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