or not, foreign companies have well-founded concerns about how investigations are conducted and decided. Company concerns include:

o Fair treatment and nondiscrimination

o Lack of due process and regulatory transparency

o Lengthy time periods for merger reviews

o Role of non-competitive factors in competition enforcement

o Determination of remedies and fines

o Broad definition of monopoly agreements

  • Bigger questions remain unanswered about the objectives of China’s competition regime, such as: Will China use the AML to protect domestic industry rather than promote fair competition? Is the government using the AML to force lower prices, rather than let the “market play the decisive role” as enshrined in the new economic reform program? The answers are not fully determined yet, but in at least some cases so far there are reasons for concern.

The report by the US China Business Council was followed by the attached even stronger report by the US Chamber of Commerce in China entitled, Competing Interests in China’s Competition Law Enforcement: China’s Anti-Monopoly Law Application and the Role of Industrial Policy, AM CHAM ACTUAL REPORT ON AML. My September newsletter and blog post will have more about the rise of the Chinese anti-monopoly law. What goes around, does indeed come around.

AUGUST NEWSLETTER

Dear Friends,

There have been major developments in the trade, Solar Cells, Tax, Trade Agreements, 337/IP, US/Chinese antitrust, and securities areas in August 2014.

I have been late in sending out this blog post because the Trade War keeps expanding into many different areas, especially antitrust. The United States has brought a shotgun to the Trade War with its antidumping and countervailing duty laws against Chinese companies, and the Chinese government has brought a bazooka to the Trade War with the enforcement of its Antimonopoly Law/Antitrust laws against US and other foreign companies. What goes around, does indeed come around.

IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA/IMPORTERS’ LOBBYING COALITION

BEIJING ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING

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.

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.

Congressmen have agreed to meet importers to listen to their grievances regarding the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws. In addition to contacting US importers, we are now contacting many Chinese companies to ask them to contact their US import companies to see if they are interested in participating in the Alliance.

As indicated above, at the present time, Commerce takes the position that it will not make China a market economy country in 2016 as required by the WTO Accession Agreement because the 15 years is in a treaty and not in the US antidumping and countervailing duty law. 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.

On August 7, 2014, we held an organizational meeting in Beijing, China at the headquarters of China Ocean Shipping Company (“COSCO”) with interested Chambers of Commerce and Chinese companies to explain the project in more detail and to seek help in contacting US importers about the Alliance.

We spoke to about 40 attendees, including attendees from the legal departments of the top 10 chambers of commerce, including Chemicals, Machinery and Electronics, Light Industrial Products, and Food, and the Steel, Wood Products and Hydraulics and Pneumatics & Seals Association.

In addition to describing the Import Alliance and the issues regarding 2016 in the US China Accession Agreement, we also discussed the US China Trade War in general. Introductory videos for Organizational Meeting from Cal Scott of Polder Inc., the President of the Import Alliance, can be found at the following link https://vimeo.com/103556227 and for former Congressmen Don Bonker and Cliff Stearns of APCO can be found at the following link https://vimeo.com/103556226 along with the powerpoint FINAL WEB BEIJING IMPORT ALLIANCE POWERPOINT we used to describe the Import Alliance, the specific provision in the US China WTO Agreement and the Trade War in general.

TRADE

TAX IMPLICATIONS OF US ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

Recently, it has come to my attention that a major problem for importers that import under antidumping and countervailing duty orders is the US tax laws. As indicated in past blog posts, the US Congress is screaming because US importers are not paying all the antidumping and countervailing duties that are retroactively assessed.

As mentioned previously, the United States is the only country in the World that has retroactive liability for US importers in antidumping and countervailing duty cases. When an antidumping or countervailing duty order is issued, the rates in the orders are not the actual dumping or countervailing duties owed by US importers to the US government. The published rates are merely the cash deposit rates to be posted by US importers, when they import under an antidumping or countervailing duty order. The actual duties are determined during annual review investigations that often start up one year after the antidumping or countervailing duty order are issued.

Review investigations start up in the anniversary month in which the specific order is issued and will take a year and a half. So at a minimum, after the importer imports the product into the United States under an antidumping or countervailing duty order, it will take two and a half years, one year for the review investigation to start up and then a year and a half for Commerce to conduct the review investigation for the importer to learn how much it actually owes the US government. If the Commerce Department’s final determination is appealed to the Courts, it can take 5 to 10 years before the US importer knows how much it actually owes the US government.

If the antidumping or countervailing duty rate goes up in the annual review investigation, the US importer is retroactively liable for the difference plus interest. In numerous cases, such as Ironing Tables, Wooden Bedroom Furniture, Mushrooms and other China cases, rates can go from 0% or 16% to 157, 216 and 300%, creating millions of dollars in retroactive liability for US importers and often bankruptcy.

Congress then screams that US importers do not pay the duties that are due, but according to David Musser, a tax accountant, at Nicholas Cauley that I have been talking to, if a US importer sets up an internal fund to pay off any potential antidumping or countervailing duties, that fund is taxable because it is not considered a deductible expense. So the US government has set up a system where it is impossible for the importer to protect itself from increased antidumping or countervailing duties.

As David Musser states:

“ANTIDUMPING TARIFFS – ACCOUNTING TREATMENT vs. TAX DEDUCTION

Antidumping duties that attach to certain imports create accounting issues that may be in conflict with income tax deduction rules. The rule for deducting an expense for income tax purposes is that it must pass the all events test and economic performance occurs. This means that the liability for the antidumping fees must be fixed and determinable and paid (economic performance) for it to be tax deductible. This can create a large timing difference for deductibility since the Commerce Department may not determine the fees owed until a minimum of two and half years after the import was made. So if you accrue an amount for estimated antidumping fees, the amount is not fixed and determinable at that point and is not deductible. If you pay a deposit for the fees, you have satisfied economic performance, but the amount is still not fixed and determinable.

This appears to be in conflict with matching rules where specific expenses are matched in the same year to related income items, especially if you are passing the cost of the antidumping fees to your customers. Depending on how you invoice, there may be a potential to reduce the effect of the tax timing difference. This would require the antidumping fees/deposits to be separately stated on the sales invoice and accounted for as deferred antidumping fees on your balance sheet. This does not completely eliminate the timing difference associated with the fees, but it may be better than waiting two and a half years or more to get the deduction.”

In a May, 5, 1995 letter ruling 538001, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) stated:

“In the present case, the deposits were determined on the basis of transactions that occurred in a prior year. The deposits are specifically characterized as such by the relevant provisions of the applicable statutes and regulations. There is no necessary correlation between the circumstances in the year that provided the basis for the deposits and the circumstances that exist in the year the deposits are required. . . .

An importer’s ability to influence the ultimate disposition of a deposit required by an antidumping duty order is consistent with the characterization of the amount as a deposit. If an importer sells merchandise that is subject to the deposit requirement at fair value, the importer can ensure the recovery of the deposit. Generally, an asserted liability is not affected by the subsequent actions (other than administrative or judicial review) of the obligor. . . .

CONCLUSION

In the circumstances described, the Taxpayer’s deduction for antidumping duties is not allowable for the taxable year in which the antidumping duty order was issued. Antidumping duties are determined on the basis of the weighted-average dumping margins on all U.S. sales during the period covered by an administrative review of an antidumping duty order or, in the absence of a request for administrative review, on the basis of deposits required by an antidumping duty order. In either case, occurrence of all events necessary to allow a reasonable basis for determination of the amount of a liability for antidumping duties had not taken place before the end of the taxable year for which the Taxpayer claimed a deduction for antidumping duties.”

The 1995 tax ruling, however, is completely wrong as it applies to antidumping cases against China.  The writer of the ruling assumed “an importer can sell merchandise that is subject to the deposit requirement at fair value”. As readers of this blog know, since antidumping duties in Chinese cases are not based on actual market prices and costs in China, it is impossible for the Chinese exporter to know whether it is dumping, never mind the US importer.  With regards to China, Commerce constructs a cost using consumption factors from Chinese producers multiplied by surrogate values from import statistics from 10 potential surrogate countries, ranging from Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, to Columbia or Bulgaria and those countries can change in subsequent review investigations.

Because of the fact that actual price and costs in China are not used to determine Chinese antidumping rates, it is impossible for the Chinese company or the US importer to know whether it is dumping. Thus, the US importer that is trying to protect itself from bankruptcy is in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

SEPARATE ANTIDUMPING RATES—NO LONGER A PRO FORMA EXERCISE– MUCH TOUGHER FOR STATE OWNED COMPANIES

With December 11, 2016 and the requirement in the US China WTO Agreement that China is a market economy country coming up, one would expect Commerce to relax the requirements regarding separate rates for state owned companies. Instead, Commerce is making it more difficult for Chinese state owned companies that are under the supervision of the PRC’s State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (“SASAC”) to get their own separate antidumping rate.

Based on recent attached decisions in the Court of International Trade in the Diamond Sawblades case, specifically two opinions in the Advanced Technology & Materials Co., Ltd. v. United States, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TWO CIT CIT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 11-12211-122, where the Court, in effect, forced Commerce to deny a separate rate to Advanced Technology because part of the ownership was by SASAC, Commerce has made it more difficult for Chinese companies under the control of or owned in part by the State-Owned Assets Commission to get separate dumping margins/separate rates.

Recently, in the preliminary determination in 1,1,1, 2 Tetrafluoroethane from China case, Commerce overturned decades of past decisions giving Sinochem a separate antidumping rate, and determined that many Chinese companies, including numerous Sinochem companies, were not entitled to a separate dumping rate. In the May 22, 2014 preliminary determination, in the Issues and Decision memo, AD Tetrafluoroethane Prelim Decision Memo-5-21-14, the Commerce Department stated:

The Department has not granted a separate rate to the following additional Separate Rate Applicants: SC Ningbo International Ltd (“SC Ningbo International”), Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taichang) Co., Ltd. (“SC Taicang”), Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. (“SC Ningbo”), Zhejiang Quhua Fluor-Chemistry Co., Ltd. (“Quhua-Fluor”), Zhejiang Quzhou Lianzhou Refrigerants Co., Ltd. (“Lianzhou”) and Aerospace for the following reasons:

“The Department preliminary determines that SC Taicang, SC Ningbo Ltd. and SC Ningbo International have not demonstrated an absence of de facto government control.Specifically, each of these companies is under the control of Sinochem Group, a 100%-owned SASAC [State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council]entity.Evidence shows that members of Sinochem Group’s board of directors and management actively participate in the day-to-day operations of SC Taicang, SC Ningbo Ltd. and SC Ningbo International as members of the board of directors. Furthermore, while the boards of these companies claim they are not involved in the day-to-day activities, each board oversees every aspect of the company, including the hiring and firing of the managers and determining their remuneration.

Accordingly, based on this evidence, we find that these companies have not demonstrated an absence of de facto government control.

Similarly, the Department preliminarily determines that neither Quhua nor Lianzhou demonstrated an absence of de facto government control. Specifically, both of these companies are under the control of Juhua Group, a 100%-owned SASAC entity, and evidence shows that members of Juhua Group’s board of directors and management actively participate in the day-to-day operations of Quhua and Lianzhou as executive directors. Further, the Juhua Group holds monthly price discussions and sets price guidance for sales of the merchandise under consideration. Accordingly, based on this evidence, we find that these companies have not demonstrated an absence of de facto government control.

Similarly, the Department preliminary determines that Aerospace did not demonstrate an absence of de facto government control. Specifically, Aerospace’s controlling Board members are also on the Board of its largest single owner China Aerospace Science & Industry Corp. (“CASIC”), a 100%-owned SASAC entity, and evidence shows that members of CASIC’s board of directors actively participate in the day-to-day operations of Aerospace.  Aerospace’s Board elects the company’s general manager and the Board will appoint or dismiss other senior managers based upon the general manager’s recommendation. Although the ownership from SASAC is less than a majority, record evidence leads us to conclude that the other shareholders have no formal authority to appoint board members or directors. Accordingly, based on this evidence, we find that Aerospace has not demonstrated an absence of de facto government control.”

SOLAR CASES—POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT??

On June 3, 2014, Commerce issued its preliminary countervailing duty determination against China in the Solar Products case. The fact sheet and preliminary Federal Register notice are posted on my blog in my last post. The Countervailing Duty Rates range from 18.56% for Trina to 35.21% for Wuxi Suntech and all other Chinese companies getting 26.89%.

As stated in the attached Commerce Department memo, ADCVD Solar Products Ex Parte Phone Call with Senator Patty Murray (WA)-7-23-14, on July 23rd, Senator Patty Murray spoke to Commerce expressing her concern of the impact of the Commerce Department determination on REC Silicon, a polysilicon producer in Washington.

On July 25th, the Commerce Department announced its preliminary antidumping determination in the Chinese solar products case establishing 47.27% combined rates (20.38% Antidumping, 26.89% Countervailing Duty) wiping out billions of dollars in imports of Chinese solar products into the United States. More specifically, on July 25, 2014, DOC announced preliminary AD duties ranging from 27.59 to 44.18 percent for Chinese companies, and 27.59 to 44.18 percent for Taiwanese companies. With the set off for countervailing duties, however, the antidumping rates are offset resulting in a lower overall cash deposit rate.

Attached are the Commerce Department’s Factsheet, Solar Products AD Prelim Fact Sheet 072514 (1), Federal Register notice, FR Notice AD Solar Products Affirmative Prelim Determination Postponement of Final Determination-7-31-14, Issues and Decision memo from the Antidumping Preliminary Determination, AD Solar Products Decision Memo for Prelim Determination-7-24-14, along with Commerce instructions to Customs in the Solar Products Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases, COMMERCE INSTRUCTIONS TO CUSTOMS COMMERCE CVD INSTRUCTIONS CHINA CUSTOMS, which will help importers understand what products are covered by this case.

Attached also is the ITC scheduling notice for its final injury investigation in the Solar Products case. FR Notice ITC Solar Products Scheduling of Final Phase of CVD AD Inv -8-25-14 The ITC hearing is scheduled for December 8, 2014.

On August 15th, after an extension, the Chinese government filed a letter at Commerce expressing an interest in a suspension agreement, but no proposed formal agreement has been filed with the Department.

Once and if any agreement is negotiated, Commerce will disclose the terms of the Agreement and seek public comment. Pursuant to the Statute, the Petitioner must approve the Agreement, which will make it much more difficult to negotiate an Agreement acceptable to Solar World. But miracles can happen.

If the Chinese government were to submit a proposed settlement agreement to Commerce, that might start negotiations. But the underlying antidumping and countervailing duty cases on Solar Products are moving quickly with verifications of the Chinese companies already underway and a final Commerce Department determination due in December and an ITC final injury determination in January 2015. There is little time left for negotiations or posturing.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that Chinese solar companies are moving to set up production facilities in third countries, such as India. In addition, Solar companies in third countries, such as REC Group in Norway and a German company with production facilities in Singapore and Malaysia, are reporting increased sales.

Also there have been reports that REC Silicon, a US polysilicon producer, is now moving forward with a joint venture in China, rather than increasing its investment in Washington State.

TAIWAN SOLAR PRODUCTS

On August 21, 2014, in the attached Federal Register notice, FR Notice AD Solar Products from Taiwan- Notice of Amended Prelim Determination-8-22-14, because of a “ministerial” error in its calculation, the Commerce Department reduced significantly the preliminary antidumping rate of the Taiwan respondent, Motech Industries Inc., from 44.18 percent to 20.86 percent. Apparently Commerce made a mistake in its calculations by adding a warranty expense to the normal/foreign value of Motech’s products without first converting that expense from New Taiwan dollars to U.S. dollars. This decision has also caused the all other rate for other Taiwan companies to fall to 24.23%.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS—TPA, TPP, TTIP/TA AND BALI/DOHA ROUND

As mentioned in past blog posts, in the trade world, the most important developments may be the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trans-Atlantic (TA)/ the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP negotiations and the WTO.  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. To date, President Obama cannot get one Democratic Congressman in the House of Representatives 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.

As mentioned in prior blog posts, on January 29th, the day after President Obama pushed the TPA in the State of the Union, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the TPA bill would not be introduced on the Senate Floor.

To summarize, on January 9, 2014, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, which is posted in my February post, was introduced into Congress. 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.

On April 9, 2014, the new Senate Finance Committee Chairman Senator Ron Wyden announced at a speech to the American Apparel & Footwear Association Conference that he was introducing a new TPA bill, what Senator Wyden calls Smart Track. But to date no details have been given about exactly what Smart Track will mean, other than more oversight by Congress and input by the Public in the trade negotiations.

On July 16, 2014, the American Iron and Steel Institute, which represents all the US steel manufacturers, stated that any future legislation that grants the president Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or implements a free trade agreement must contain provisions on trade enforcement, including changes to the U.S. trade remedy law, the enactment of the ENFORCE Act, to put more pressure on US Customs to address transshipment and other issues, and language to address currency manipulation. The US Steel Industry and the United Steel Workers (“USW”) are also requesting Congress to lower the injury standards in antidumping and countervailing duty cases to make it easier for the ITC to go affirmative in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.

On July 17th, all Republican members of the House Ways and Means Committee sent a letter to USTR Froman, which is posted on my last July blog post, urging the Administration to build support for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and directing the Administration not to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) before TPA is enacted into law.

Now the story continues . . . .

On July 30th in the attached letter, JAPAN TPP HOUSE REPS tpp_market_access_letter.pdfHpR)_R)wR)_, close to 100 Congressmen/women wrote to the USTR to express their concern regarding the agricultural negotiations with regard to Japan and Canada. They stated:

We write to express our deep concern over Japan’s current market access ·offer within the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. When Japan joined these negotiations, it agreed that the elimination of tariffs is a key feature of the agreement, as announced by TPP leaders on November 12, 2011. Unfortunately, Japan’s current position falls far short of acceptability.

Specifically, Japan is seeking to exempt numerous tariff lines from complete elimination with the United States. If accepted, this unprecedented and objectionable offer would significantly limit access for U.S. farmers and ranchers to the Japanese market, and most likely, to other TPP countries as well.

Furthermore, caving to Japan’s demands would set a damaging precedent, compromising the U.S. negotiating position with future TPP members. This result runs the significant risk that the EU will be encouraged to make unacceptably weak offers in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations, undermining Congressional support. In that same vein, we are also troubled by Canada’s lack of ambition, which is threatening a robust outcome for U.S. farmers.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership was envisioned as a high-standard, 21st century trade agreement that would be a model for all future U.S. free trade agreements. To realize this goal, we urge you to hold Japan and Canada to the same high standards as other TPP partners. Otherwise, Congressional support for a final TPP agreement will be jeopardized.

Indeed, we urge you to pursue the TPP negotiations without any country, including Japan, Canada, or others, that proves unwilling to open its market in accordance with these high standards. We owe our farmers and ranchers the best deal possible.

On August 14, 2014 the North American steel, automotive and textile industries called on USTR to include currency manipulation in future trade deals, including the TPP.

USTR Froman in prior statements has acknowledged the importance of dealing with rampant currency manipulation in countries such as China but has stopped short of indicating whether or not the rules would make their way into the TPP. He has also been careful to note that Treasury takes the lead on all issues relating to currency.

On August 19, 2014, the Electronic Frontier called on Sen. Ron Wyden, head of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, to create more transparent rules overseeing the negotiation and passage of free trade agreements, warning against overly restrictive protections for copyrights. The Electronic Frontier launched a petition calling on Wyden to introduce and pass legislation that would grant unprecedented access to trade negotiating texts and meetings for lawmakers and other observers, along with negotiating objectives that would balance the rights of both users and private industry.

On August 27, 2014, it was reported that TPP negotiators will meet for 10 days in Hanoi, Vietnam to discuss various issues, including food safety, intellectual property, investment, technical barriers to trade, environmental rules and state-owned enterprises. But because of the political situation, experts doubt that a serious breakthrough will occur and that the decisions necessary to close the deal still need to be made at the highest levels of government. The hope, however, is that the Hanoi session will allow the negotiators to narrow the gaps on the way to an agreement.

But the differences with Japan and the lack of Trade Promotion Authority are two big issues that need to be addressed by the US Government. Without these two issues being resolved, the chance of any big breakthroughs in Hanoi are small. These two problems would appear to prevent a final deal at the November APEC meeting, which has been an objective of the Obama Administration.

INDIA WANTS TO JOIN THE TPP???

On August 12, 2014, Indian government officials stated that the TPP presents a substantial opportunity for India to bring its own trade regime up to global standards. Commerce Secretary Rajeev Kher told a Confederation of Indian Industry conference in New Delhi that while India is not a member of the TPP talks, the finalization of the 12-nation pact may serve as the catalyst for India to take a more active role in the global trading system and diversify its economy.

In summarizing the event the Confederation stated “Kher observed that there are several countries in the world that are not part of the TPP and India could enhance its trade relations with these countries. The TPP also gives India an opportunity to pay greater attention to strengthening its services sector so as to diversify it away from information technology as well as to bring about trade facilitation measures to boost trade.”

External Affairs Secretary Sujata Mehta also speaking at the event said that whatever rules become enshrined in the TPP agreement may well become the “gold standard” for global trade regulation moving forward and that developing countries will be affected by the pact even if they are not parties to it.

According to CII, “Mehta felt that India needed to work on a successful response, especially on non-tariff issues so as not to be shut out of the global markets. . . . She was of the view that India needs to achieve a balance between our economic goals and strategic interests.”

In light of India’s decision to kill the trade facilitation agreement negotiated in Bali at the World Trade Organization meeting, as described below, however, it is very doubtful that many countries in the TPP would welcome India into the Group. China would be a much better candidate because it is less ideological and more willing to make the necessary compromises to be included in the Agreement.

INDIA KILLS WTO TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED IN BALI

On July 31st, the WTO announced that the Trade Facilitation Agreement negotiated in Bali would not be implemented on schedule because of the substantial opposition from developing nations led by India, which wishes to limit the pact because of food security initiatives.

WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo said on July 31st that a late-night informal session of the WTO’s Trade Negotiating Committee in Geneva failed in a last-ditch attempt to find common ground with the holdout countries. Azevedo stated that “I am very sorry to report that despite these efforts I do not have the necessary elements that would lead me to conclude that a breakthrough is possible. We got closer — significantly closer — but not quite there. At this late hour, with the deadline just a matter of moments away, I don’t have anything in my hands that makes me believe that we can successfully reach consensus.”

Because of outstanding differences that Azevedo termed “unbridgeable,” the WTO members will not be able to implement the deal, a move that required a consensus among members. The modest Trade Agreement was regarded as a sign that the WTO could be a forum to create new broad trade rules, in spite of the collapse of the Doha round of trade talks.

Azevedo went on to plead with the negotiators, “So please, take this time to reflect—and let’s be ready to discuss the way forward on these issues when you return. The future of the multilateral trading system is in your hands.”

But opposition from developing countries, chiefly India, has grown louder in recent weeks. While India’s specific demands have not been made public, the country has said that it will not agree to implement the facilitation deal without first securing a permanent solution on food security, a key priority for developing nations.

Top US trade officials criticized India for trying to alter the strict deadlines for each agreement laid out in Bali. India, however, has repeatedly refused to compromise, rejecting calls at the G-20 summit of trade ministers and the WTO’s General Council to follow through on the deal it made in Bali.

In response on August 1, 2014, House of Representatives Chairman Congressman Dave Camp of Ways and Means Committee along with Trade Subcommittee Chairman Devin Nunes made the following attached statement, HOUSE INDIA TRADE FACILITATION DEAL KILLED:

Rep. Camp: “India’s actions last night to bring down implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement are completely unacceptable and put into doubt its credibility as a responsible trading partner. As we determine next steps, I am committed to the WTO as an institution, and I hope that we can salvage the Trade Facilitation Agreement, either with or without India.”

Rep. Nunes: “It’s one thing for a country to be a tough negotiator. It is entirely another to agree to a deal with your trading partners, and then just simply walk away months later, insisting instead on one-sided changes. That’s what India has done here by going back on its word, running the risk of eliminating any sense of good will toward it.”

And India now wants to join the TPP??? As they say in New York, “Ferget about it.”

On August 6, 2014, EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht stated that the European Union would have been willing to support “any solution” that would respect the substance of the deal.

The Bali package was the first unanimous trade agreement since the WTO’s inception and included a so-called cease-fire on challenges to India’s food subsidy programs while the countries worked to find a permanent solution by 2017. But India backed off on the deal insisting food security move to the front hoping to push more members to join them.

The ramifications from India’s decision could mean a near-fatal blow to the WTO’s already failing effort to craft comprehensive new global rules to govern international commerce. Experts said that the shrinking of the WTO as a negotiating platform would likely lead to a shift toward smaller, binational, talks among willing countries members and regional free trade agreements, such as the TPP.

WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo made clear that the members’ inaction would have far-reaching implications for the multilateral negotiating system.

“My sense, in the light of the things I hear from you, is that this is not just another delay which can simply be ignored or accommodated into a new timetable — this will have consequences. And it seems to me, from what I hear in my conversations with you, that the consequences are likely to be significant.”

With the first of those trade agreements now facing an uncertain future after this week’s missed deadline, many trade experts are pessimistic that the multilateral system can ever be workable again. As one trade lawyer stated “If agreements agreed to by all governments of the world become subject to hostage-taking by a country who desires a change in the package, then you have no sense in negotiating because it’s not going to be worth anything.”

Meanwhile on August 19, 2014, Members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, including China, vowed to do everything in their power to improve the flow of goods across their borders even as the WTO Agreement falls apart. The APEC Committee on Trade and Investment restated their commitment to trade facilitation, indicating that they will take matters into their own hands if no progress can be made on the multilateral stage.

CHAOTIC TRADE SITUATION WITH COLLAPSE OF WTO TALKS

The collapse in Trade Facilitation Agreement has led many experts to question the future of the WTO Multilateral system. In an article published on August 18th, Terry Stewart, a well-known trade lawyer in Washington DC, stated:

“The World Trade Organization has existed for almost 19 years, replacing the former General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1995. . . . Last December, trade ministers from the WTO eeked out a last-minute compromise to permit an agreement on trade facilitation to be reached and to agree to commitments on a range of other topics at the 9th Ministerial in Bali, Indonesia. . . . The trade facilitation agreement (“TFA”) had long been viewed as a win win for all members. Some estimates of the benefits to the world economy were as high as $1 trillion and the creation of some 21 million jobs (most in the developing world). . . .

The WTO membership operates on momentum. When there is optimism based on success or progress, the membership appears capable of searching for solutions and the organization can achieve significant forward movement. . . .

Where there are missed deadlines or spoiled expectations, WTO members go into lockdown positions, where officials in Geneva are basically just going through the motions, and the organization’s negotiating function effectively shuts down for extended periods. . . .

But never before have WTO members (or GATT contracting parties before them) ever failed to move a new agreement approved by ministers through the steps of a legal scrub and adoption of appropriate documents to permit the agreement to be opened for ratification by members. Yet that is exactly what happened last month as India (with some support from a few other countries) refused to permit adoption of a simple protocol of amendment to add the trade facilitation agreement to the WTO agreements and to open the agreement for ratification by the membership.

The failure was not just another missed deadline. The failure sends the WTO once again to the precipice of irrelevance for trade negotiations. . . ..

The path out of the crisis India has created is not clear. While India has downplayed the importance of the missed date and the significance of changing the balance of the Bali package, the dilemma for others is more obvious. If a WTO member can hold the membership hostage on an agreed upon direction in the hopes of altering a previously agreed balance, negotiations at the WTO become meaningless and subject to repeated hostage-taking.”

As former US Trade Representative Susan Schwab recently stated, the stalling of multilateral efforts to craft cohesive global trade and investment rules has pushed nations both large and small to pursue more limited agreements that can squarely address their most immediate concerns in a given region, but the proliferation of these efforts has substantially complicated the operations of businesses across several sectors. Schwab stated, “Even the largest multinational firms, stepping back and looking at what is going on, their heads are spinning trying to figure out how this affects all of their business plans . . . You’ve got the progress in the trade system stalling and all of the regional [deals] in various states of suspended animation.”

Schwab echoed the near-unanimous sentiment of several experts in saying that India’s move poses a substantial threat to ever reviving a serious effort to rewrite international trade rules for the first time in two decades. According to Schwab, “What the Indians did is a travesty, and it’s a disaster for India’s economy, the rest of the world and the multilateral trading system . . . . The implications for the trading system and the global economy and businesses are really bad news. Not only do you have a stalling of these mega-regional negotiations, but now you’ve got a stalling of what had been a glimmer of hope in the multilateral system.”

OCTG

As stated in prior newsletters and above, US Steel Corp along with the Steel Union (USW) have brought follow up cases against Steel Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”), Steel Pipes used in oil wells from a number of different countries. US Steel and the Steel Union first attacked China and were able to drive them out of the US market with 47% dumping rate, not based on actual prices and costs in China. Instead, Commerce used values from Indian import statistics to throw the Chinese out of the US market.

But Chinese imports were replaced by imports from Korea, Taiwan, India and many other countries. So USW and US Steel filed antidumping and countervailing duty cases against those countries. In the preliminary antidumping determination, Commerce calculated very low antidumping rates, such as 0s for Korea, 0 to 2.65 for Taiwan, 0 for one producer in India, 2.92% for Saudi Arabia and 8.9% for Philippines.

The USW and US Steel through the Congress put immense political pressure on Commerce to change its preliminary determination, especially with regards to Korea. On July 11, 2014, Commerce issued its final determination, which is posted in my last post on this blog, pushing Korea’s AD rate to 9.89 to 15.75%, Taiwan 0 to2.52%, Saudi Arabia 2.69%, Philippines 9.88%, Ukraine 6.73% and an India CVD rate from 5 to 19%.   The point, however, is that these are not shut out rates and in contrast to China, all of these countries will continue to export OCTG steel products to the United States in substantial quantities.

As indicated in the factsheet that can be found at http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2014/er0822mm1c.htm, on August 22, 2014, based on a threat of material injury determination, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) made affirmative injury determinations with respect to OCTG imports from India, Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam, but negative determinations with respect to imports from Philippines and Thailand.

ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS

WHIRLPOOL SUES

In the attached complaint, WHIRLPOOL COMPLAINT, on August 26, 2014, Whirlpool Corporation filed suit in the US Court of International Trade against the Commerce Department to stop the Department from including door handles for kitchen appliances within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty order on aluminum extrusions from China.

Whirlpool is arguing that the handles are outside the scope of the orders because they are “finished goods.” Certain finished goods that don’t require additional assembly are excluded from the order.

In the Complaint, Whirlpool specifically states:

Appliance handles with end caps consist of alloy 6 series aluminum extrusions and nonaluminum components that are permanently assembled together, are fully complete and finished, and are ready for use as appliance door handles at the time of import. Thus, these appliance handles with end caps are ready to be attached to the kitchen appliance doors in their as-imported condition. No further processing or finishing of these handles is necessary prior to fulfilling their intended use….

Appliance handles with end caps consist of alloy 6 series aluminum extrusions and non-aluminum components that are permanently assembled together, are fully complete and finished, and are ready for use as appliance door handles at the time of import. Thus, these appliance handles with end caps are ready to be attached to the kitchen appliance doors in their as-imported condition. No further processing or finishing of these handles is necessary prior to fulfilling their intended use.

CIRCUMVENTION OF ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS ORDER??

On May 8, 2014, Senator Mitch McConnell wrote the attached letter to Commerce, AD Aluminum Extrusions 5000 SERIES Controlled Correspondence Inbound-5-8-14, complaining about the circumvention of the antidumping order against aluminum extrusions from China. In the letter Senator McConnell stated:

“I write on behalf of constituents at Kentucky’s Cardinal Aluminum. Cardinal, an aluminum extruder, employs over 500 people in Louisville and plays a vital economic role in the community. My constituents have informed me that unfair trade practices from China are once again threatening Kentucky jobs. . . .

Unfortunately, my constituents have informed me that Chinese exporters are now circumventing existing U.S. import duties using 5000-series aluminum alloy not covered under previous DOC antidumping measures. . . .I ask that you give full and fair consideration of their request to include 5000-series aluminum alloy with similar products covered by existing DOC anti-dumping measures . . . .”

AUGUST ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

On August 1, 2014, Commerce published in the attached Federal Register notice, REVIEW REQUEST NOTICE AUGUST, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of August. The specific antidumping cases against China are:

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof, Laminated Woven Sacks, Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, Petroleum Wax Candles, Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, Sodium Nitrite, Steel Nails, Sulfanilic Acid, Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol, Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof, and Woven Electric Blankets.

The specific countervailing duty cases are:

Laminated Woven Sacks, Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube, Sodium Nitrite, and Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof.

For those US import companies that imported Ironing Tables, Laminated Woven Sacks, Retail Carrier Bags, Steel Nails, Sulfanilic Acid, Lawn Groomers, and Electric Blankets and the other products listed above from China during the antidumping period August 1, 2013-July 31, 2014 or during the countervailing duty review period of 2013 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 final determination in the Wood Flooring Case, for example, although the rates were very low for many Chinese exporters, only 5%, 20 Chinese exporters had their rates go to 58% because they did not participate in the review investigation and did not file a no shipment certification, separate rate application or separate rate certification at the Commerce Department.

CHINA WTO CASE

As mentioned in the prior post,on July 14, 2014, in a decision and summary, which is posted in my last blog post, the WTO upheld China’s claims that certain US countervailing duty cases against China were inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. On August 22nd, China filed the attached notice of appeal at the WTO with regards to the remaining cases, CHINA APPEALS WTO DETERMINATION.

CUSTOMS

SENATE HEARING ON COLLECTIONS OF UNPAID ANTIDUMPING DUTIES IN HONEY, MUSHROOMS, GARLIC AND CRAWFISH FROM IMPORTERS AND INSURANCE CUSTOMS BOND COMPANIES

On July 16, 2014, at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing in Washington DC, US Customs and Commerce Department officials discussed enforcement proceedings against evasion of US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty laws and several U.S. food producers and their Congressional supporters discussed a longstanding fight to push Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to bring lawsuits against insurance companies to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid antidumping duties on imports of honey, mushrooms, garlic and crawfish from China.

In the attached testimony, Testimony – ICE Trade Enforcement, Lev Kubiak, Assistant Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) testified about the ongoing Customs enforcement investigations by Homeland Security:

“Currently, HSI is involved in more than 80 investigations relating to open Commerce AD/CVD orders covering commodities such as honey, saccharin, citric acid, tow-behind lawn groomers, shrimp, steel, and wooden bedroom furniture.”

According to a January 2nd letter from Senators Wyden and Thune to Homeland Security, there are an estimated $107 million in uncollected duties on honey, $132 million on garlic, $309 million on crawfish and $102 million on mushrooms — a total of roughly $650 million from 2000 to 2007.  Apparently, these dumping duties are from large unpaid bills by importers, who have gone out of business, and bond companies that are contesting the payments.

In the attached statement, APPROPRIATIONS HONEY, the President of the Louisiana Beekeepers Association testified about the problems US honey producers are facing because of inability of Customs to recover bonds issued in new shipper review investigations:

“Customs estimates it is holding over 600 million dollars in thousands of New Shipper Bonds as security against unpaid dumping duties on imports of honey, fresh garlic, crawfish tail meat, and preserved mushrooms from China – 150 million dollars of which secure honey imports.

Shockingly, the major insurance companies that issued these bonds all failed to determine whether the sham companies that acted as the U.S. importers were creditworthy, or to require that they deposit any collateral to cover the insurers in case they had to pay under the bonds. When Customs eventually assessed substantial duties on these imports, the importers had disappeared. And the insurance companies – which had collected tens of millions of dollars in premiums for issuing the bonds – uniformly refused Customs’ demands that they pay as promised.

This duty-evasion scheme devastated the domestic producers of these four agricultural products in two ways. First, the scheme allowed the importers to enter and sell in this country huge volumes of these goods over an eight-year period at steeply dumped prices – as if the government orders imposing substantial dumping duties on these products did not exist. As a result, the domestic producers continued to suffer the very economic injury the dumping duties were supposed to prevent.

Second, all of these imports are subject to a provision of US trade law, which requires Customs to distribute dumping duties collected on imports that arrived through 2007 to the injured domestic producers. Thus, some of the injury inflicted by these imports on the honey, garlic, crawfish and mushroom producers could have been partly offset by Customs’ distribution of duties collected under the New Shipper Bonds. But the insurance companies’ refusal to pay as promised under these bonds has prevented this.

Unfortunately, Customs must bear substantial responsibility for this debacle. Although the insurance companies first started refusing to pay under these bonds in 2001, Customs by 2009 had failed to file a single collections lawsuit against them. In fact, the agency filed its first New Shipper Bond collections lawsuit only after being sued to do so by the four domestic industries.

Customs currently is attempting to recover $80 million from the insurance companies through 30 collections lawsuits. Rather than pay Customs as promised, the insurance companies are dragging out those lawsuits by raising many frivolous defenses.

One insurance company – Hartford Fire – has raised many of the same frivolous defenses in 350 lawsuits it has filed against Customs in its effort to avoid paying an estimated two to three hundred million dollars under its New Shipper Bonds. Indeed, Hartford Fire’s lawsuits now account for 20 percent of all cases before the Court of International Trade.

Despite Customs’ recent actions to recover under the bonds, the agency’s extended delay in suing the issuing insurance companies will likely block it from recovering under many bonds. This is because a bond collections lawsuit must be started within six years of the date the issuing insurance company becomes liable for the duties. Indeed, in the first collection lawsuit, the court ruled that Customs was time-barred from recovering three million dollars in duties secured by three of the nine bonds at issue.”

In the attached statement, CRAWFISH, the representative of the US Crawfish industry testified along the same lines:

“The problem is that a huge proportion of antidumping duties that should have been collected on imports from China that entered the United States prior to October 1, 2007, have not been collected, despite the fact that they are secured by bonds issued by large, U.S.-based insurance companies. That date is important because U.S. law requires a portion of the duties collected prior to October 1, 2007, to be paid to domestic producers who have been injured in their business by the dumping.

People who are unfamiliar with this area of the law are often surprised that there would still be unpaid duties on goods that came into U.S. ports in 2007 or earlier. They don’t realize that part of this is just because antidumping duties are assessed retrospectively – so delays of a couple or three years are not shocking. However, we’re still trying, right now in 2014, to get Customs to collect duties on entries from 2000, 2001, and so on. . . .

People might say they’d rather have Louisiana crawfish than Chinese crawfish, and they might actually mean it. But everyone has a price. With such a huge price difference, if you’re a U.S. processor, you’re going to be hard pressed to replace that old truck or upgrade your freezer or pay down your debt. You’re just trying to survive another day. The CDSOA was set up to use the antidumping duties to correct that problem, but it only works when Customs actually collects what’s owed. Even worse, the people importing the Chinese product – which, oftentimes, were just shell corporations with no real assets in the United States – started noticing that they didn’t really have to pay the duties, so they weren’t afraid of dumping. Massive volumes of imports kept pouring in, at very low prices. The hole just got deeper and deeper.

The responsible Congressional committees have been trying to fix this problem since at least July 15, 2002, the date of H.R. Report 107-575, in which the Appropriations Committee said: “The Committee is very concerned with the status of tariffs and duties assessed on crawfish . . . The U.S. Customs Service is therefore directed to begin, using funds currently available, vigorous and active enforcement of the tariff. Additionally, the U.S. Customs Service shall, not later than April 30, 2003, issue to the Committee and make publicly available a comprehensive report detailing their efforts to enforce and collect this duty.” That was in 2002 – twelve years ago. . . .

We’re also hoping to learn something about what happened with duty collections last year (FY2013) and what is happening this year (FY2014). More specifically:

• Last summer, Customs released its report on “Preliminary Amounts Available to Disburse” under the CDSOA for FY2013, reflecting collections made from October 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013. For crawfish, this “preliminary amount” turned out also to be the final amount, to the penny. In other words, during the last five months of FY2013, Customs did not collect a single penny of additional duties out of the vast backlog owed on entries made prior to October 1, 2007.

• This year, the “preliminary amount” for crawfish is only $2,687,300.70, reflecting collections through April 30, 2014. Yet we know for certain that Customs collected $6.1 million from Great American Insurance and Washington International Insurance, in February of this year, in crawfish antidumping duties on imports entered during 2000-01. We have copies of the checks from the sureties. Customs is on record, at the court, as saying that the checks had been received and were being processed in late February. It is unclear why this $6.1 million has apparently not been included in the “preliminary amount” for FY2014.

• Customs has also stated, in a letter to Congressman Boustany dated April 11, 2014, that it had fully collected “more than $14 million” in crawfish antidumping duties on April 7, 2014, one day before the six-year statute of limitations would have expired. From other information in the letter, we know that the money was owed by Hartford, a surety, on entries that came into the United States well before 2007. Although this money was allegedly collected prior to the April 30, 2014, cut-off date for the report on “preliminary amounts,” it has obviously been left out. We do not know why. . . .

Much remains to be done. Our best information right now is that there is still more than $600 million in bond money to be collected on imports of crawfish tail meat, honey, garlic, and mushrooms from China that entered the United States between May 1998 and August 2006. This debt is secured by over 8,000 bonds. Yet, so far, Customs has filed lawsuits to collect on only about one-tenth of those bonds, representing roughly 12 percent of their face value.”

PATENT/IP AND 337 CASES

337 CASES

There has been major developments at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in 337 cases.

SUPREMA—EN BANC CAFC PROCEEDING ON 337 AND INDUCED INFRINGEMENT

As mentioned in prior posts, in the Suprema v. ITC case, on February 21, 2014, in the attached petition, Suprema – ITC Petition for Rehearing, the ITC asked for a rehearing en banc of the original panel decision, and on June 11, 2014 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) granted a request for an en banc hearing, that means an en banc hearing before all the CAFC judges, to review the original 2-1 decision in the Suprema case.

In prior blog posts, I mentioned that Suprema was a major decision on induced infringement holding that if a product did not infringe when it crossed the border, the ITC did not have jurisdiction to find that the product violated section 337 because of induced infringement. The decision also has a major impact on general patent cases regarding induced infringement.

The ITC’s brief is due on September 15th at the CAFC, but the Commission has asked for an extension until October 15. Experts have predicted an oral argument in the case, possibly in January.

In its February 21st petition to the CAFC, the ITC set out the issues as follows:

“(1) Did the panel contradict Supreme Court precedent in Grokster and precedents of this Court when it held that infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) “is untied to an article” (Maj. Op. at 19)?

(2) Did the panel contradict Supreme Court precedent in Grokster and this Court’s precedent in Standard Oil when it held that there can be no liability for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) at the time a product is imported because direct infringement does not occur until a later time (Maj. Op. at 19-21)?

(3) When the panel determined the phrase “articles that . . . infringe” in 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) does not extend to articles that infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), did the panel err by contradicting decades of precedent and by failing to give required deference to the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) in its interpretation of its own statute (Maj. Op. at 20-21, 26 n.5)?

(4) Did the panel misinterpret the Commission’s order as a “ban [on the] importation of articles which may or may not later give rise to direct infringement” (Maj. Op. at 25) when the order was issued to remedy inducement of infringement and when the order permits U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow importation upon certification that the articles are not covered by the order?

In its petition for en banc rehearing, the ITC argued that “the panel not only overturned decades of Commission practice affirmed by the courts, but also upended the law of induced infringement.” The ITC based the section 337 violation on the imported products’ combination with software produced by Texas-based Mentalix Inc., which imports Suprema scanners. More specifically, as the ITC states in its petition:

“Appellant Suprema, Inc. (“Suprema”), a Korean company, manufactures fingerprint scanners overseas and imports those scanners into the United States. Before the scanners may perform their intended purpose, they must be connected to a computer running specialized software. Suprema does not make or sell this software, but provides a Software Development Kit (“SDK”) that allows its customers to create their own customized software to operate the scanners. Suprema imports scanners and SDKs and supplies them to appellant Mentalix, Inc. (“Mentalix”), a company located in Plano, Texas. Suprema assisted Mentalix in developing Mentalix software for use with Suprema’s imported scanners. Mentalix then used the software with Suprema’s scanners in a manner that directly infringed method claim 19 of U.S. Patent 7,203,344.”

On August 13th, Suprema filed a brief arguing that the full CAFC should affirm the original panel decision that the ITC does not have authority to hear inducement patent infringement cases where a product is found to infringe after importation.  Suprema argues that the ITC’s Section 337 does not reach conduct where a product may be found to infringe only after it was imported and used together with something else — in this case, software. Suprema argues that “[Section 337] empowers the Commission to bar only the importation, and sale for or after importation, of infringing articles, not the importation of non-infringing staple articles based on the respondent’s purported state of mind,”

Google, Microsoft and other high tech companies have jumped on Suprema’s bandwagon to argue in Amicus Briefs that the full CAFC should uphold the original panel decision barring the ITC from hearing induced patent infringement cases when a product only infringes after importation.  In attached amicus brief, Microsoft Suprema, filed on August 18, Microsoft argues that the law is clear that products that do not infringe at the time they are imported are not within the ITC’s jurisdiction. In the attached separate brief, Google BRIEF, filed on August 19th, Google, Dell Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., LG Electronics Inc. and others state that they have an interest in the case because they are “often targets of expensive litigation at the ITC.” “Allowing exclusion orders against articles that do not infringe when imported — on the ground that they may be combined with other products after importation to infringe — threatens substantial disruption to their businesses.”

According to Google’s brief, “The panel’s conclusion is correct: the statute as a whole makes more sense when infringement is judged at the time an article is imported. . .” If a product infringes after it enters the U.S., that infringement can be addressed with a suit in federal court. “The ITC need not expand its jurisdiction to reach every infringement claim that could be brought in district court because the role of the ITC is not to serve as an alternative forum for patent litigation . . . It is a trade court that may hear only the specified types of cases that Congress has designated.”

Both briefs also urged the en banc court to further hold that the ITC cannot hear cases based on alleged infringement of method patents, because such patents are infringed only when the claimed steps are actually performed. According to Microsoft, “A method is an action, not a product or good. Thus, the phrase ‘articles that infringe’ in Section 337 cannot refer to infringement of method claims.”

On August 18, the American Intellectual Property Law Association told an en banc Federal Circuit panel in an amicus brief that the ITC has the authority to find a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and issue exclusion orders on certain imports in induced infringement cases regardless of whether direct infringement occurred before or after the articles were imported. The AIPLA argues that the ITC has authority over induced infringement, saying the panel’s initial decision “overlooks the long, uninterrupted history of U.S. protection against unfair trade practices provided by Section 337.” “AIPLA respectfully submits that the Commission has such authority, and that its exercise of such authority in appropriate investigations is consistent with, indeed compelled by, Congressional intent and public policy.” The AIPLA said that Section 337 is an important tool for the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and is not limited in regards to the time or location that an alleged act of infringement took place. If allowed to stand, however, the Federal Circuit’s initial decision may enable some foreign companies “to circumvent Section 337 and evade effective IP enforcement” by allowing them to eliminate any software-based features in their products found to directly infringe a patent while inviting end-users to download the features after importation.

DISK DRIVES—DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ISSUES

On July 17th, in the Optical Disk Drives case, an ITC administrative law judge held that there was no domestic industry in a 337 case if the Petitioner was non-practicing entity, which is purely revenue driven, and there is no proof that the NPE exploits the asserted patents under § 1337(a)(3)(C).  This ruling would require purely revenue-driven NPEs to make some showing that they exploit the asserted intellectual property under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3)(C) in every case. They could no longer rely solely on the investments of their licensees.

Although the ALJ’s decision is reviewable by the Commission itself, if the decision becomes final, it will be even more difficult for non-practicing entities (NPEs) to bring 337 cases.

TIRES FROM CHINA

On July 24, 2014, In Re: Certain Tires and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-894, the ITC banned the import of certain kinds of automotive tires from China and Thailand, because they violate design patents held by Toyo Tire Holdings of America Inc. The Asian companies did not respond to the 337 complaint and were found in default.

On July 24th, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order forbidding the import and sale of tires that violate Toyo’s patents by the defaulting respondents.

The American companies held in default include importers, Kentucky’s WestKy Customs LLC; California’s Tire & Wheel Master, WTD Inc., Lexani Tires Worldwide Inc. and Wholesale Tires Inc.; North Carolina’s Vittore Wheel & Tire and RTM Wheel & Tire; and Tennessee’s Simple Tire. The patents cover the unique tread and side wall patterns on Toyo- and Nitto-brand tires.

The foreign infringers include Hong Kong Tri-Ace Tire Co. Ltd., Weifang Shunfuchang Rubber & Plastic Co. Ltd., Doublestar Dong Feng Tyre Co. Ltd., Shandong Yongtai Chemical Group Co. Ltd., Shandong Linglong Tyre Co. Ltd., Svizz-One Corp. Ltd., South China Tire and Rubber Co. Ltd., Guangzhou South China Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd., Turbo Wholesale Tires Inc. and related importers and U.S. distributors.

SECTION 337 COMPLAINTS

On July 25, 2014, Bose Corp. filed a patent based section 337 case at the ITC against a Chinese company on Noise Cancelling Headphones. The respondents are: Beats Electronics LLC, Culver City, California; Beats Electronics International Ltd., Ireland; Fugang Electronic (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., China; and PCH International Ltd., Ireland.

On August 4, 2014, Adrian Rivera and ARM Enterprises, Inc. filed a section 337 patent case against imports Beverage Brewing Capsules from a number of Chinese and Hong Kong companies. The specific respondents are: Solofill LLC, Houston, Texas; DonGuan Hai Rui Precision Mould Co., Ltd., China; Eko Brands, LLC, Woodinville, WA; Evermuch Technology Co., Ltd., Hong Kong; Ever Much Company Ltd., China; Melitta USA, Inc., North Clearwater, FL; LBP Mfg. Inc., Cicero, IL; LBP Packaging (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., China; Spark Innovators, Corp., Fairfield, New Jersey; B. Marlboros International Ltd. (HK), Hong Kong; Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, WA.

PATENT AND IP CASES IN GENERAL

DUPONT SUES SUN EDISON FOR INFRINGEMENT OF US SOLAR PASTE PATENTS

On August 18, 2014, Dupont filed the patent infringement suit against Sun Edison for infringing its thick-film paste patent by importing and selling certain solar modules. DUPONT SOLAR COMPLAINT

DuPont alleges that Sun Edison imports solar modules from Malaysia, which are constructed by Flextronics International Ltd. and use photovoltaic cells provided by Neo Solar Power Corp., which include a paste that uses tellurium-oxide solids.

EX DUPONT ENGINEER SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR STEALING TRADE SECRETS FOR CHINA TITANIUM DIOXIDE INDUSTRY

On August 26, 2014, a California federal judge sentenced a former DuPont Co. engineer to two and a half years in prison and ordered him to pay nearly $750,000 in restitution and forfeitures for conspiring to sell to Chinese companies trade secrets on the technology to safely produce massive amounts of titanium dioxide.

According to the Judge, although Robert Maegerle’s involvement in a conspiracy to sell DuPont’s secret method of producing titanium dioxide to Chinese companies was his first crime, it was a serious one. In March, a jury convicted Maegerle, 79, of participating in the trade-secrets scheme and also of obstructing prosecutors’ investigation into the crimes.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASES AGAINST CHINESE COMPANIES, INCLUDING ZTE

On July 28, 2014, JST Performance, Inc. d/b/a Rigid Industries and Illumination Management Solutions, Inc. filed a case for patent infringement against imports of various LED lighting products for off road vehicles against Sun Auto Electronics, LLC and Foshan Sunway Auto Electrical Company, Ltd., a Chinese company.  LED LIGHTING COMPANY SUED

On August 6, 2014, Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd., a Chinese company, filed a patent infringement case against a US company, Luminara Worldwide, LLC, Michael L. O’Shaughnessy, and John W. Jacobson. COUNTERSUIT SHENZHEN LIOWN

On August 6, 2014, Multiplayer Network Innovations, LLC filed a patent infringement case against ZTE Corp. and ZTE (USA), Inc. ZTE

On August 7, 2014, a Taiwan company sued a Taiwan company for theft of trade secrets and patent infringement. Via Technology companies in California and Taiwan filed the patent infringement suit against Asus Computer International, a California corporation, Asutek Cmputer Inc., a Taiwan corporation, and Asmedia Technlogy Inc., a Taiwan corporation. VIA TECHNOLOGY TAIWAN

On August 13, 2014, Pacific Lock Company filed a patent infringement case against the Eastern Company d/b/a/ Security Products, World Lock Co., Ltd., and Dongguan Reeworld Security Products LtdDONGGUAN COMPANY

On August 25, 2014, Folkmanis, Inc. filed a copyright infringement case against Delivery Agent, Inc., S.F. Global Sourcing LLC, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. and Shanghai Oriland Toys Co., LtdSHANGHAI COPYRIGHT

PRODUCTS LIABILITY

On July 21, 2014, Loren Vieths filed a products liability case against Shanxi Regent Works, Inc., a Chinese company, and The Sports Authority, Inc. EXERCISE EQUIPMENT

On July 29, 2014, Eduardo and Carmen Amorin filed a products liability case for defective drywall against The State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council; Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. f/k/a Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd.; Tai’an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co.; China National Building Material Co., Ltd.; Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd.; China National Building Materials Group Corporation. TAISHAN CLASS ACTION

CFIUS—CHINESE INVESTMENT IN THE US

RALLS CORP CASE

On July 15, 2014, the Federal DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investments (“CFIUS”), which is attached to my last post on this blog, issued a very surprising decision reversing the Presidential/CFIUS decision to invalidate Ralls and a Chinese company’s attempt to acquire four Oregon wind firms that were close to a US military base on national security grounds.

The DC Circuit overturned the CFIUS decision on due process procedural grounds requiring the President and CFIUS at a minimum to explain why the decision was made and grant Ralls Corp’s access to the unclassified evidence used to come to that decision and give company an opportunity to rebut the evidence. Appeal is likely, either through a petition for en banc review or a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The CFIUS review process, however, has been described as a black box into which foreign investors feed information, only to get out a yes or no answer with no way of appealing the decision.

Many experts, however, have been issuing comments to the effect that the Ralls decision will not have a meaningful impact on the outcome of the case and is likely do little to boost the transparency of the CFIUS review process. Experts doubt that any of the unclassified information given to Ralls or any other company in a similar situation in the future would not have a substantial impact on the case. A former head of CFIUS stated that because these cases involve national security, “There isn’t a lot of non-deliberative information that’s not classified or not derived from classified material that can be shared.” Another attorney that specializes in this area stated, “What are they going to do with unclassified information based on a partial record?”

Although the legal victory has little practical impact, it helps to dispel the idea that the U.S. judicial system is biased against Chinese investment and avoids the chilling of the current Chinese investment boom. The U.S. has a process and if that process is not followed, there is relief within the U.S. judicial system.

CHINESE INVESTMENT IN US SEMICONDUCTOR COMPANY

In spite of or maybe because of the Ralls decision, on August 14th a group of Chinese investors made an unsolicited $1.6 billion offer for California chipmaker OmniVision Technologies Inc. The deal would send a chip maker for smartphones, including Apple Inc.’s iPhone, and tablets, to an investor group led by Hua Capital Management Ltd. The potential buyers pitching the $29-per-share bid also include state-owned Shanghai Pudong Science and Technology Investment Co. Ltd. If OmniVision accepts the offer, a comprehensive government review is likely.

CHINESE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES

US FOUNDRY

A US investment company has approached me because an undisclosed US Foundry that produces metal castings has put itself on the auction block. The public information available to me is as follows:

The US Company provides complex metal casting services and products from 50 to 200,000 pounds for industry-critical applications. The Company operates through its two wholly-owned facilities (“Facility A” and “Facility B”) that aggregate in excess of 650,000 square feet, both of which have been in operation for more than 100 years.

The Company differentiates itself by offering highly-complex and highly-engineered products, compared to the simpler commoditized products of other facilities. In addition, the Company emphasizes quality over price —administering price increases without customer attrition.

The Company is focused on energy, infrastructure, and industrial equipment end markets, with approximately 53%, 33% and 13% of production in each of these markets, respectively. Products used in energy and power generation applications include the following sectors: air compression, fossil fuels, gas compression and wind. The Company also manufactures products for other industries including: construction equipment, machine tools, agriculture and refrigeration.

If anyone is interested in the opportunity, please feel free to contact me.

US INVESTMENT IN CHINA

HOSPITALS

It has been reported that on August 27, Ministry of Commerce and National Health and Family Planning Commission issued the “Notice on Establishing Wholly Foreign-owned Hospital Pilots”. The notice lays out the requirements, standards, and approval processes for foreign investors applying to qualify for establishing wholly foreign-owned hospitals in China.     The seven provinces included in the notice’s pilot zones are Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Fujian, Guangdong, and Hainan. Investors have the option of establishing their own new hospital, or investing through M&A. The notice regulates that only investors from Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan may establish hospitals featuring traditional Chinese medicine.

If anyone is interested in the opportunity, please feel free to contact me.

ANTITRUST– VITAMIN C, MAGNESITE AND AU OPTRONICS

There have been major developments in the antitrust area both in the United States and more importantly in China.

VITAMIN C

On August 11, 2014, the parties in the Vitamin C case filed their attached final briefs in the Second Circuit.  In its attached brief, HEBEI REPLY BRIEF, Defendants HeBei Welcome Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. et al reiterated its arguments that it followed Chinese law when it coordinated on pricing, and that co-defendant North China Pharmaceuticals Group Corp. was not involved in the coordination.

Hebei argued:

“Appellees’ brief confirms that the judgment below cannot be affirmed unless this Court rejects a sovereign government’s view of its own laws, establishes federal courts as arbiters of the validity of foreign nations’ regulatory decisions, disregards the massive foreign policy concerns raised by that approach, creates multiple circuit splits, and rejects binding precedent. This Court should therefore decline Appellees’ invitation to sit in judgment over China’s economic development policies.

The dispositive issue is now undisputed: Appellees concede that Chinese law required active coordination by vitamin C manufacturers on vitamin C prices and output. This amounts to a concession that the Chinese government compelled violation of the Sherman Act and that the district court’s determination of Chinese law cannot survive de novo

That should end the case. But Appellees argue that this Court should find that Chinese manufacturers and their corporate affiliates could still face nine-figure penalties because they complied with their own government’s legal, regulatory, and policy decisions. Their arguments that U.S. law can prohibit the same conduct a sovereign nation ordered and directed, if accepted, would go far in eradicating the foreign sovereign compulsion, international comity, act of state, and political question doctrines altogether, contrary to decades of established law.”

In the attached brief, ANIMAL SCIENCE REPLY BRIEF, the Plaintiffs, Animal Science Products Inc. and The Ranis Co. Inc., asserted that the district court’s verdict was proper and that the companies’ actions were not covered by the Chinese government, stating:

“Appellants and the Ministry of Commerce of China (“Ministry”) ask this Court to adopt an unprecedented “whatever the Ministry says, goes” approach to overturn a jury verdict, even though the Ministry’s assertions are not supported by the evidence or even Chinese law.

In the nine years since this case was filed, two district court judges appropriately considered the evidence of Appellants’ conspiracy to fix prices and limit the supply of vitamin C imported into the U.S. and determined the nature of Chinese law in light of the evidence submitted by the parties and statements by the Ministry (appearing as Amicus). The district court then presided over a trial at which the jury—using an unobjected-to set of instructions and verdict form—concluded that the Chinese government did not compel Appellants’ cartel as a factual matter.

Appellants’ and the Ministry’s assertion that the district court’s judgment represents a groundbreaking application of the Sherman Act is overblown because foreign corporations are routinely subject to liability under U.S. antitrust law over foreign governments’ objections. No Chinese law required Appellants and their co-conspirators to set supra-competitive prices for vitamin C imported to the United States.

Appellants argue that they were required by Chinese law to accept coordination by a vitamin C Subcommittee of a China Chamber of Commerce that was acting to implement the Chinese government’s regulatory objectives. Regardless of the proper interpretation of Chinese law, the facts as determined by the jury under unobjected-to instructions showed that the Subcommittee and Chamber did not as a factual matter act to compel the conduct at issue here; rather, the jury found Appellants liable for their own voluntary conduct.

With respect to its correct rulings on Chinese law, the district court gave the Ministry’s statements appropriate respect and regard, but in multiple rulings disagreed with the Ministry, concluding that the plain language of Chinese law and the overwhelming evidence contradicted the Ministry’s position. Having made its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 (“Rule 44.1”) ruling on issues of foreign law, the district court properly excluded copies of Chinese laws and regulations from the evidence submitted to the jury. As it should be in every trial, the jury reached its verdict based on instructions of law from the Court and not from Appellants’ counsel reading and arguing law to the jury.

The district court correctly exercised personal jurisdiction over North China Pharmaceutical Group Corporation (“NCPG”) and denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the evidence of NCPG’s direct participation in a cartel selling products into the United States.”

MAGNESITE

On July 24, 2014, in Animal Science Products Inc. and Resco Products Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., et al, in he attached decision and order, MAGNESITE DISMISSAL STANDING MAGNESITE ORDER DISMISSAL, the US Federal Court dismissed the US companies antitrust action for a price fixing cartel on Chinese exports to the US of Magnesite and Magnesite products because plaintiffs lacked standing to represent the class of direct purchasers of Magnesite from China. The Court states:

“Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of U.S. purchasers of magnesite. They allege that sixteen Chinese corporations have conspired to fix prices and control the supply of magnesite and magnesite products exported to the United States. As a result, they say, magnesite prices have remained above market levels since at least April 2000. . ..

There is, however, one critical fact that distinguishes Cordes & Co. from the case now before me. There, the class action was initiated by two putative class representatives who were “indisputably members of the class they sought to represent.” . . . That is, the class representatives had themselves suffered the same injury that gave rise to the assigned antitrust claims they asserted. Here, the facts are not so clear, or at least, have yet to be established, as discussed below.

Suffice it to say that, at this stage, Resco must establish its own standing, either through its own direct purchases or through the direct purchases of some entity that validly assigned its claims to Resco. . . .

Plaintiff Resco has pleaded very few facts regarding its own “direct purchases” of magnesite from Defendants. The original complaint . . . contains no statements regarding Resco’s direct purchases of magnesite, or Animal Science’s indirect purchases of magnesite. . . .

In short, Plaintiffs allege no direct purchases by Resco from any named defendants.

Nothing in the Amended Complaint constitutes a plausible factual allegation in support of the most direct and obvious form of standing: plaintiff’s direct purchases from one or more of the defendant . . .Plaintiff Resco’s status as a direct purchaser, whether obtained through its own direct purchases or by means of an assignment, is a critical and yet unresolved question in this case. That uncertainty permeates not only the Amended Complaint but the Motion to Compel Arbitration.

For the reasons discussed above, the Minmetals and Sinosteel Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are GRANTED on standing grounds only. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a Second Amended Complaint.”

Unfortunately, the Court and the Parties may have missed the forest through the trees. Many forms of magnesium from China, including many magnesium products, are covered by US antidumping orders, which have blocked many importers from importing Chinese magnesium into the United States for decades. The Court and the Parties may ignore this reality, but the point is that the effect of antidumping orders is to raise prices. That may be the cause of the increased prices on these products.

TAIWAN LCDS CASE

On August 25, 2014, AU Optronics Corp, along with several Taiwan individuals filed the attached petition, auo petition, with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking it to rehear or hold an en banc hearing in its appeal of a $500 million price-fixing fine the government won against the liquid crystal display maker. The Petition argues that the panel misinterpreted the evidence in the case.

As reported in my July post on this blog, in July a three-judge panel affirmed the Justice Department’s victory before the Federal District Court in the case against AUO, its U.S. subsidiary and former top executives Hsuan Bin Chen and Hui Hsiung concerning a global plot to fix the price of liquid crystal display panels.

CHINA ANTITRUST CASES

As US antitrust cases have been on the rise in the United States, they are sharply rising against Chinese and foreign companies, including US companies, in China. The recent surge in antitrust cases reaches US and foreign companies like Qualcomm, Interdigital, Microsoft, Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz.

On July 24, 2014, it was reported that the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), one of China’s three National Antitrust Agencies, announced that it had determined that US chipmaker Qualcomm is a monopoly and was suspected of overcharging and abusing its market position in wireless communication standards.  The allegations could lead to record fines of more than $1 billion.

As the Chinese consumer market surges upward, Western companies are seeing their profits fall downward after this wave of antitrust cases. The China media has reported that the prices of many foreign items, including a Starbucks latte to a Jaguar sedan, are higher in China than in many other places in the world.

Chinese consumers, who now travel the World, are complaining. According to the media, although some of the price differences are explainable by factors, such transportation, real-estate costs, higher Chinese import taxes and fragmented supply chains in which multiple distributors each add a markup, at least some multinationals allegedly have adopted sales practices in China that would not be tolerated by antitrust regulators in Europe or the US. Automobile companies do not always give their Chinese customers a choice in their purchase of spare parts, causing high prices.

What concerns the US government, however, is procedures, the heavy-handed way that investigations are being pursued, and the highly charged media coverage that makes for heated nationalistic rhetoric against Western and US companies.

Foreign companies have learned two early lessons from the antitrust probes. First, the Chinese law provides little protection. The message that the National Development and Reform Commission, the Chinese agency that sets pricing rules, delivers in private to multinationals at the outset of a price-fixing investigation is not to bring in their foreign lawyers. The second lesson, apparently, is resistance is futile.

In almost every antitrust case launched so far, foreign companies have settled without a fight. Voluntary price cuts of up to 20% are the norm, accompanied by board-level expressions of remorse and promises to do better. Chrysler described its abrupt decision to slash car-part prices as a “proactive response” to the price fixing probe as it got under way.

These price-fixing investigations have been accompanied by heated nationalistic rhetoric in the state media with anti-foreign overtones. Pushing down multinationals goes over well with large sections of the Chinese public that view the foreign companies as arrogant. The China Youth Daily recently stated that multinationals “pollute the environment, lie to consumers, act arrogantly when facing their wrongdoings, and ignore China’s law and protests from Chinese consumers.”

For many years that China’s Anti-Monopoly Law has been in place, enforcement has been lax, but the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”), the two agencies charged with enforcing the AML’s antitrust provisions, have rapidly increased enforcement over the last year, with probes into Qualcomm Inc., Microsoft, and now international automakers. The action has come at the same time as the government has voiced a broader intention to promote the creation of Chinese players in many key industries, contributing to the impression that the latest antitrust probes may have a protectionist purpose.

While technically, agency decisions can be appealed to China’s administrative courts, the courts tend to defer to the agencies in all but the most blatant violations of the law. That means that as a practical matter, companies don’t have the same ability to force the agencies to defend themselves in court the way companies do in the U.S. and Europe.

MICROSOFT

As mentioned in my last post, on July 29, China time, the Chinese government conducted a dawn raid of Microsoft offices in China, apparently because of antitrust concerns. According to reports out of China, Microsoft Corp‘s internet browser and media player are being targeted in a Chinese antitrust probe, raising the prospect of China revisiting the software bundling issue at the heart of past antitrust complaints against the firm.

On August 6, 2014, it was reported that more raids were conducted on the Microsoft offices. Mr. Zhang Mao, the head of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), told reporters that Microsoft has not been fully transparent with information about its Windows and Office sales, but that Microsoft has expressed willingness to cooperate with ongoing investigations.

In 2004, the European Union ordered Microsoft to pay a 497 million euro ($656 million) fine and produce a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player bundled. The fine was later increased to nearly 1.4 billion euros.

The SAIC said earlier this month that Microsoft had been suspected of violating China’s anti-monopoly law since June last year in relation to problems with compatibility, bundling and document authentication for its Windows operating system and Microsoft Office software.

On August 4, 2014, Microsoft Deputy General Counsel Mary Snapp met with the SAIC in Beijing where the regulator warned Microsoft to not obstruct the probe.

But industry experts have questioned how exactly Microsoft is violating anti-trust regulations in China, where the size of its business is negligible.

AUTOMOBILE AND AUTO PARTS PRODUCERS—CHRYSLER, MERCEDES-BENZ AND VOLKSWAGEN

On August 6, 2014, it was reported that the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) had announced that it would punish Audi and Chrysler for monopoly practices, potentially paving the way for the automakers to be fined up to 10 percent of their domestic annual sales revenue in the world’s biggest car market.

NDRC spokesman Li Pumin stated that an ongoing investigation into the two companies showed they had “conducted anti-competitive behaviors” and that “They will be punished accordingly in the near future.” The NDRC has recently finished a probe of a dozen Japanese auto parts manufacturers on similar anti-trust charges.

According to Li Pumin, “The purpose is to maintain a sound competitive order in the auto market and protect consumer interest.” The NDRC did not specify the punishment for Chrysler or Audi. Under the six-year-old antimonopoly law, the NDRC can impose fines of between 1 and 10 percent of a company’s revenues for the previous year.

In the  attached Article from Singapore’s Strait Times on the Auto Parts antitrust investigation, QUOTE STRAIT TIMES, which features my quote, Esther Teo for the Strait Times states:

Industry experts say automakers have too much leverage over car dealers and auto part suppliers, enabling them to control prices, considered as a violation of China’s anti-trust laws.  “Monopolistic practices are quite rampant in the auto industry. NDRC is first targeting imported luxury brands because the problem is most severe in this area,” said Yale Zhang, managing director of consultancy Automotive Foresight (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. “It’s also a warning signal to the industry. If top brands like Audi gets punishment, others would know what to do.”

Zhang said imported luxury cars in China cost, on average, 2-1/2 to three times their price in the United States. The price difference is due to higher import duties and other taxes, foreign carmakers have argued. . . .

NDRC spokesman Li Pumin reiterated at a briefing in Beijing yesterday that China will punish any violators of the law regardless of nationality. . . .

While Beijing has denied these allegations, experts say the high-profile probes are likely to have a chilling effect on the business climate unless there is more transparency about how the anti-monopoly law is being enforced. . . .

experts said more needs to be done to convince international firms that they are not being unfairly targeted. For instance, whether it is a foreign or domestic firm being investigated, the authorities should provide more detailed and public information on the reasons for the decision reached and how the fine was determined. Without such transparency, multinational firms might be less willing to invest in China, they added.

Mr William Perry, an international trade partner at Seattle-based law firm Dorsey & Whitney, told The Straits Times that the business climate for foreign firms is becoming increasingly “uncertain”. “This is likely to affect trade relations down the line, especially between the United States and China.”

DORSEY ARTICLE ON CHINA ANTITRUST

On August 25, 2014, Peter Corne, who heads Dorsey’s China practice, published the following article about the situation in China:

A Fine Season for Antitrust Enforcement in China

The World Cup has ended and visiting fans have returned home from Brazil’s hot and humid climate. Now, some companies are feeling a different kind of heat, as Chinese antitrust regulators step up their enforcement activities. The regulatory actions include an investigation into the sale of World Cup tickets to Chinese football fans. The practice at issue was the bundling of high-end tickets with hotel, transportation, and tour services. Beijing Shankai Sports Development Company Limited (“Shankai”), the exclusive dealer for World Cup tickets within Greater China, failed to clarify whether customers were free to buy the high-end tickets separately. Some employees of Shankai told customers that they could not buy high-end tickets separately. The State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) started its investigation soon after Shankai’s practice was exposed by State central television. Backed into a corner, Shankai had no option but to admit its guilt in the sordid tale and promised to rectify its misdemeanors, leading to the SAIC approving the target’s application for a suspension to the investigation.

In other enforcement news, China’s second antitrust enforcement agency, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), has escalated its own enforcement efforts. NDRC branches in each of China’s northern (Beijing), central (Shanghai), and southern (Guangdong) coastal regions all had a part in what has turned into a ‘fine’ season for the optical industry in China. The practice in question involved ‘disguised’ recommended retail prices that, in reality, apparently amounted to resale price maintenance. Manufacturers of glasses and contact lenses adopted a carrot and stick approach: their distributors were punished for failing to sell the products at “recommended retail prices”, and rewarded if they did. Hoya and Weicon reportedly turned on the rest of the culprits in the industry by reporting the monopolistic activities to the NDRC and providing important evidence; in return, Hoya and Weicon were provided an amnesty from prosecution. The targeted companies (Essilor, Nikon, Carl Zeiss, Bausch & Lomb, and Johnson & Johnson) were fined RMB 8.79 million, RMB 1.68 million, RMB 1.77 million, RMB 3.69 million, and RMB 3.64 million, respectively (for a total of about $3.2 million /€2.38 million).

Not to be left out of the action, China’s third and remaining antitrust enforcement organ, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), for only the second time in history, rejected a transaction: the attempted global joint alliance among Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Company, and CMA CGM. MOFCOM determined that the tie-up would restrict or eliminate competition in the Asia-European shipping route, despite the deal’s having previously been approved by the US and European antitrust authorities.

In a MOFCOM-led multiple-ministry initiative to crack down on interregional trade barriers and industrial monopolies launched by 12 ministries at the end of 2013, MOFCOM sent questionnaires to companies in no fewer than 80 different industries to ascertain their level of compliance with antitrust legislation. This suggests that the enforcement net will soon be cast even wider. The automobile industry has already been snared, but that particular enforcement action may have resulted from a Ferrari distributor’s complaint to the industry association (when Ferrari suddenly terminated the distribution relationship) this past April.

Just before this briefing went to press, Microsoft China also started feeling the summer heat. On July 28, nearly 100 regulators from nine provincial branches of the SAIC converged on Microsoft in four different locations around the country.

This seems to have arisen out of a preliminary investigation that commenced about a year ago, in response to complaints by other companies concerning alleged bundling and other issues related to Windows and Office. At the preliminary investigation stage, Microsoft personnel were interviewed and Microsoft submitted answers to a series of questions. The SAIC still could not rule out antitrust infringement, so it proceeded to file a case and initiate its dawn raid. During the raid, Microsoft staff attempted to head off the interviews by begging lack of availability of the relevant people. The regulators apparently have managed to interview already, or have required attendance to interview, a Vice President, other senior management, and marketing and financial staff. During the raid, they copied contracts and financial statements and acquired internal correspondence including emails, and seized two computers.

In short, it may be summertime, but antitrust enforcement in China has not taken a vacation.

ARTICLES BY CHINESE ANTITRUST LAWYERS

AUTO PARTS ARTICLE

In the article, Analysis of NDRC Penalty Decision on 12 Auto Parts and Bearing Companies_AnJie_Michael Gu_Eng_20140830, Note of Caution: Record Fines on 12 Japanese Auto Parts and Bearing Manufactures – Analysis of the NDRC’s Penalty Decision and Countermeasures of Companies,Michael Gu, an antitrust partner in the AnJie Law Firm, in Beijing states:

Introduction

Within six years of implementation of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, the China’s law enforcement agency responsible for supervising price monopoly, the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), continues to strengthen its law enforcement efforts with rounds of “antitrust storm” that swept across a number of industries and companies along with record fines.

This is especially true since 2013, the NDRC has probed into number of high-profile penalty cases, including the LCD Panel case, Moutai and Wuliangye case, Baby Formula case, Shanghai Gold Jewelers case and Spectacle Lenses case. Meanwhile, the NDRC has also launched investigation into the US high-tech giants, InterDigital and Qualcomm. For InterDigital case, the investigation has been suspended. As for Qualcomm case, Qualcomm has manifested their willingness to cooperate with the NDRC in its investigation and has submitted relevant commitment.

The “antitrust round up” of the automobile and auto parts industries is undoubtedly the most prominent case recently. Under such high pressure of antitrust law enforcement, a number of major foreign invested automobile manufacturers, including BMW, Benz, Audi, Toyota and Chrysler etc., have recently announced their price cut for auto parts. On August 20, the NDRC has announced its punishment of 12 Japanese auto parts and bearing companies who engaged in price related monopolistic behavior. Eight auto parts manufacturers are imposed fines totaling RMB 831.96 million (approximately USD 135.50 million), although Hitachi is exempted of the penalty. Four bearing manufacturers are imposed fines totaling RMB 403.44 million (approximately USD 65.70 million), although Nachi-Fujikoshi is exempted of the penalty. The combined amount of the fines reaches RMB 1.24 billion (approximately USD 200 million), setting up another record in China’s Anti-Monopoly Law’s enforcement.

This article will analyze the train of thought and trends of the NDRC’s anti-monopoly law enforcement, application of leniency program, impact of actions of the companies (including responses to investigations and illegal conducts) on the amount of the fines, and suggestions for relevant companies in dealing with antitrust investigation. . . .

Conclusion and Suggestions for the Companies

This record penalty decision demonstrates NDRC’s determination to intensify its antitrust law enforcement. Six years since the implementation of AML, the NDRC has taken more active and aggressive approach targeting a wider range in industries. This case will not be the finishing line, but merely a starting line that directs enforcement to areas closely related to the people’s livelihood, which have always been under its antitrust radar, such as petroleum, health care, telecommunication, pharmaceuticals, automotive, banks and consumer goods.

It is worth mentioning that the NDRC has indicated in its announcement that it will conduct further investigation following the leads uncovered in this case. Thus, the relevant companies should pay special attention to their possible monopolistic conduct related to this case or other auto parts and take necessary actions in a timely manner. They are strongly encouraged to report to the NDRC as early as possible in order to obtain exemption and reduction of fines.

The NDRC has adopted more stringent and definitive approach in application of leniency program. The NDRC has placed the leniency applicants in order and granted them exemption and reduction of fines accordingly. Companies need to seek professional advice in making leniency applications as to set up appropriate strategies in securing its first place by submitting the most important evidence to the NDRC within a short period of time and cooperating with the NDRC in its investigation.

The current heated antitrust law enforcement has posed unprecedented compliance challenges to all types of companies including foreign, domestic and even state-owned companies. Companies are suggested to take the following proactive measures to control and minimize risks associated with antitrust compliance:

1. Companies should conduct internal antitrust audit to inspect and evaluate potential antitrust risk with the assistance of external counsel. It’s also advisable to provide up-to-date and tailored antitrust trainings for senior management and employees, promote awareness of antitrust compliance.

2. For companies that are already found to be in potential violation of AML, it is recommended to voluntarily report to antitrust law enforcement agencies as soon as possible and to take rectification after seeking professional advice. Rectification measures may cover rectified sales policy and sales agreement that involves price-fixing and correction of conducts of price-fixing and collusive bidding, etc. Such measures shall be sufficient to maintain competition in the market and benefit the consumers.

3. Companies that have been dawn-raided by the antitrust law enforcement agencies should cope with the investigation appropriately, defend its legitimate interest and be proactive depending on the situation (e.g. propose defense regarding the gravity of the conduct and calculation of fines). In this case, Sumitomo has submitted written defense within one week of its receipt of the Prior-Notice of Administrative Penalty issued by NDRC. The defense addresses the miscalculation of turnover of joint venture that is involved. The NDRC has accepted its defense and granted a reduction of RMB 52.32 million in its fine. It can be seen that proactive approach and proposal of defense could help the companies avoid or mitigate penalties.

MICROSOFT ARTICLE

In the report on Chinese antitrust law by the Chinese T&D Law Firm, T&D Monthly Antitrust Report of July 2014, which will be attached to my blog, Chinese antitrust lawyer John Ren had this to say about the Microsoft case:

SAIC Initiates Anti-Monopoly Investigation on Microsoft

29 July, 2014 According to the information issued on the SAIC’s official website , on July 28, around 100 enforcement officials from the SAIC conducted dawn raids on Microsoft China and its branch companies in Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. In June 2013, SAIC verified whether Microsoft violated the AML because of the allegation of the compatibility issue due to the non-full disclosure of information about the Windows operational system and office software, tying, and file validation, reported by other enterprises. During the verification, SAIC successively interviewed Microsoft and relevant enterprises, and Microsoft submitted the responding reports focusing on issues SAIC paid attentions to. In the period, relevant enterprises also continued to provide relevant information to SAIC. SAIC concluded that the preliminary verification cannot remove the suspicion of anti-competitive practices as mentioned above. Therefore, SAIC has initiated the investigation on Microsoft for its suspected anti-monopoly conducts pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations.

On July 28, 2014, according to the AML, SAIC conducted dawn raids on four of Microsoft’s business locations, i.e. Microsoft China and its branch companies in Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chengdu. The personnel who were investigated included the Vice Presidents, senior management and the relevant staffs in the marketing, financial and other departments of Microsoft. The enforcement officials of SAIC copied some contracts and financial statements of Microsoft, extracted large amounts of electronic data including internal communication documents and emails, and sealed and removed two working computers. During the dawn raids, the investigation contents had not been fully completed, since according to Microsoft, some of the major staffs who need to be investigated were not in China at this stage. SAIC has instructed Microsoft to arrange relevant staffs to visit SAIC for being inspected as soon as possible.

Microsoft’s Chinese councils witnessed the entire enforcement practice conducted the by SAIC. Currently, the case is still under investigation.

NOW INDIA

Now India has followed China’s lead and its antitrust agency have hit 14 carmakers, including General Motors and Ford, with fines totaling 2,545 crore ($420.3 million) for violating India’s competition laws by allegedly restricting the ability of independent repair shops to enter the market.

The Competition Commission of India alleged the companies abused their dominant position by denying access to branded spare parts and diagnostic tools to independent repairers, hampering competition while allowing authorized dealers to charge higher prices.

SECURITIES

LIHUA

On August 15, 2014, William Peck filed the attached shareholder derivative suit, LIHUA COMPLAINT, in New York Federal District Court against Lihua International, Inc, Jianhua Zhu, Daphne Yan Huang, Yaying Wang, Robert C. Bruce, Jonathan P. Serbin, Siu Ki “Kelvin” Lau, Tian Bao Wang and Ming Zhang. Lihua is a China-based copper products company, and the attached complaint alleges materially false and misleading public filings that failed to disclose a substantial asset transfer out of the company by its former CEO. The shareholders say that eight executives and board members “knew nothing” about the former CEO’s alleged diversion of assets to another company, Power Apex Holdings Ltd., which the plaintiffs say is ultimately owned by the People’s Republic of China. The new derivative suit says the company is already being sued by two putative classes of shareholders who lost money in the stock drop.

CHINA MEDIA EXPRESS

On August 15, 2014, in the attached decision, CHINA MEDIA OPINION, a New York Federal Judge certified a class of investors in a class action securities case against China MediaExpress Holdings Inc. The Plaintiff allege the Chinese company concealed material information and made various misstatement and omissions that eventually led to a stock drop. The complaint was filed in February 2011.

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (“FCPA”)

VOLKSWAGEN

On August 25, 2014, there were reports out of China that the Chinese government has launched an anticorruption probe into a former and a current executive at one of Volkswagen AG ‘s China joint ventures. The Communist Party’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection accused Li Wu, a former deputy general manager at FAW-Volkswagen Automobile Co., and Zhou Chun, a deputy general manager of the joint venture’s Audi sales division, of “suspected serious violations of discipline and law.” The phrase is typically used in Chinese corruption cases.

DORSEY FCPA DIGEST

In the attached August edition of the FCPA Digest, DORSEY Anti_Corruption_Digest_Aug2014, Dorsey lawyers report on a corruption investigation involving China stating:

“China

It has been reported that China commenced an investigation into former domestic security chief, Zhou Yongkang, on suspicion of corruption. The Communist Party decided to question Zhou Yongkang for suspected “serious disciplinary violations”, according to the official Xinhua news agency. The investigation will be conducted by the Party’s watchdog, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection.

During Zhou Yongkang’s five-year appointment as security chief, he oversaw the police force, civilian intelligence apparatus, paramilitary police, judges and prosecutors.”

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS

On August 6, 2014, Andrew Dennison filed the attached class action securities case against China Commercial Credit, Inc., Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianmin Yin, Jingeng Ling, Xiangdong Xiao and John F. Levy. CHINA COMMERCIAL

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–TRADE, OCTG AND SOLAR, TTP, CUSTOMS, IP/PATENT, ANTITRUST AND SECURITIES

Renmin Square Chongqing Sichuan China at Night“TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET”

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER—MARCH 7, 2014

Dear Friends,

There have been major developments in the trade, Solar Cells, TTP, TPA, Chinese Antidumping, patents, US/Chinese antitrust, and securities areas.

TRADE

THE OCTG EXAMPLE—WHY NME STATUS FOR CHINA DOES NOT REFLECT MARKET REALITY

As indicated in past newsletters, the nonmarket economy status of China means that the Commerce Department does not use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping rates for Chinese companies.  In addition, Chinese companies must submit separate rates applications to show that the company is separate and independent from the Chinese government or the Chinese company will be considered part of the Chinese entity and get the highest antidumping rate.

Although the US China WTO Agreement provides that China is to be treated as a market economy by December 11, 2016, recently in Washington DC, US government officials indicated that they have no intention of abiding by this Agreement and will continue to follow the US antidumping law as written.  In other words, as it stands now, the Commerce Department will not make China a market economy country in 2016, even though this provision was put into the WTO Accession Agreement at the demand of the United States.

The unfairness of the NME methodology against China, however, is illustrated by the Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Cases on Oil Country Tubular Goods, which are steel pipes used to drill oil wells.  In January 2010 the Commerce Department issued a countervailing duty order on OCTG from China with rates ranging from 10.49 to 15.78.  On May 2010, the Commerce Department issued an antidumping order on OCTG from China with dumping rates ranging from 32.07% to 99%.  These high rates had the effect of shutting most Chinese OCTG out of the US market.  CVDOCTGORDER  AD ORDER OCTG

Again, since it is a Nonmarket Economy Country, the Chinese CVD/anti-subsidy  rates are based on the Commerce Department’s refusal to look at any benchmarks in China.  In the Antidumping (“AD”) Case, the Commerce Department refused to look at any prices or costs in China.  In the China OCTG case, Commerce used surrogate values from publicly available published information in India, most of which were Indian import statistics.  But if products can be sourced domestically in India, often import statistics are highly inflated.

In the first review investigation on OCTG from China, Commerce decided to pick values for raw materials from a list of different surrogate countries, including Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine.  Commerce chose Indonesia.  OCTG PRELIM  Since importers are exposed to retroactive liability if antidumping rates go up and the Commerce Department is constantly switching surrogate countries so the Chinese companies cannot know whether they are dumping, no importer is willing to take the risk and import from China with exposure to millions of dollars in retroactive antidumping and countervailing duties on OCTG from China.

So what happened?  Because of the high antidumping and countervailing duty rates against China based on bogus cost calculations, imports from other countries entered the United States and replaced the Chinese imports.  On July 2, 2013, in response to the increase in imports from other countries, the US OCTG industry filed antidumping investigations against India, Korea, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam and countervailing duty investigations against India and Turkey.

As the ITC stated in its atached preliminary staff report:

Subject imports of OCTG have increased since 2010.  At the beginning of 2010, Countervailing duties on OCTG imported from China entered into effect, and antidumping duties followed in April 2010.  After the placement of AD and CVD duties on Chinese product, subject imports increased….

ITC PRELIMINARY OCTG MANY COUNTRIES Pub4422 OCTG pdf

As the Commission also stated in its preliminary staff report, “Korea has been the largest source of imports of OCTG since 2010.”  In fact, the word on the street was that the Koreans had increased their exports to the US replacing more than 50% of the Chinese imports.

In fact, since 1984 OCTG imports have been the subject of approximately 50 antidumping and countervailing duty investigations against various countries.  The first OCTG cases were filed in 1984 and I worked on those cases when I was at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in the early 1980s.  In effect, the US OCTG industry has had some form of protection from imports for about 30 years.

In the CVD cases, the Petition alleged that the Indian companies were allegedly benefitting from almost 70 different Indian government subsidy programs and the Turkish companies from almost 25 different Turkish government programs.

But now the Commerce Department must use actual benchmarks in target countries to calculate countervailing duty rates and actual prices and costs to calculate antidumping rates.

On December 17, 2013, the Commerce Department issued its preliminary Countervailing Duty Determinations against India and Turkey.  Despite the allegations that the Indian and Turkish companies were benefitting from a total of almost a hundred government programs, the Countervailing Duty Rates for India and Turkey, Drum Roll Please, were 0 to 3.5% for India and 0% for Turkey.  factsheet-OCTG-Prelim-multiple-121713

On February 18, 2014, the Commerce Department issued its attached preliminary antidumping determinations.  OCTG PRELIMINARY AD DETERMINATION FACT SHEET  Other than Thailand, most producers in the countries answered the Commerce Department’s antidumping questionnaire.  What were the actual calculated antidumping rates based on actual prices and costs in their respective countries?

The Korean producers, the largest exporters, received antidumping rates of 0% and a complete negative antidumping determination as to Korea.

The Indian producers received antidumping rates of 0 to 55.29%.  The Philippines producer received 8.9%.  The Saudi Arabian producer 2.65%.  The Taiwan producers received antidumping rates ranging from 0 to 2.65%.  The Turkish producers received rates of 0 to 4.87%.  The Ukrainian producer, Ukraine is a market economy country, received a rate of 5.31%.

When the Commerce Department uses actual prices and costs in the subject country to calculate actual antidumping rates, high dumping rates fall dramatically and are often non-existent.  But the Commerce Department has used an unfair methodology against China in US AD and CVD cases for more than 30 years and has no intention at the present time of ever treating China as a market economy country.  This is fairness Commerce style.

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS—TPA, TPP, TTIP/TA AND BALI/DOHA ROUND

As mentioned in past newsletters, 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)/ the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP negotiations.  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.  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.

During a recent trip to Washington DC, Government officials and Congressional staff stated that they were firmly convinced that the TPA will eventually pass Congress.  Apparently, the TPA must start up in the House of Representatives and according to a knowledgeable source, there is bipartisan support for the TPA in the House.  The source mentioned that if the House passes the TPA, there will be substantial pressure in the Senate to pass the TPA and knowledgeable officials believe that a House originated TPA would pass the Senate today.  But that source could be wrong.

According to government officials, any Senator or Congressman can see the current negotiating text of the TPP or TTIP.  Also any interested Senator or Congressman can ask to be a “Congressional advisor” and such Senator or Congressman will be given negotiating credentials and can attend any of the negotiating sessions.  Congressional Staffers from relevant Congressional committees also have been at the TPP and TTIP negotiations.

These activities indicate that the Trade Agreements are moving and when Trade Agreements move in Congress, at a certain point in time, there becomes a band wagon effect and everyone wants to jump onboard the Free Trade/FTA Express.  We will have to see if that bandwagon effect truly starts up in Congress.

TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY (“TPA”), TPP AND THE TTIP/TRANS-ATLANTIC NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE AS CONGRESSIONAL GROUPS PUSH TPA THROUGH CONGRESS

As mentioned, in my last newsletter, on January 29th, the day after President Obama pushed the TPA in the State of the Union, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the TPA bill would not be introduced on the Senate Floor.

To summarize, 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.

Senators Baucus and Hatch introduced the TPA in the Senate.  Chairman Camp of the House Ways and Means Committee introduced the TPA bill in the House, but President Obama could not persuade one Democratic Congressman to introduce the TPA bill into the House.

After the January 16th hearing, Republicans, including House Speaker Boehner, and free trade Democrats urged President Obama to get more involved saying that he has to become personally involved in pushing the TPA or the new Bill will simply not pass Congress. Many trade commentators were stating that if the President’s trade agenda falls apart, there is no one else to blame but the President himself.  They argue that the President has failed to reassure doubters, explain trade’s enormous benefits, assuage concerns, correct misconceptions, or make an affirmative public case as to why new trade agreements are essential to the nation’s prosperity.  This failure has left a vacuum that has been filled by organized, anti-trade interests, many on the Democratic side of the aisle, who have made it very difficult for Democratic Congressmen to support the TPA and the Trade Agreements.

In response to the Republicans call in Congress for the Administration to do more, on January 28th President Obama spoke about the importance of the importance of the TPA and the Trade Agreements in his State of the Union.  On January 29th, however, Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, the head Democrat in the Senate, came out against TPA, stating, “Everyone would be well-advised to not push this right now.”

Since the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid controls the bills that are allowed on the Senate Floor, the statement appeared to indicate that the TPA bills are dead in the Congress, which means that the President’s trade agenda and his push for these agreements are also dead.

On January 29th White House press secretary Jay Carney stated:

“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.”

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.

Although the Administration apparently looked at Senator Reid’s statement as a setback, they have decided to push forward.  On February 10th, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) Froman stated with regards to Labor Standards that the TPP and the other agreements offer a chance to improve global labor practices and to raise standards across the globe.  On February 14th the Administration stated that despite opposition of the top Congressional Democrats, the Administration still aims to complete the TPP negotiations in 2014.

On February 18th President Obama promoted the benefits of the TPP in discussions with the Mexican President and Canadian Prime Minister.  During that trip, Obama stated that it was “inaccurate” to suggest that Democratic lawmakers universally oppose the TPP, adding that he believes the agreement, if it’s a good one, will ultimately pick up approval in Congress. “There are elements of my party that oppose this trade deal; there are elements of my party that oppose the South Korea free trade agreement, the Colombia free trade agreement and the Panama free trade agreement — all of which we passed with Democratic votes.  So what I’ve said to President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Harper is we’ll get this passed if it’s a good agreement.”

On February 18th USTR Michael Froman stated that the Obama administration would put in place transparency measures to quell criticism of TPP and TTIP, stressing that the two deals need to advance to significantly improve employment and environmental standards around the globe and better protect U.S. intellectual property.

In a speech at the Center for American Progress’ office, Froman stated that the and that the Trade Agreements are opportunities to help shape the terms of a significant segment of international trade and raise global standards through the promotion of U.S. values, according to the USTR.  Froman stated:

“Trade, done right, is part of the solution, not part of the problem. . . Through enforcement actions we are able to stand up for our rights and fight for our people. Through negotiations we are able to create new opportunities.”

The USTR acknowledged Congressional criticism about the deals and urged Congress to “step forward” and update its role in negotiating trade agreements. He said members of Congress were welcome to view the text of the deals as they stand at any time, and noted that no trade agreement will win approval without Congressional assent.

The Chorus has begun to rise about the benefits of the Agreements.  On February 19th, Mr. Myron Briliant, the executive vice president and head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Why Harry Reid Must Reconsider on Trade”, stating:

“Take the U.S. auto industry, which has made a comeback after the recession. Automobiles made in the U.S. face a 35% import tariff in Malaysia, shutting American manufacturers out of the market.

Though the U.S. is the largest agricultural exporter in the world, Vietnam levies double- and triple-digit duties on U.S. farm goods. The country recently raised taxes on a number of products ranging from walnuts to tomato sauce. Express shippers, insurers and banks are at a major disadvantage in Japan, where regulations prop up a state-owned company called Japan Post Holdings.

The interference damages the U.S. economy.  In 2010, the Commerce Department estimated that foreign tariffs reduce the earnings of U.S. factory workers by as much as 12%. The impact spreads to other sectors such as agriculture due to non-tariff barriers including unscientific sanitary requirements. The way to fix these inequalities? New trade agreements that demand accountability and fairness.

Free trade agreements have eliminated disadvantages in the past. America’s 20 trade-agreement partners represent 10% of the global economy, but they buy nearly half of our exports. Citizens of these countries purchase 12 times more U.S. exports per capita than citizens of countries without trade agreements. The U.S. boasts a trade surplus in manufacturing, agriculture and services with these 20 partners, unlike the trade deficit it runs with the rest of the world.

American workers reap the benefits. Earnings are 18% higher for workers in factories that export than in those that don’t, according to a 2010 Commerce Department report.

Small businesses also stand to gain from freer trade. Large firms often find a way to work around foreign trade barriers, but tariffs are often a deal-breaker for small companies. Creating new trade agreements would significantly help the U.S.’s 300,000 small exporters. . . .

But to tackle any of these inequalities, Congress must first approve TPA. . . .Without TPA, U.S. exports will remain at a profound disadvantage. Renewing TPA would help restore fair competition in trade—and put economic growth in the U.S. ahead of partisan politics.”

 

On February 24th, it was reported that the US and Japan were not able to reach agreement in the most recent TPP negotiations.  In attached letter dated February 21st, Grassley-Bennet-Letter-to-Froman-Japan-TPP-2-21-14-2 a bipartisan group of senators urged the U.S. not to close TPP negotiations unless Japan agrees to drop protection for certain agricultural products.  Specifically, 18 senators led by Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Michael F. Bennet, D-Colo., told U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman that they were concerned that Japan had not yet made an offer in the course of the TPP negotiations to open up its agriculture sector without exceptions. The senators said that allowing special treatment for some of Japan’s agricultural products may undermine U.S. efforts to secure more access to the agriculture markets in the 11 other countries involved in the TPP.

As the Senators stated:

“We write to express our concerns that Japan has not yet made a comprehensive offer on agricultural products as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. We believe that this situation could undermine the Administration’s goal of significantly increasing market access for U.S. agricultural products in TPP party countries.

In previous trade negotiations, the United States requested and received full and comprehensive liberalization in the agricultural sector from both developed countries like Japan as well as developing countries. By requesting special treatment for its agricultural sector in the TPP, Japan may upset the careful balance of concessions that the eleven economies involved in the negotiations have achieved. If Japan continues to insist on protecting certain agricultural products, other countries with sensitivities in the agricultural sector may make similar demands.

As intended, the TPP will facilitate additional trade relationships with Asia-Pacific countries and set an important precedent for future trade agreements. Most immediately, a positive outcome with Japan on sensitive agricultural products will buoy the prospects for reaching an acceptable agreement with the EU in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations.

The market access package that the Administration negotiates with Japan has the potential to support billions of dollars in future exports and hundreds of thousands of jobs. For this reason, we seek assurances from you that the U.S. will not close the TPP negotiations without an acceptable comprehensive agreement with Japan to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers in agriculture.”

 

In the last week in February, USTR Froman went to Singapore to meet with trade ministers from the 11 other TPP countries — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The ministerial meeting was the first since December, when the TPP countries stated they could not wrap up negotiations by the end of 2013.

At the Singapore meeting, the two countries that had problems were Japan and Canada.  The TPP discussions ended February 25th with no agreement although gaps on unresolved issues had narrowed, and the 12 countries in the talks remain “fully committed” to closing a deal.

The U.S. has pushed for greater access to the Japanese agriculture market, while Japan has sought to keep tariff and other trade protections on certain agricultural products, such as rice, wheat and pork.

On March 3rd it was reported that representatives of the US dairy industry were losing patience with Japan and Canada and their failure to fully open their markets to foreign dairy productions.  The concern was so high that they raised the issue of closing the talks without Japan and Canada.  Apparently, in Singapore, not only the United States, but the rest of the countries were increasingly impatient with Japan and Canada.

After the close of a TPP ministers’ meeting in Singapore, the National Milk Producers Federation and the U.S. Dairy Export Council issued a joint statement calling for negotiators to ramp up the pressure on Japan and Canada to secure full tariff elimination on dairy products.

“It is time to finish the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, including resolving the treatment of agricultural trade,” USDEC President Tom Suber said. “The principle of creating comprehensive market access is too important to this and future trade agreements. Therefore, if Japan and Canada are not committed to this goal, we need to move forward without them.”

Recently, in Washington DC, government sources indicated that if there is no movement from the two countries, the TPP should be finalized without Japan and Canada.

The two US Dairy groups also reiterated their longstanding demands that a final TPP deal include effective disciplines for applying sanitary and phytosanitary measures that are science based and enforceable and prevent restrictions on the use of common food products.

The Congressional problem is most apparent in the debate over whether to include currency manipulation restrictions in the TPP.  Dire warnings over misaligned currency creating unfair advantages in exports have become a rallying cry for US industries.  It appears quite likely that any bill providing trade promotion authority will insist that the TPP and any other trade agreement include a provision addressing the use of monetary policy or other methods to promote exports through currency manipulation.

Numerous countries participating in the TPP negotiations, however, have already taken a strong stance against the inclusion of any provision on currency, and the Obama administration is on record opposing the provisions for that reason.

Obama wants the Trade Agreements, but not if they conflict with a more immediate political goal, preserving the Senate in the mid-term 2014 for the Democrats.  That balancing act has marked Mr. Obama’s approach since 2008. To persuade union voters who blame globalization for stagnant wages, Obama the candidate spoke of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. Then, as President, he dropped the idea.

As a fallback strategy, Mr. Obama and his aides now aim to flip the situation around. They hope to persuade lawmakers to grant that authority after midterm elections by showing them a tentative Asia deal.  That would leave little time for action before the 2016 presidential primary season — which, if 2008 is any guide, will probably increase Democratic resistance.

During my recent trip to Washington, I began to see a more optimistic view of the Trade Talks.  Congressional staffers and commentators stated that Sen. Reid’s position on trade is well known and that he has a decades-long record of opposition to trade agreements.  His current stance is completely consistent with that record.  But Reid could have stopped the ratification of recent free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, but he did not.

One reason is China.  While China is not part of the TPP, hopefully the TPP will create rules, which can used to restrain some of the Chinese actions in the future. People familiar with the negotiations say China is watching closely, consulting with players at the table and lobbying through its proxies against proposed new standards for state-owned enterprises.  New rules ratified in the Trans-Pacific Partnership would set a minimum expectation for any future, broader deal that might one day include China, such as an all-Asia free-trade zone.

USTR ISSUES ANNUAL TRADE REPORT TO CONGRESS

On March 3rd, the USTR issued its annual trade report to Congress.  Chapter I The Presidents Trade Policy Agenda  In its summary, the USTR stated that concluding the TPP and the TTIP with Europe were two primary objectives:

Conclude the Ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations . . .

TPP will expand U.S. trade with dynamic economies throughout the rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region. Experts estimate that economies around the Pacific Rim will continue to grow faster than the world average, elevating income levels and creating increased market opportunities. Along with the United States, TPP partners now include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. . . . According to an analysis supported by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a successful TPP agreement would provide global income benefits of an estimated $223 billion per year, by 2025, while potentially expanding annual U.S. exports by $124 billion. TPP countries also account for 28 percent of global marine catch and over a third of global timber production, thus providing a meaningful opportunity to advance environmental stewardship efforts in the region.

The entry of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy, into TPP negotiations in July 2013 has further expanded the commercial impact of the TPP agreement.

Advance Negotiations with the European Union in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

On June 17, 2013 President Obama and EU leaders announced that the United States and the EU would launch negotiations on a comprehensive trade and investment agreement to strengthen a partnership that already supports $1 trillion in annual two-way trade, nearly $4 trillion in investment, and roughly 13 million direct jobs – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) agreement.

This year, we expect to make significant progress in the T-TIP negotiations. After three negotiating rounds in the latter half of 2013, the Administration plans to maintain a similar pace for the talks in 2014.

On March 4th, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) released the following statement in response to the President’s 2014 Trade Agenda:

Camp: “I welcome the Administration’s focus on developing new markets for goods and services produced by U.S. manufacturers, service providers, and farmers, as well as on ensuring that our trading partners play by the rules. In particular, I hope that we can conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership shortly with those countries now willing, ready, and able to meet its ambitious obligations. We must increase market access for goods, services, and agriculture products, as well as secure enforceable rules related to issues such as intellectual property protection, disciplines on state-owned enterprises, restraints on localization barriers, investor-state dispute settlement, cross-border data flows, and disciplines on sanitary and phytosanitary barriers. . . .

“While the Agenda fails to address the problem of currency manipulation, it otherwise generally meets the objectives set in the bipartisan, bicameral Trade Priorities Act. That legislation also provides the necessary tools to address the unfairness and distortion caused when countries manipulate their currencies to gain a trade advantage.

“TPA is my top trade priority because it opens new markets and establishes enforceable rules for our trading partners, creating new U.S. jobs and economic activity. The President will not be able to conclude and implement any of the trade negotiations set forth in his Agenda without TPA. That’s why I was so surprised to see TPA barely mentioned in the document. In addition, while I welcome the transparency measures outlined in the Agenda, our bipartisan bill goes considerably further in setting out requirements for the Administration to consult with Congress and share timely and detailed information – another reason why I am seeking rapid bipartisan consideration of this bill. TPA is necessary to set out the negotiating objectives that Congress defines as vital, establish the terms for Congressional consultations during the negotiations, and retain for Congress the final say in consideration of implementing bills after the negotiations.

SOLAR CELLS—NEW ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASE TO CLOSE THIRD COUNTRY LOOPHOLE AND AGAINST CHINA AND TAIWAN

Attached is my latest article on the Solar Cell/Products Wars with China in the Solar Industry Magazine.  PERRY ARTICLE SOLAR INDUSTRY MAGAZINE

As mentioned in previous newsletters, 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.  See the attached initiation notice, factsheet-multiple-solar-products-initiation-012313 which includes the scope of the merchandise, the specific products covered by the new antidumping and countervailing duty investigations.

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.

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.

In the attached February 5, 2014 letter to President Obama, SOLAR WORLD LETTER Solar World, the Petitioner in the Solar Cells and Solar Products cases, stated that it “remains open to any prospective resolution that promises to hold China accountable to trade agreements and laws that enable fair trade. “

On February 14, 2014, as indicated in the attached announcement, ITC AFFIRMATIVE PRELIM SOLAR PRODUCTS CASE.htm the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), four Commissioners voting, reached an affirmative preliminary injury determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from China that are allegedly subsidized and from China and Taiwan that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value.

In response to the ITC vote, on February 19, 2014, MOFCOM stated that the ITC failed to consider the facts in determining that Chinese solar products had caused “substantial damage” to the U.S. domestic industry.   MOFCOM in particular pointed out that solar products “originated in China bring huge commercial benefits and job opportunities for the upstream and downstream industries of the U.S.”

MOFCOM went on to emphasize that solving trade disputes through dialogue and negotiations is the best way to solve the Solar problems between the US and China.

As mentioned in previous newsletters, the ITC’s standard in a 45 day preliminary injury investigations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases is very low.  To find a “reasonable indication” of material injury or threat of material injury all the Commissioners have to find is that more evidence will be discovered in a final injury investigation  Thus, the ITC decision was simply to continue the investigation and not that that Chinese imports caused substantial damage to the US industry.

Also as mentioned in previous newsletters, there is no public interest test and end user companies do not have standing in US antidumping and countervailing duty cases.  Thus, the ITC cannot consider whether the Chinese imports are providing substantial benefits to downstream industries or consumers in its determination.

On a recent trip to Washington DC, several knowledgeable sources stated that there is still no real movement at the Commerce Department on a Suspension Agreement in the Solar Cells/Products cases.  This would indicate that although there has been a lot of talk, there is still no action.

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 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.

As indicated above, at the present time, Commerce takes the position that it will not make China a market economy country in 2016 as required  by the WTO Accession Agreement.  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 newsletters we will provide additional information about the Alliance and specific meeting days in different areas of the United States.

CHINESE ANTIDUMPING CASE—DRY CLEANING CHEMICALS FROM THE US

On February 20th, it was reported that China has imposed provisional anti-dumping duties ranging from 33 percent to more than 76 percent on dry cleaning chemicals from the U.S. and Europe after finding the imports were sold at unfair prices and were injuring Chinese producers.  More specifically, MOFCOM announced that it would level antidumping duties on imports from the US and Europe of perchlorethylene, a chemical sometimes referred to as tetrachloroethylene, and used as a solvent in the dry cleaning industry.

According to MOFCOM, U.S.-based Dow Chemical Co., PPG Industries Inc., Axiall Corp. and Occidental Chemical Corp. all face 76.2 percent dumping margins under the provisional Chinese duty order.

CUSTOMS

EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STREAMLINE TRADE 

On February 19th, President Obama signed the attached executive order executive order to speed up the creation of a single, electronic portal for businesses to submit information related to shipments that cross U.S. borders, a move intended to save time and money for importers and exporters.

The executive order calls for the development, by the end of 2016, of an International Trade Data System that would allow businesses to provide import and export data to the U.S. government through a “single window,” according to a fact sheet put out by the White House. The changes are expected to cut processing and approval times “from days to minutes” for shipments coming to and leaving the U.S.

CUSTOMS FRAUD—LIABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND EMPLOYEES

There has been a recent development at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) regarding the liability of individuals for Customs violations with a CAFC decision to hold an en banc review by the entire Court of its July 30, 2013 decision in United States v. Trek Leather, Inc.  United States v. Trek Leather, Inc., 724 F.3d 1330 (CAFC 2013) In that case a three judge panel in the CAFC based on a 2-1 decision determined that corporate officers of an “importer of record” are not directly liable for penalties under § 1592(c)(2) “absent piercing Trek’s corporate veil to establish that Shadadpuri was the actual importer of record, as defined by statute, or establishing that Shadadpuri is liable for fraud under §1592(a)(1)(A), or as an aider and abettor of fraud.”

On March 5, 2014 the CAFC issued the attached orderTREK LEATHER CASE accepting the US Government’s petition for a rehearing en banc, which means a hearing before all eleven judges of the CAFC.  The CAFC ordering the parties to file briefs on the following issues:

A) 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a) imposes liability on any “person” who “enter[s], introduce[s], or attempt[s] to enter or introduce” merchandise into United States commerce by means of fraud, gross negligence, or negligence by the means described in § 1592(a). What is the meaning of “person” within this statutory provision?  How do other statutory provisions of Title 19 affect this inquiry?

B) If corporate officers or shareholders qualify as “persons” under § 1592(a), can they be held personally liable for duties and penalties imposed under § 1592(c)(2)

and

(3) when, while acting within the course and scope of their employment on behalf of the corporation by which they are employed, they provide inaccurate information relating to the entry or introduction of merchandise into the United States by their corporation? If so, under what circumstances?

C) What is the scope of “gross negligence” and “negligence” in 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a) and what is the relevant duty? How do other statutory provisions in Title 19 affect this inquiry?

In its request for the rehearing, the Government stated:

“The panel’s decision provides a roadmap for importers to negligently violate the customs laws; one individual can transact the same importing business using multiple shell companies as importers of record, allowing evasion of personal liability for duties and penalties in all but the most egregious situations.”

FDA—FOOD PROBLEMS

WASHINGTON/PACIFIC COAST SHELLFISH BANNED FROM CHINA—NOW TRANSSHIPMENT

With regards to the Chinese ban on shellfish from the West Coast, on January 31st it was reported that the Chinese government wants to send an audit team to the US to check how seafood is tested.  In the meantime, they would not relax the ban on the West Coast shellfish.

The Chinese government had detected inorganic arsenic in a November shipment of geoducks from Washington’s Poverty Bay. That shipment and another from Ketchikan, Alaska, that was tainted with algae toxin, led China on Dec. 3 to ban all imports of bivalve shellfish harvested in Washington, Alaska, Oregon and Northern California.

The ban has seriously hurt the Pacific Northwest shellfish industry, blocking imports to the major market for geoducks right before Friday’s observance of Chinese New Year.

In Early February it was reported that the ban on Pacific Coast shellfish is still in place as the US government had received a letter from China stating the fact.

See the attached article and a link to a report by Chinese television on the Geoduck problem http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2014/01/23/chinese-tv-discusses-shellfish-import-ban/#axzz2v8CrqCIY

A local Washington newspaper reported that one Indian tribe was able to get around the Chinese ban on shellfish imports by shipping the geoducks to Hong Kong and Canada.  One Tribal Fisheries Manager stated that Buyers were able to get around the ban “by going through Canada and Hong Kong to get restricted American geoducks to China. .  . Some of the buyers are Canadian.  They end up buying product, crossing the border and shipping to China that way . . .Other buyers have been able to get product to Hong Kong and over to China. . . The buyers themselves are figuring out ways to get product to China.”

The problem is that these schemes are considered transshipment, and the US government and US Congressmen have been complaining about this unfair practice in Chinese food imports for many, many years.

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.

What goes around does indeed come around.

PATENT/IP AND 337 CASES

ITC IS MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR PATENT TROLLS

In a Jan. 9 decision clearing Hewlett-Packard Co. and others of infringement, the ITC reversed long-standing precedent and held for the first time that in order to use licensing activities to satisfy the domestic industry requirement for suing at the ITC, nonpracticing entities (“NPES”) must prove that there are products that practice the patent.

The Commission specifically stated in the order:

“We affirm the ALJ’s application of his ground rules to find that TPL failed to demonstrate the existence of articles practicing the mapping patents.  . . .  Because TPL did not demonstrate the existence of articles practicing the mapping patents, it cannot demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry.”

In this decision the ITC reversed long-standing precedent and held for the first time that in order to use licensing activities to satisfy the domestic industry requirement for suing at the ITC, NPES must prove that there are products that practice the patent.

The ITC had previously held that licensing alone could satisfy the requirement, regardless of whether licensees used the patents in their products. Proving the existence of products covered by the patents may be difficult for NPES and could discourage them from suing at the ITC.  Those NPES that do not keep close watch on whether the invention is being practiced will have a much more difficult time meeting the domestic industry requirement at the ITC.

ITC REQUESTS EN BANC REHEARING AT CAFC OF SUPREMA DECISION

On February 21, 2014, the ITC requested at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) a panel rehearing or a rehearing en bank of the CAFC December 13th decision in Suprema v.International Trade Commission.  In Suprema, the CAFC by a split vote vacated the exclusionary order in Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-720, holding that “an exclusion order based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may not be predicated on a theory of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) where direct infringement does not occur until after importation of the articles the exclusion order would bar.”  See previous January Post for a description and copy of the CAFC decision.

In its Brief filed at the CAFC, the ITC argues that this December 13th decision overturns many past 337 decisions and is contrary to CAFC and Supreme Court precedent stating:

By holding that “there are no ‘articles that . . . infringe’ at the time of importation when direct infringement has yet to occur”, the panel overlooked Supreme Court precedent that culpability for induced infringement is independent from direct infringement and attaches at “the distribution of the tool intended for infringing use.” . . . The panel also overlooked this Court’s precedent that liability for infringement by inducement attaches “as of the time the acts were committed, not at some future date” of direct infringement. . . .

By interpreting 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) to reach only articles that directly infringe at the time of importation, the panel overlooked decades of precedent affirming Commission orders that exclude articles proven to indirectly infringe under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c). . . . Even though it appears that the panel in this case did not intend its decision to preclude an action under section 337 based on contributory infringement, parties in other cases have already argued to this Court that “[t]he reasoning in Suprema also dooms [a] contributory infringement claim” because in such a claim articles do not directly infringe at the time of importation.  . . .

By characterizing the Commission’s order as a “ban [on the] importation of articles which may or may not later give rise to direct infringement” . ., the panel confused the question of an appropriate remedy under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) with the question of liability under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i), in contravention” of past CAFC precedent.

DUPONT TRADE SECRET CONVICTION

As reported in my last newsletter, there is an ongoing jury trial in California Federal District Court regarding the theft of trade secrets from Dupont  by a California businessman and a former DuPont Co. engineer, which were accused of stealing DuPont’s proprietary method of manufacturing titanium dioxide and selling the information to Chinese government-owned companies for $28 million.

On March 5th, the jury found businessman Walter Liew and his company USA Performance Technology Inc. along with  Robert Maegerle, the former DuPont engineer, guilty of conspiracy to commit economic espionage and possession of trade secrets and a number of other charges.

The US Attorney’s office spoke in favor of the decision stating, “Fighting economic espionage and trade secret theft is one of the top priorities of this office and we will aggressively pursue anyone, anywhere, who attempts to steal valuable information from the United States. . .  . As today’s verdict demonstrates, foreign governments threaten our economic and national security by engaging in aggressive and determined efforts to steal U.S. intellectual property. I commend the efforts of the women and men of the FBI and the IRS in protecting America’s businesses and our national security.”

The jury’s verdict came after nearly a week of deliberations, following six weeks of testimony detailing Liew’s efforts to steal DuPont’s secrets and secure contracts with Chinese companies, including Pangang Group Co. and its subsidiaries, to build titanium-dioxide-making factories in China.  The Judge ordered Liew to prison, while Maegerle remains free.  Both are scheduled to be sentenced June 10.

NEW 337 CASE AGAINST CHINESE COMPANIES FOR IMPORTS OF SULFENTRAZONE

Docket No: 3004

Document Type: 337 Complaint

Filed By: Lisa a. Chiarini

Firm/Org: Hughes, Hubbard, & Reed LLP

Behalf Of: FMC Corporation

Date Received: March 5, 2014

Commodity: Sulfentrazone from China

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 Sulfentrazone, Sylfentrazone Compositions, and Processes for Making Sulfentrazone. The proposed respondents are: Beijing Nutrichem Science and Technology Stock Co., Ltd., China; Summit Agro USA LLC, Cary, North Carolina; Summit Agro North America Holding Corporation, New York, New York; and Jiangxi Heyi Chemicals Co. Ltd., China.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASES AGAINST CHINESE COMPANIES, INCLUDING HUAWEI

On February 13, 2014, Back Joy Orthotics filed a patent and copyright case against Forvic International, a Korean company, and Wook Yoon, a Korean national, against imports of back seat supports that are produced in China.  BACKJOY PATENT CASE

On February 17, 2014 Simon Nicholas Richmond filed a patent infringement case against Forever Gifts in Texas and Forever Gifts in China for imports of solar garden lights that allegedly infringe his patent. FOREVER SOLAR POWER GARDEN LIGHTS

On February 6, 2014,AIM IP filed a patent infringement case against Futurewei Technologies dba Huawei.  FUTUREWEI HUAWEI CASE

On February 27, 2014, Smartphone Technologies filed new patent cases against ZTE and Huawei.  SMARTPHONE HUAWEI  SMARTPHONE ZTE

ANTITRUST

VITAMIN C CASE

As mentioned in my last e-mail, the Vitamin C case is wrapping up at the District Court level.  The attached final judgment was revised downward from $153 million to a $147 million judgment against by Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Hebei”) and North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. (“NCPGC”) for price fixing because of double counting.  VITAMIN C JUDGMENT REVISED 147 MILLION

Hebei Welcome has announced that it is appealing the Court’s final judgment and has also switched US law firms and hired new counsel.

CHINA ANTITRUST CASES

Commentators have observed that governments are increasingly using antitrust and other regulatory powers for broader political and economic purposes.

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 China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). On February 19th, the head of China’s NDRC confirmed that it was investigating Qualcomm and also Interdigtal for potential antitrust violations.  Both companies were raided by Chinese agents in November and have delivered statements to Chinese investigators.  The NDRC said that Qualcomm Inc. was suspected of overcharging and abusing its market position and could face record fines of more than $1 billion.  Any settlement with InterDigital or Qualcomm is likely to include commitments to lower patent licensing fees for Chinese customers.

The NDRC is also looking at drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline and Apple. Apparently, the Chinese government has decided to use the nation’s antitrust laws to level the playing field for all companies.

SECURITIES

TOM GORMAN, DORSEY SECURITIES/SEC EXPERT, INTERVIEWED ON CHINESE TELEVISION

Recently, Tom Gorman, a partner in our Washington DC, who used to work in the Enforcement Division in the Securities and Exchange Commission, was interviewed by Phoenix Television on the refusal of Chinese Auditors to supply the SEC Accounting Documents from Chinese companies and the problems that have come from IPOs/securities listings of Chinese companies in the US.  The link to the interview is

http://video19.ifeng.com/video07/2014/02/09/1691951-102-007-0040.mp4

 FCPA DIGEST

Dorsey has just published its attached Foreign Corrupt Practices Digest.  FCPA DIGEST  With regards to China, the Digest states:

CHINA

Avon Products

Avon Products Inc. estimates a payment of up to $132 million to settle an ongoing corruption investigation. The US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) alleged that Avon has paid bribes in China and other countries in exchange for permits to sell its products.

It has been reported that following an internal investigation in 2008, Avon discovered that questionable payments and gifts of millions of dollars have been made to officials in China, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, India and Japan. In 2011, Avon fired four executives, including the general manager and the finance chief of the company’s China unit.

Since 2008, the company has reportedly spent about $340 million in legal and other costs. The investigation is ongoing.

 JPMorgan

It has been alleged that a top Chinese regulator, Xiang Junbo, with interests in the insurance sector, asked Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan, for a favor to hire a young job applicant.

JPMorgan reportedly secured a number of business deals with Chinese insurance companies following Mr. Dimon’s meeting with Mr. Xiang.

US authorities are investigating whether hiring at JPMorgan and other banks was done for the purposes of securing contracts with Chinese companies.

 Former Minister of Public Security

It is reported that Mr. Zhou Yongkang, former member of the Politburo Standing Committee and Minister of the Public Security, is being investigated for alleged corruption.

The investigation is reportedly part of a wider national anti-corruption campaign particularly targeted at current and former executives of the China National Petroleum Corporation.

It has been reported that Mr. Yongkang is under house arrest. Investigations are still pending.

COMPLAINTS

On February 4, 2014, a class action securities case was filed Rodney Omanoff et al. v. Patrizio & Zhao, Xinggeng John Zhao for misstating the financial information of Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc.,  a Nevada corporation, headquartered in China.  KEYYUAN PETROCHEMICALS

On February 6, 2014, the US Government, Securities and Exchange Commission/SEC filed an insider trade case against Hao He a/k/a Jimmy He for trading shares of Sina Corporation in Shanghai, China based on inside information.  HAO HE

On February 19, 2014, a class action securities case was filed by Maria Cecilia Ghilardoti against Montaage Technology Group and various Chinese individuals.  Montage Technology is a Caymans Company with substantial semiconductor plants and other operations in China and Hong Kong.  MONTAGE SECURITIES COMPLAINT

On February 20, 2014 Peter Schiff et al filed a class action securities case against China Nutrifruit Group Limited, a Chinese company in Daqing, China.  Schiff v China Nutrifruit Group~

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

Law Blog Development & Digital Marketing by Adrian Dayton & Company