Relief from Unfair Imports of Plastic Retail Carrier Bags to Continue for Five More Years

King & Spalding
Contact

[author: Brian E. McGill]

On April 27, the International Trade Commission (Commission) issued the public views of its unanimous determination in favor of continuation of the relief provided by the orders on polyethylene retail carrier bags from China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Commission’s finding was that revoking the orders would likely result in continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry. The Department of Commerce had previously found that dumping and subsidization (in the case of Vietnam) would likely recur if the orders were revoked. As a result, the orders will continue to be in effect for at least five more years.

A group of Malaysian producers known as the Malaysian Task Force were the only foreign producers to actively oppose continuation of the orders. Despite contrary Task Force arguments, in its determination, the Commission exercised its discretion to cumulate (i.e., aggregate) the imports from all six subject countries. The Commission found that each of the subject industries possesses excess production capacity and “depends heavily” on exports of retail carrier bags. Moreover, the bags are “highly substitutable regardless of where they are manufactured.” Thus, the Commission found that imports from all subject countries would compete in the same way in the U.S. market. In order to maximize capacity utilization, each subject country had “a similar incentive to increase exports to the United States in the event of revocation.” Producers in Malaysia were no exception. The Commission has found in the past that demand for plastic bags is highly price inelastic, i.e., low import prices do not increase consumption in the U.S. market. Rather, low import prices merely create greater price competition for existing demand.

The Task Force argued that Malaysian producers were focused on supplying existing customers and would not appreciably increase their exports to the U.S. market. But the Commission found that Malaysia was one the largest global exporters of plastic bags. Due to the “significant and increasing collective production capacity and production” of plastic bags in the subject countries and “collective unused production capacity,” the Commission found that the subject countries, including Malaysia, had “the ability to export significant volumes” to the United States and possessed the incentive to do so. As noted by the Commission, “producers seek to operate continuously at high capacity in order to spread fixed costs over as many production units as possible.”

The Commission concluded that given “the high degree of substitutability” and “the importance of price in purchasing decisions” it was likely the underselling by subject imports would intensify if the orders were revoked and U.S. producers “would be required to cut prices to meet subject import competition or lose sales.” Thus, the domestic industry faced likely price suppression or lost volume. For these reasons, the Commission found that revocation would likely have a material negative impact on the domestic industry’s operating and financial performance if the orders were revoked. Accordingly, the Commission determined unanimously that the orders should be continued.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© King & Spalding | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

King & Spalding
Contact
more
less

King & Spalding on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide