“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986
US CHINA TRADE WAR JULY 14, 2016
This blog post is the third and fourth article 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 probable demise of the TPP and the strong arguments against protectionism.
The first article outlined the problem and why this is such a sharp attack on the Trans Pacific Partnership 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.
Subsequent articles will discuss why the Commerce Department’s policy has led to increased protectionism, the Probable Demise of the TPP, failure of Congressional Trade Policy and what can be done to provide the safety net that will allow Congress again to vote for free trade agreements so that 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.
In addition, set forth are articles on developments involving steel trade litigation, including the suspension of Section 337 Steel Trade Case, antidumping and countervailing duty reviews against Chinese companies, and a new 337 case against Chinese companies.
If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my new e-mail address email@example.com.
WEAK FREE TRADE ARGUMENTS AND STRONG FREE TRADE ARGUMENTS
There are two reasons for the sharp rise in protectionism—Weak Free Trade Arguments and the Commerce Department’s methodology in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.
By its own regulation the Commerce Department finds dumping and subsidization in almost every single case, especially against China. But the problem with the Commerce Department’s methodology, which is not based on reality, it fuels the myth advocated by the Steel industry, the Union and Donald Trump himself that all imports are dumped and all imports are subsidized and the general feeling of global trade victimhood. We US companies and workers simply cannot compete because all imports are dumped and subsidized so the answer is put up the protectionist walls.
That is simply not true. The next article will talk about the intricacies of the Commerce Department and why the Commerce Department’s methodology results in its finding dumping and subsidization in more than 95% of the cases and how that has had such a bad impact on the perceptions of the average American.
But before addressing that issue, this post will describe the Weak Free Trade Arguments Against Protectionism and the Strong Arguments against Protectionism.
WEAK FREE TRADE ARGUMENTS
But what are the free trade arguments that can counter the tidal wave of protectionism from Trump and Sanders supporters and the real collateral damage caused by trade agreements, including the 2.4 million jobs connected to granting China most favored nation status. As the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) reported in its May report on the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), if the Trade Agreement is enacted, although agricultural and service companies will benefit, manufacturing will see a net decrease in jobs “by $10.8 billion (0.1 percent) lower with the TPP Agreement” than without the Agreement.
On March 15, 2016 Morton Kondrake and Matthew Slaughter in a Wall Street Journal article made the theoretical economic case for free trade entitled, Making the Case for Trade Reagan’s ‘Protectionism is Destructionism’ Message was True” and spoke about the benefits of trade but then went on to state that the solution is simply “creative destructionism” and more job training and assistance to communities hurt by trade:
Divided though the four leading presidential candidates are on so many topics, united they stand on one: the assertion that trade hurts America.
All four oppose the U.S. ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All four demonize trade the same way. Donald Trump blasts that “foreigners are killing us on trade,” while Bernie Sanders inveighs against “disastrous trade agreements written by corporate America.” . . .
Where is the leader with the courage to tell the truth? To say that trade made this nation great, and that trade barriers will destroy far more jobs than they can ever “save.” To explain how trade translates into prosperity and new jobs, and how the disruptions inevitable in a trading economy can be managed for the benefit of those who need help. . . .
First, trade has generated substantial gains—not losses—for America overall. . . . The overall gains are large. Trade and related activities—spurred by accords such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, have boosted annual U.S. income today by about 10 percentage points of GDP relative to what it would have been otherwise. This translates into an aggregate gain of about $1.8 trillion in 2015—thousands of dollars per U.S. household every year.
Future trade agreements will bring more gains. A 2016 analysis by Peter A. Petri and Michael G. Plummer estimates that the TPP—which will eliminate more than 18,000 tariffs that other countries today impose on U.S. exports—will boost U.S. national income by about $130 billion annually. Part of this gain will be due to the higher average wages Americans earn as a result of more trade.
The second important pro-trade narrative is that creative destruction—the movement of people and capital from weaker businesses to stronger ones and new opportunities—is how many of the gains from trade arise. And because trade is only one of the forces driving this continual churn, the scale of creative destruction is vast. In December, for example, America’s creation of almost 300,000 payroll jobs was the net outcome of 5.4 million new jobs created and 5.1 million old jobs destroyed. Technology innovation and other drivers of long-run economic prosperity also entail more gains to “winners” than costs to “losers.”
This points to the third key theme: The way to support those affected by trade is not with tariffs that will destroy the jobs of other Americans that depend on trade. The solution is to drop trade barriers to maximize trade’s gains—and then design well-targeted supports for workers and communities that need help. . . .
We need to build a broader, more-responsive safety net to assist workers in transition regardless of the reason. For instance, unemployment insurance and trade-adjustment assistance should become part of an integrated program that offers a menu of options to all displaced workers. . . .
But the problem with the Kondrake/ Slaughter article is that the person who created the term “creative destructionism” would not agree with their central thesis that creative destructionism is such a great benefit that everyone should embrace capitalism and free trade. Joseph Schumpeter, the famous Harvard Economist, in his book “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” first coined the term “creative destructionism”. The central thesis of his book, however, was that Schumpeter did not believe that Capitalism could long survive and that is why he was an Austrian socialist. He did not believe that Capitalism would long survive because of the collateral damage it creates and the gap between the rich and the poor. Although Capitalism causes all boats to rise, there will always be a gap between the rich and the poor and people will focus on the gap rather than the fact that all boats are rising.
It is very difficult to throw theoretical economic arguments to counter the real loss of jobs in US manufacturing industries. Will this rosy article of Free Trade truly offset the arguments made by the international trade losers of thousands of closed factories and millions of lost manufacturing jobs? Don’t think so. Simple theoretical arguments do not wash in the face of blown up factories and millions of lost jobs.
One economist who agrees with this point is Daniel Altman, an economist, who published in article entitled “Economics Has Failed America” on May 19, 2016 pointing out some real problems with the economic arguments in favor of free trade:
As a recovering economist writing on behalf of my erstwhile field, I would like to apologize to every American who has lost a job or a livelihood because of globalization. Economics has failed you. It has failed you because of ideology, politics, and laziness. It has failed you because its teachings are woefully incomplete, and its greatest exponents have done almost nothing to complete them.
There are “positive” questions in economics that have mathematical answers — things that simply must be true — and then there are “normative” questions that amount to value judgments on points of policy. In economics classes, we teach the former and usually stop short when faced with the latter. This leaves a hole in any discussion of economic policy; students acquire first principles but rarely consider real-world applications, because to do so would presuppose a social or political point of view.
In the case of free trade and globalization, this omission has been disastrous. . . .
Yet the redistribution required to generate this broad improvement in living standards is hardly addressed, or sometimes even mentioned. To do so would be to step into the muddy mire of normative questions.
Should the government take from some people in order to give to others? Who should give the most, and who should receive? What exactly should they receive? . . .
Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University offer this breezy guidance: “Job destruction is ultimately a healthy part of any growing economy, but that doesn’t mean we have to ignore the costs of transitioning from one job to another. Unemployment insurance, savings, and a strong education system can help workers respond to shocks.” It may be worth noting that Cowen is a frequent critic of unemployment insurance on his blog. . . .
Finally, R. Glenn Hubbard . . . and Anthony Patrick O’Brien of Lehigh University are the only ones who mention the program designed to accomplish redistribution: “It may be difficult, though, for workers who lose their jobs because of trade to easily find others. That is why in the United States the federal government uses the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to provide funds for workers who have lost their jobs due to international trade. These funds can be used for retraining, for searching for new jobs, or for relocating to areas where new jobs are available. This program — and similar programs in other countries — recognizes that there are losers from international trade as well as winners.”
The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program has a budget of about $664 million, or roughly 0.004 percent of gross domestic product.
This means one dollar of every $25,000 in income generated by the United States goes to help people here who have been hurt by globalization. They don’t receive the cash directly; they just have to hope that the program — which offers retooling, retraining, and relocation, among other services — will aid their transition to new jobs.
There aren’t many beneficiaries, either. . . .
The problem with Mr. Altman’s article is that he does not realize that there are two TAA programs and the one that works is the TAA for Companies program. The funding for that program has been cut to $12.5 million a year. He also does not realize that the best arguments against protectionism are not economic, they are historical.
Congressman Jim McDermott may have put it the best in a recent article, “Workers do not want a handout, they want jobs”:
Trump, Sanders voters don’t want handouts — they want jobs
A popular knock on voters who support Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders because they have been “left behind” by free trade, globalization and technological progress is that they want a handout from Uncle Sam.
But the truth is the opposite: These voters want to work. They want jobs. And that’s the key to understanding their support for Trump or Sanders. . . .
In this political season, I’ve been asking some of them and their friends, and their now-adult kids, which presidential candidates they find appealing. Only two find support: Sanders, the Vermont socialist, and Trump, the New York billionaire. Both candidates appeal to a working class that is frustrated, fed up and downright angry.
Neither can be bought.
STRONG HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF FREE TRADE
The strong arguments for Free Trade, however, are not economic. The best arguments are historical: Japan, China, and the Smoot Hawley Tariff. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
An even more important argument, however, is that protectionism does not work. It does not save the companies and the President who understood that point was Ronald Reagan.
But first the historical arguments.
The recent experience of Japan can show what happens when a country listens to the Siren Calls of protectionism.
In the 1980s, when I joined the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the number one target country on the trade hit parade was not China. It was Japan. It was exporting numerous products to the United States that caused injury to various US industries. In fact, I had lived in Japan and studied Japanese and thought after my career in Federal Government at the ITC and Commerce Department I would work on trade cases, including antidumping cases, against Japanese companies.
That did not happen. Why? In the early 1990s, after Ezra Vogel published his book “Japan as Number One”, the entire Japanese economy imploded. Japanese exports dropped like a rock, and Japan entered what is called the lost decade, which now has become lost decades.
In my opinion, Japan’s lost decades have been caused by its trade policy. Japan did exactly what Donald Trump is advocating, it put Japan first through its mercantilistic trade policy. While living in Japan and later at the Commerce Department, I discovered numerous non- tariff trade barriers that Japan had put into place to protect its domestic industries.
American skis could not be sold in Japan because as one Japanese government official stated snow is different in Japan than the United States. American beef could not be sold in Japan because as another Japanese government official stated Japanese intestines were shorter than American intestines.
In fact, in the trade area, there was antidumping case after antidumping case against Japanese companies. The problem was prices in Japan were multiple times higher than the same product sold by the same company to the US. In some cases, based on actual price comparisons and actual calculated antidumping rates, Japanese antidumping rates were over 400% because the Japanese company priced the same product in Japan four times higher than the same product sold in the United States.
In effect, the Japanese government’s anti-trade protectionist policy created a very high price market in Japan. Japanese companies sold at very high prices in the Japanese market, ramped up production to drive down per unit costs and then used high prices in the Japanese market to fuel exported products at very low prices to the US market. Classic dumping.
The Japanese government also made it very difficult for foreign companies, including US companies, to set up true joint ventures in Japan. Keep the foreigner out was the motto of Japan.
But what was the ultimate effect of this high priced protectionist trade policy, massive bubbles in the land and stock markets. At one point the land in the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was worth more than the land in the entire state of Illinois. Those high land prices were used to fuel a very high stock market in Japan. The Japanese stock market bubble burst and then land prices fell. Japan entered a massive recession/depression and it lost decade(s) of economic growth.
Also when doing antidumping cases in other countries and the issue of using third country prices, I noticed that Petitioners always pushed Commerce to Japan because Japanese protected market prices were always higher than US prices. Japanese raw material prices were higher too. Because of trade cases in the US and other countries, Japanese production plants left Japan creating hollowed out industries as the companies sought to get around trade rules and also access to lower raw material costs. After the US FTA with Korea, the best-selling car in Korea is the Toyota produced in the United States.
The other historical lesson is China. In 1949 when Mao Tse Tung won the Chinese revolution, he also wanted to make China great again. Mao decided that he would make China great by putting up on the protectionist walls and the Chinese themselves would make themselves self -sufficient by producing everything they needed.
In the Great Leap Forward in the early 1950s, Mao declared that the Chinese people would create backyard steel industries and Chinese peasants melted down cooking pots into raw steel to show that they could produce steel. The Great Leap Forward led to one of greatest famines in World history and millions died.
When Deng Xiaoping came into power he immediately opened up the country. Because of the Mao protectionist policies, China had fallen behind the World in technology. Deng Xiaoping looked for ways to bring technology to China and develop their own.
Premier Zhu Rongyi, China’s great economic reformer, refused to follow the Japanese model and invited Western companies to set up joint ventures in China.
Thus, during the Obama Administration, when GM was having problems with its US manufacturing operations and facing bankruptcy, the one part of the company it was especially trying to save was its China operations. The Buick had become the bestselling car in China.
As one Chinese individual remarked to me, why when China and many other countries have rejected the Socialist model is the United States moving towards the Socialist model and putting up protectionist walls.
On April 25, 2016, former Congressman Don Bonker in an article entitled “Presidential Election Politics and Perils of Protectionism” warned that the anti- trade rhetoric in the Presidential election could lead to the return of the Smoot Hawley tariffs, stating:
This year’s presidential election is not lacking in absurdity, another example being a Republican billionaire and a socialist Democrat in sync on what has become a contentious issue, attacking trade agreements by declaring they are “disastrous” or being negotiated by “stupid people”. . . .
What they have tapped into is the viral protectionism spreading across the country, embedded in Midwestern states that suffered job losses as American companies shifted their manufacturing operations to low-wage countries like Mexico and China.
Both Trump and Sanders are clueless or blatantly dismissive of the consequences of such actions, but their insane rhetoric could lead to a trade war, even a collapse of the world trading system, should either ever make it to the White House. . . .
In this raucous presidential campaign, both sides slamming America’s trade policy could put our country on the perilous path of protectionism, thus undermining America’s presumed role as the leader in today’s global economy. Someone should remind both Trump, if ever he listens, and Sanders, ever the demagogue, that we’ve been down that path before, and it proved devastating.
In the 1928 presidential election, the Republican candidate Herbert Hoover campaigned on the populist anti-trade issue, pledging to restrict foreign imports if elected, a message that resonated with the commodity producers and manufacturers who felt betrayed in an emerging global economy, which set the stage for a Republican Congress poised to run amok on limiting imports.
Indeed, shortly after the elections, newly formed trade associations mobilized an unbridled frenzy of logrolling, jockeying for maximum protection for commodity and industry producers leading to enactment of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that hiked import fees, some up to 100 percent, on over 20,000 foreign products. . . .
Indeed, within a few months, America’s leading trade partners – Canada, France, Mexico, Italy, 26 countries in all – retaliated, causing world trade to plummet by more than half of the pre-1929 totals, one of several factors that precipitated the Great Depression. . . ..
The Smoot Hawley tariff turned the Depression into the Great Depression.
PROTECTIONISM DOES NOT WORK—COMPANIES ARE NOT SAVED
The most important lesson, however, is that protectionism does not work. The US Steel industry is a case study of this point. After receiving 40 years of protectionism from steel imports, where are Bethlehem Steel, Jones and Loughlin and Lone Star Steel today—Green Fields.
Despite the antidumping order against Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, that did not save the US furniture industry as many US factories and Chinese factories moved to Vietnam. In fact, the Furniture case illustrates another point—the Whack a Mole problem in antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) Trade cases.
Recently, the US Washing Machine industry dominated by Whirlpool screamed because after bringing AD and CVD cases against Samsung, Daewoo and LG in Korea, the companies moved to China so Whirlpool filed another case against China. After AD and CVD orders are issued, multinationals and many other companies can move their production facilities to new countries which are not covered by US AD and CVD orders. AD and CVD cases are meant to be rifle shots to stop unfair trade practices from a specific country, but US companies cannot bring AD and CVD cases against the World, although the US Steel Industry has tried.
In January 2008, Superior Graphite and SGL Carbon LLC filed an antidumping case against graphite electrodes from China, which lead to an antidumping order against China. On July 13, 2016, after 8 years of protection, Superior announced the closing of its Russellville, Arkansas plant. One reason was intense domestic competition and another reason imports from India.
The President that understood that protectionism does not work was Ronald Reagan. Contrary to the implication in Donald Trump’s June 28, 2016 speech, entitled “Declaring American Economic Independence”, Reagan was not a protectionist. He was very much a free trader, who specifically stated that protectionism does not work.
In his attached June 28, 2016speech, DJT_DeclaringAmericanEconomicIndependence, Donald Trump stated in part:
President Reagan deployed similar trade measures when motorcycle and semiconductor imports threatened U.S. industry. His tariff on Japanese motorcycles was 45% and his tariff to shield America’s semiconductor industry was 100%.
On June 28, 1986, 40 years to the day before, however, Ronald Reagan gave the attached speech BETTER COPY REAGAN IT SPEECH, about international trade and against protectionism, stating in part:
international trade is one of those issues that politicians find an unending source of temptation. Like a 5-cent cigar or a chicken in every pot, demanding high tariffs or import restrictions is a familiar bit of flimflammery in American politics. But cliches and demagoguery aside, the truth is these trade restrictions badly hurt economic growth.
You see, trade barriers and protectionism only put off the inevitable. Sooner or later, economic reality intrudes, and industries protected by the Government face a new and unexpected form of competition. It may be a better product, a more efficient manufacturing technique, or a new foreign or domestic competitor.
By this time, of course, the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition. And that, my friends, is when the factories shut down and the unemployment lines start. We had an excellent example of this in our own history during the Great Depression. Most of you are too young to remember this, but not long after the stock market crash of 1929, the Congress passed something called the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Many economists believe it was one of the worst blows ever to our economy. By crippling free and fair trade with other nations, it internationalized the Depression. It also helped shut off America’s export market, eliminating many jobs here at home and driving the Depression even deeper. . . .
Sometimes foreign governments adopt unfair tariffs or quotas and subsidize their own industries or take other actions that give firms an unfair competitive edge over our own businesses. On those occasions, it’s been very important for the United States to respond effectively, and our administration hasn’t hesitated to act quickly and decisively. . . .
it’s going to be very important for the United States to make clear our commitment that unfair foreign competition cannot be allowed to put American workers in businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But I think you all know the inherent danger here. A foreign government raises an unfair barrier; the United States Government is forced to respond. Then the foreign government retaliates; then we respond, and so on. The pattern is exactly the one you see in those pie fights in the old Hollywood comedies: Everything and everybody just gets messier and messier. The difference here is that it’s not funny. It’s tragic. Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs. . . .
So, the danger is approaching. Should this bill become law, foreign governments would respond, and soon a vicious cycle of trade barriers would be jeopardizing our hard-won economic prosperity.
The first part of Reagan’s speech almost sounds like a point by point rebuttal of Donald Trump’s June 2016 speech. The last part of the speech specifically points out the perils of protectionism. Ronald Reagan lived through the Great Depression and learned from history. He did not want to repeat the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act mistake again.
Donald Trump points at two cases during the Reagan administration—Motorcycles and Semiconductor Chips. The interesting point is that I was at the ITC and Commerce Department in the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s when the Motorcycles and Semiconductor Chips cases took place and have personal knowledge about what happened. Those cases and the reason for them are very different from the trade actions that Donald Trump is talking about.
In the Motorcycles 201 case, in the early 1980s Harley Davidson sought temporary relief under the Escape Clause to help it adjust to import competition, especially from Japan. It won the case and received a three-year tariff rate quota on imports of certain subassemblies from Japan. The noteworthy point is that after two years in the mid- 1980s, Harley told the US government to lift the quota/tariff because it no longer needed the protection from imports. The 201 case gave Harley the short term protection it needed to adjust to import competition.
Contrast that temporary relief with antidumping and countervailing duty orders against steel, chemicals and metals, some of which have been in place for 20 to 30 years.
In the 1980s Semiconductors cases, the Commerce Department was very tough in those case and even initiated its own 256K DRAM case. The Semiconductor cases resulted in a Semiconductors agreement with Japan. But while at the Commerce Department in the 1980s, the Secretary of Commerce was Malcolm Baldrige, a brilliant secretary. Baldridge believe that his job was to protect the crown jewels of American manufacturing—the High Tech industry.
What Donald Trump is proposing is protecting the low tech manufacturing industries, such as the Steel industry. Ronald Reagan did not fall into that trap.
If Donald Trump goes forward with his plans to use protectionist tariffs to protect the low tech industry, we can expect countries, such as China, Korea, Canada, Mexico and other countries, to retaliate against the US high tech industry. In February 2015, China fined Qualcomm, a US company, $1 billion for violations of the Chinese antimonopoly law. That is $1 billion of the $10 billion Qualcomm had earned during 2014 selling computer chips to China.
In fact, the employment in the entire US steel industry is less than one high tech company. So Trump’s idea is to protect the Steel Industry, but the sacrifice is the US High Tech industry with 100s of thousands of high paying jobs.
One of the problems in international trade is what the Chinese call the Frog in the Well syndrome. The Frog lives inside the Well and thinks that is the World. As House Speaker Paul Ryan has said many times, the vast majority of consumers live outside of the United States. When I lived in Beijing during 2005-2007, the US Commercial Attaché gave a speech and mentioned that 75% of all Chinese have a color television set. That is now probably close to 95% of 1.6 billion people, a larger market than the US market.
But all this does not mean that nothing can be done to save US manufacturing companies that have been battered by imports. As explained in past and subsequent articles, something can be done and it does not have any protectionist effect—The Trade Assistance for Firms/Companies program. Although it receives only $12.5 million annually in support, the program saves US companies and the jobs that go with them but without putting any protectionist barriers in place.
STEEL TRADE CASES
ITC SUSPENDS STEEL 337 CASE
On May 26, 2016, the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) initiated the section 337 case against Chinese steel import on the basis of three primary counts:
(1) a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; (2) the misappropriation and use of U.S. Steel’s trade secrets; and (3) the false designation of origin or manufacturer, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
On July 8, 2016, the ITC, in the attached order, ITC STEEL ORDER, temporarily suspended the Section 337 against steel imports brought by US on the grounds that the issues it raises fall within the Commerce Department’s jurisdiction in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.
The Commission’s order specifically states, in part:
U.S. Steel’s antitrust claims explicitly rely upon determinations by the Commission and the Commerce Department that the Chinese government subsidizes the Chinese steel industry, and that Chinese steel manufacturers sell their products at less than fair value. . . .
U.S. Steel’s false designation of origin claims are based explicitly upon Respondents’ alleged evasion of antidumping and countervailing duty orders issued by the Commerce Department. . . .
As discussed above, the Complaint identifies several ongoing Commerce Department investigations . . . and the Commerce Department recently issued final determinations in these investigations finding countervailing duties and sales at less than fair value.
The record thus shows that the present matter comes at least “in part” within the purview of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, and Section 337(b)(3) therefore requires that the Commission notify the Secretary of Commerce. . . .
The ITC’s suspension stays all discovery and motions in its investigation of U.S. Steel’s claims of an alleged price-fixing conspiracy involving misappropriation of trade secrets and false manufacturing designations in the importation of carbon and alloy steel products.
The suspension followed seven responses from a number of Chinese steel companies to U.S. Steel’s complaint arguing that the claims were based explicitly upon respondents’ alleged evasion of AD and CVD orders and identified several ongoing Commerce Department investigations into steel products.
STAINLESS STEEL SHEET AND STRIP FROM CHINA
On July 12, 2016, in the attached factsheet, factsheet-prc-stainless-steel-sheet-strip-cvd-prelim-071216, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determination in the countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation of imports of stainless steel sheet and strip from China. Since many Chinese companies refused to cooperate because of China’s nonmarket economy status, Chinese companies received CVD rates ranging from 57.3% to 193.12%
JULY ANTIDUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
On July 5, 2016, Commerce published the attached Federal Register notice, OPPORTUNITY JULY 2016, regarding antidumping and countervailing duty cases for which reviews can be requested in the month of July. The specific antidumping cases against China are: Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts, Certain Steel Grating, Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, Persulfates, and Xanthan Gum
The specific countervailing duty cases are: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe, Potassium Phosphate Salts, Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand, and Steel Grating.
For those US import companies that imported : Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, Potassium Phosphate Salts, Steel Grating, Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe, Persulfates, Steel Wire Strand and Xanthan Gum during the antidumping period July 1, 2015-June 30, 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.
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.
While in China recently, I found so many examples of Chinese solar companies or US importers, which did not file requests for a review investigation. In one instance, although the Chinese companies obtained separate rates during the initial investigation, the Petitioner appealed to the Court. Several Chinese companies and US importers did not know the case was appealed, and the importers now owe millions in antidumping duties because they failed to file a request for a review investigation in December 2015.
NEW SECTION 337 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASE FILED AT ITC AGAINST CHINA
On July 11, 2016, Cambria Company LLC filed section 337 case at the ITC against Quartz Slabs and Portions. The proposed respondents, including a Chinese company, are: Stylen Quaza LLC DBA Vicostone USA, Dallas, Texas; Vicostone Joint Stock Company, Vietnam; Building Plastics Inc., Memphis, Tennessee; Fasa Industrial Corporation, Ltd, China; Foshan FASA Building Material Co., Ltd., China; Solidtops LLC, Oxford, Maryland; Dorado Soapstone LLC, Denver, Colorado; and Pental Granite and Marble Inc., Seattle, Washington.
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.