TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET
“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986
US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER FEBRUARY 21, 2016
I have been in China for two weeks working on the Solar Cells and Steel Sinks cases. This is an abbreviated February newsletter, which will cover trade and trade policy, including the new trade cases filed in the United States and China, the TPP, the New Trade Legislation, the China Nonmarket Economy Issue, plus developments in the Aluminum Extrusions and other cases.
If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me.
US CHINA TRADE WAR CONTINUES WITH THREE NEW US CASES AGAINST CHINA AND ONE BIG NEW CHINA CASE AGAINST THE US
As stated at the top of this blog post, trade is a two way street, and the recent US antidumping and countervailing duty cases filed against China with the corresponding Chinese antidumping and countervailing duty case against the US illustrates that the trade war continues. The recent US cases target more than $1.2 billion of Chinese imports into the US, but the Chinese case targets about $1.5 billion of US exports, imports into China. In trade what goes around comes around.
FOUR US CASES AGAINST CHINA
On January 13, 2016, in the attached complaint, AD PETITION Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products, Tensar Crop filed an antidumping and countervailing duty petition against about $10 to $20 million in imports of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People‘s Republic of China alleging a dumping margin of over 200%. These Geogrid products are useful in earthwork construction, such as in roadways.
Conventional methods of road construction have been to use stone and, sometimes, a geotextile for drainage, underneath the paved or unpaved road. Geotextiles, however do not provide any structural benefit to a roadway. There is a market for geosynthetics, such as the Geogrid products, that allow a contractor to improve not just the drainage, but also the structure and performance of a road, while using less stone.
AMORPHOUS SILICA FABRIC
On January 20, 2016, in the attached complaint, AD PETITION Amorphous Silica Fabric Scope Importers Exporters, Auburn Manufacturing filed an antidumping and countervailing duty petition alleging antidumping rates of more than 160% against more than $10 million of imports of amorphous silica fabric from China.
Auburn supplies this amorphous silica fabric to the US Navy and is competing against Chinese shipments of a high-performance fabric used to insulate and resist extreme heat in industrial applications
Because Auburn is the Navy’s leading supplier of ASF, it alleges the uptick in competing imports from China suggests violations of the Buy American Act, which requires 50 percent U.S. content for government purchases, and the Berry Amendment, which has a 100 percent domestic content requirement for textiles procured by the U.S. Defense Department.
BUS AND TRUCK TIRES
On January 29, 2016, in the attached complaint, AD PETITION Truck Bus Tires China 701-731 (3), the United Steelworkers union and Titan International Corp., a US tire manufacturer, filed an antidumping and countervailing duty case against imports of more than $1 billion truck and bus tires from China, and also India and Sri Lanka.
STAINLESS STEEL PETITION
On February 12, 2016, in the attached complaint, STAINLESS STEEL PETITION, a new antidumping and countervailing duty case was filed against Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from China. The rumor in China is that because Commerce recently is refusing to give State Owned Companies their own dumping margin and since Commerce uses fake prices and costs based on surrogate values, Chinese stainless steel companies have decided not to fight the case because they believe the entire case is rigged and they cannot get a fair result. When one understands the surrogate value methodology, which Commerce has used for 40 years to deny Chinese companies fair treatment in antidumping cases, one can understand why the companies would take such a position.
MAJOR CHINESE CASE AGAINST THE US–DISTILLER DRIED GRAINS
Meanwhile, the Chinese Government’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) filed its own antidumping and countervailing duty case against imports of $1.5 billion of distiller’s dried grains (DDGs), an animal feed product, from the United States. By the way, it should be noted that in Chinese antidumping cases against the US, the Chinese government does use actual prices and costs in the United States to calculate antidumping rates for Chinese companies. In the past, Commerce and the US government in one WTO case objected that the Chinese government used average US costs rather than the specific cost for the specific product in question. At least the Chinese government uses real US costs.
According to the MOFCOM notices, the petitioner requesting the trade remedy probe is the China Alcoholic Drinks Association. DDGs are a byproduct of the production of ethanol and alcohol products that involve corn as a raw material.
After the last Chinese investigation against the US, US exports of DDGs dropped by 50%. The Chinese government later dropped the investigation in 2012 and US exports/Chinese imports neared pre-investigation levels, reaching roughly 2.1 million tons and subsequently experienced sharp growth in 2013, hitting 4.4 million tons.
Up to Nov. 2015, the U.S. exported roughly $1.5 billion worth of DDGs to China. That is about five times as much as the second-most valued export market, Mexico, which according to USDA data received about $315 million in DDG exports during the same time.
The Chinese Countervailing Duty notice alleges that U.S. DDG exporters received 10 types of countervailable subsidies, including several farm bill programs, such as Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage, and also federally subsidized crop insurance and export credit guarantees. Additionally, the Chinese CVD notice also states that 42 state programs that provide benefits for biofuel production also constitute countervailable subsidies. The AD duties on the US imports are alleged to be “significant.”
Growth Energy, a US ethanol trade group, in the attached announcement, GROWTH ENERGY CHINA ANTIDUMPING DISTILLER GRAINS, announced:
“We are disappointed to see the initiation of anti-dumping and countervailing duties cases against U.S. DDGS exports to China. The false allegations by the Chinese petitioners have the potential to seriously threaten our largest overseas market for DDGS and could have a significant impact on the supply, demand and price for DDGS in the U.S. and other foreign markets. We are working closely with our members and the U.S. Grains Council as it coordinates an industry response.”
The Us Grains Council in the attached announcement, US GRAINS COUNSEL CHINA AD, stated:
“We are disappointed to see today the initiation of antidumping and countervailing duties investigations of U.S. DDGS exports to China. We believe the allegations by the Chinese petitioners are unwarranted and unhelpful. They could have negative effects on U.S. ethanol and DDGS producers, as well as on Chinese consumers, potentially over a period of many years. We are also confident that our trading practices for DDGS, ethanol and all coarse grains and related products are fair throughout the world. We stand ready to cooperate fully with these investigations and will be working closely with our members to coordinate the U.S. industry response.”
Although many US unions and manufacturers scream that the Chinese government is retaliating against the US trade cases, one should keep in mind that in contrast to the United States, but like Canada, the EU and many other countries, China has a public interest test. Thus, when antidumping and countervailing duty complaints are filed in China, the Chinese government may not initiate them right away because of complaints by the downstream industry. That is not true in the United States where downstream industries have no standing and there is no public interest test.
TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (“TPP”) CONTINUES TO RUN INTO PROBLEMS
There are ratification problems for the TPP all over the world, including the US, where election politics and other specific problems make it difficult for the TPP to pass the US Congress.
On January 21, 2016, the New Zealand government announced it would hold a ceremony on February 4th to sign the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership in Auckland. The ceremony officially gave the 12 nations a green light to begin pushing the agreement through their legislatures. In a brief statement, New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay extended a formal invitation to top trade officials from each TPP country to ink the agreement, which will cover 40 percent of the global economy once it is in effect. Mr. McClay stated:
“Signature will mark the end of the TPP negotiating process. Following signature, all 12 countries will be able to begin their respective domestic ratification processes and will have up to two years to complete that before the agreement enters into force.”
McClay added that once the agreement has been signed, the New Zealand government will begin a series of “roadshows” to promote the TPP and win over public support.
A similar process is already underway in the U.S. The U.S., however, cannot hold a vote on the agreement until the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has issued a report on the economic effects of the TPP, which it is expected to do by the middle of May. Around the time that report is released, the Obama administration is expected to present Congress with legislation to formally implement the TPP.
Once the TPP was signed on February 3rd by the trade ministers for the 12 TPP countries, the trade ministers all pledged to throw their weight into passing the trade deal through their legislatures. In a Joint Statement, the 12 trade ministers stated:
“Our goal is to enhance shared prosperity, create jobs and promote sustainable economic development for all of our nations. The signing of the agreement signals an important milestone and the beginning of the next phase for TPP. Our focus now turns to the completion of our respective domestic processes.”
USTR Michael Froman, who is in a battle to sell the agreement to the U.S. Congress, stated before the signing that his office would continue to intensify its efforts to engage with lawmakers, many of whom have raised concerns about various aspects of the deal, ranging from its intellectual property rules to cross-border data flow provisions. Although it looks that there will be no TPP vote on Capitol Hill until after the November elections, Froman stated:
“We are working with our stakeholders. … We are working with the leadership of Congress, educating everybody as to what’s in the agreements, addressing their questions and concerns. And I’m confident at the end of the day, because of the strong benefits to the U.S. economy, … that [the TPP] will have the necessary bipartisan support to be approved.”
Before the signing, USTR Froman outlined the plans to sell the TPP to the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Froman stated that the signing in New Zealand comes at a time when “momentum for passage is growing” and reiterated his office’s commitment to smoothing out the many TPP concerns that have been voiced by the U.S. Congress. The USTR stated:
“In the months ahead, in addition to the work that we are doing to ensure that members understand what’s in the agreement, understand the economic benefits on a state-by-state or district-by-district basis, we are going to be focusing congressional engagement in four key areas.”
The first concern, however, is the deal’s level of market exclusivity for biologic drugs, which are high-value medicines used to treat diseases like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. While U.S. law offers 12 years of exclusivity for biologics before generics enter the market, the TPP offers between five and eight years.
Another point of contention has been the exemption of financial service providers from TPP rules barring the forced localization of data servers, a decision that came straight from the U.S. Treasury Department. Treasury Secretary has testified in Congress that the US Treasury does not want the financial services provides covered by the TPP because of the concerns of US regulators. Thus the US government itself is the one that exempted the financial service providers from the TPP. This move has upset providers of the banking, insurance and electronic payment industries and their Congressional champions, who have argued that those industries are just as reliant on the free flow of data across borders as any other industry covered by the agreement.
Republicans, especially those from the South, have also taken issue with the TPP’s removal of tobacco control rules from the list of measures that can be challenged under the agreement’s investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. The so-called tobacco carve out was meant as a gesture to public health advocates that did not want to see trade agreements used to undermine tobacco regulations. But this has faced criticism from experts who fear it could lead to a troubling trend of U.S. negotiators dropping items from trade deals if the public sentiment against them is strong enough.
At the February 3rd signing, none of the TPP trade ministers made it seem passage of the deal was imminent in their countries. On February 3, 2016 John Brinkley of Forbes had this to say about the next steps after the TPP signing:
After Signing, TPP’s Future Is Hard To Gauge . . . .
You may ask what that means and what happens now. Probably, the agreement will fade from public view until the 12 signatories submit it to their legislatures for ratification. That could take years.
In order for the TPP to take effect, at least six of the 12 signatories, representing at least 85 percent of their combined gross domestic product, have to ratify it. They would have to include the United States, because the GDPs of the 11 other countries don’t add up to 85 percent of the total.
The Obama administration has some hope that Congress will vote on the TPP this spring. But that looks exceedingly unlikely. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has told Obama that he doesn’t want to bring it up for a vote until after the November elections.
That can only mean a lame duck congressional session in November and/or December, because the next President might not submit it to Congress. All the candidates, Democratic and Republican, have said they oppose the TPP. But that doesn’t mean that whoever gets elected won’t change his or her mind after taking office. It’s happened before. . . .
The TPP is the largest free trade agreement ever negotiated. The 12 parties to it represent 40 percent of global GDP. Opposition to the deal has been intense in several of them.
In Australia, about 305,000 people have signed a petition demanding an independent assessment of the agreement before Parliament votes on it.
In Auckland, New Zealand, about 1,000 protestors Wednesday tried to block access to the Sky City Convention Centre, where the signing took place. There have also been sizeable protests in Japan, Chile and Malaysia.
A TPP without Malaysia or Vietnam or Chile or Peru would still be viable,especially considering the list of countries that hope join it after it takes effect – South Korea, Indonesia, Colombia, the Philippines and others. But a TPP without the United States? Not possible. And the country where it faces the toughest sledding is the United States of America.
A Pew survey last June found that only 49 percent of Americans saw the agreement as “a good thing for our country.” Pew surveyed people in all 12 TPP countries and found more negativity in only one, Malaysia.
Given the enormity of the TPP, it has generated more controversy here than has any previous free trade agreement. Interest groups representing everything from gay rights to Tea Party hostility to government have taken up arms against it. There is also a great deal of ambivalence, or downright hostility, to the deal in Congress. It’s not certain that there is enough support in the House and Senate to ratify it. . . .
Republicans, who historically have supported free trade agreements, will probably do what the president-elect wants them to do, if he or she is a Republican. At this point, that means voting no on the TPP.
That is no doubt what McConnell is hoping for. He doesn’t like the TPP’s treatment of the tobacco industry and he doesn’t like Obama. You’ll remember his famous pronouncement of 2009: he said his mission in life was to make sure Obama was a one-term president. Having failed at that, he’s determined not to give the president anything he wants during his last year in office. That could put off a ratification vote until 2017 or later.
Brinkley’s full article can be found at this link http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2016/02/04/399/#110757c32c7d
The Presidential primary is also a major obstacle to the passage of the TPP. Mirroring statements by the Presidential candidates about the TPP, there is substantial divisiveness among lawmakers in Congress, even among party-line Republicans who have historically supported new trade agreements. The combination of an unexpected level of Republican opposition and the traditional resistance from core Democrats because of union opposition suggests a substantial lag between Froman signing the TPP next month and getting the agreement approved on Capitol Hill.
But Presidential politics have substantially raised concerns that the US is entering a new protectionist era. On January 28, 2016, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled, ”The Leap of Trump As the GOP nominee or President, he would be a political ‘black swan.“ The Journal stated:
We’ve been critical of Mr. Trump on many grounds and our views have not changed. But we also respect the American public, and the brash New Yorker hasn’t stayed atop the GOP polls for six months because of his charm. Democracies sometimes elect poor leaders—see the last eight years—but their choices can’t be dismissed as mindless unless you want to give up on democracy itself. . . .
The problem is that Mr. Trump is an imperfect vessel for this populism, to say the least.
On politics and policy he is a leap into the known unknown. That so many voters seem willing to take this leap suggests how far confidence in American political leaders has fallen.
We can debate another day how the U.S. got here, but with the voting nigh it’s important to address what a Trump nomination could mean for the GOP and the country. . . .
All of which means that Mr. Trump has the widest electoral variability as a candidate. He could win, but he also could lose 60% to 40%, taking the GOP’s Senate majority down and threatening House control. A Clinton Presidency with Speaker Nancy Pelosi would usher in an era of antigrowth policies worse than even 2009-2010. This is the killer black swan.
And how would Mr. Trump govern as President? Flip a coin. . . .
But history teaches that Presidents try to do what they say they will during a campaign, and Mr. Trump is threatening a trade war with China, Mexico and Japan, among others.
He sometimes says he merely wants to start a negotiation with China that will end happily when it bows to his wishes. China may have other ideas. A bad sign is that Mr. Trump has hired as his campaign policy adviser Stephen Miller, who worked for Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the most antitrade, anti-immigration Senator. . . .
Republicans should look closely before they leap.
Prior to this Article on January 20, 2016, John Brinkley of Forbes wrote an article entitled, “Trump On Trade: Does He Really Believe This Stuff? Oh, Donald, what are we going to do with you?” The Article states:
During last week’s GOP presidential candidates’ debate, the front-runner Donald Trump said again that the way for the United States to end China’s treachery with regard to trade was to slap a significant tariff on it.
Earlier, he told the New York Times that the tariff rate should be 45 percent.
When Fox Business anchor Neil Cavuto asked him about this during the debate, he said, “That’s wrong. They were wrong. It’s the New York Times, they’re always wrong.
Then the Times produced a recording of Trump saying exactly what he said he didn’t say. Busted! . . .
“They (the Chinese) can’t believe how stupid the American leadership is,” he said during the debate. “I’m totally open to a tariff. If they don’t treat us fairly —hey, their whole trade thing is tariff. You can’t deal with China without tariff. They do it to us. We don’t do it. It’s not fair trade.”
He also said, “I know so much about trade with China.”
For the record, WTO members are required to give each other Most Favored Nation status. That means that member countries have to charge the same tariff rate on a particular product on all imports from other members. If China levies a 2 percent tariff on cars from Japan, it has to give the United States and all other WTO members the same treatment. China does not impose anything close to a blanket 45 percent tariff on all U.S. imports.
If the U.S. government were to do as Trump suggests, it would violate a fundamental WTO rule, lead to retaliatory tariffs by China, close the Chinese market to American exporters and start a trade war. That’ll teach ‘em!
If Trump knew as much about trade with China as he claims, he’d know that tariffs aren’t the issue. Of greater concern is China’s proclivity for breaking the rules, such as by dumping products at below cost in the U.S. market.
In addition to dumping, Brinkley went on to complain about various China problems, including counterfeiting and illegal transshipment and then went on to state:
Does Trump know about any of these things? If so, he’s never mentioned it.
Trump made another laughable trade-related vow in a speech Monday at Liberty University. He said that, as president, he would force Apple to make all its products in the U.S.
“We’re going to get Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries,” he said.
He didn’t say how he would do this, but it doesn’t matter, because he couldn’t. It isn’t possible. “There’s no legal way he could do that,” said Chris Cloutier, a trade lawyer with Schagrin Associates in Washington.
I know, I know, refuting Trump’s claims about trade (or about pretty much anything) is like shooting fish in a barrel. So why bother?
(A) Because he claims to know a lot about trade, (B) because his followers take everything he says as fact and (C) because political pundits and prognosticators have begun saying the Trump train has gathered so much speed it may be unstoppable. . . .
Stranger things than a Donald Trump presidency have happened. But I don’t know what they are.
For the full article, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbrinkley/2016/01/20/trump-on-trade-does-he-believe-what-he-says/#4508a7055247.
In commenting on this Article to Mr. Brinkley, I made the point that all the arguments he throws at China, in fact, are the reason for Trump’s argument. Brinkley never mentions that US antidumping cases against China are based on fake numbers and that the game the Commerce Department has created, in fact, has created another game—illegal transshipment. To be clear, Commerce uses fake numbers because dumping is defined as selling at the United States below prices in the home market or below the fully allocated cost of production. Commerce, however, refuses to look at actual prices and costs in China and has refused to do so for close to 40 years.
Commerce instead calculates a cost of production for Chinese companies using consumption factors in China valued by surrogate values from import statistics in 5 to 10 different countries and those countries can change from a preliminary to a final determination and from initial investigation to review after review investigation. These surrogate values have no relationship to the actual prices and costs in China, and, therefore, are fake numbers. No rational person when he sees dumping rates go from 0 to 57 to over 400% using different surrogate values from different countries could truly believe that the nonmarket economy methodology actually reflects the cost of production in China. See my last post and the Court of International Trade’s recent decision in the Baoding Glycine case.
On the Democratic side of the Presidential primary, however, there was a small ray of hope. On February 5, 2016, in the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton stated that she could support the TPP if the deal is changed. Senator Bernie Sanders, however, remains adamantly opposed to the deal.
Hilary Clinton stated: that
“I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it.”
But Clinton also made clear that her opposition is not set in stone. She indicated that she might support the TPP if it were to undergo certain amendments or alterations, “There are changes that I believe would make a real difference if they could be achieved, but I do not currently support it as it is written.”
Bernie Sanders, however expressed his total contempt for US trade policy, stating:
“We heard all of the people tell us how many great jobs would be created. I didn’t believe that for a second because I understood what the function of NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China and the TPP is. It’s to say to American workers, ‘Hey, you are now competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour minimum wage.’”
Meanwhile, Canada was having the same problem with the Canadian press reporting on January 25, 2016, that International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland stated that Canada would sign on to the TPP deal at a ceremony in New Zealand on Feb. 4, but ratification is a matter for Parliament. Apparently, the Liberals in Parliament are still on the fence as to whether or not they support it. In an open letter posted on the Department’s website, the Trade minister stated:
“Just as it is too soon to endorse the TPP, it is also too soon to close the door. Signing does not equal ratifying…. Signing is simply a technical step in the process, allowing the TPP text to be tabled in Parliament for consideration and debate before any final decision is made.”
Canada requires a majority vote in the House of Commons to seal the deal. Freeland further stated:
“It is clear that many feel the TPP presents significant opportunities, while others have concerns. Many Canadians still have not made up their minds and many more still have questions.”
Each country, including the United States and Canada, have up to two years to ratify the TPP. Although Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was in favor the deal, now a new government is in power in Canada. Freeland further stated, “We are strongly in favor of free trade. Having said that, we’re not the government that negotiated the TPP.”
Meanwhile on January 14, 2015, in the attached submission, RANCHERS SUBMISSION ITC TPP, R-CALF USA, the largest trade organization exclusively representing cattle producers within the multi-segmented beef supply chain, in a submission to the ITC announced their opposition to the TPP because it will harm U.S. cattle and sheep industries.
On February 2, 2015, the American Apparel & Footwear Association announced their support of the TPP, but criticized the length of time it will take for the deal to eliminate certain tariff lines. AAFA stated:
“With the TPP covering 40 percent of the world’s GDP and reaching approximately 800 million consumers, the trade pact represents significant opportunities for the clothing, shoe, and accessories industry. For this reason, and after consultation with our members, we are expressing our strong support for the TPP.”
But the AAFA went on to express some concerns that the Agreement was not ambitious enough, stating:
“While there are some immediate opportunities for apparel, most apparel articles are constrained by extremely restrictive rules of origin and long duty phase-outs, meaning benefits will take longer to realize.”
Among the products receiving immediate tariff relief under the TPP are footwear and travel goods, such as handbags, backpacks, and laptop cases, but AAFA stated that “a more accelerated and flexible approach” for apparel and legwear would have created more immediate benefits for producers of those items.
CHINA IS NOT HAPPY WITH THE TPP RHETORIC
While ratification is a problem in the United States Congress, China is not happy with the US government arguments in favor of the TPP that it allows the U.S. to “write the rules of trade” in the Asia-Pacific region offsetting Beijing’s policies. On February 5, 2015, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lu Kang, speaking at his daily press briefing, in response to a question about the TPP’s role as a China containment device, sharply responded:
“We never believe that world trade rules can be made by any specific country alone. We always maintain that the World Trade Organization play a leading role in making global trade rules, and hope that major trading powers and economies would stay committed to upholding the role of the WTO.”
“There is no need to politicize the economic issue. Don’t make people feel that the U.S. is pursuing some political ends throughout the process of promoting the TPP. Remarks as such will mislead the public and do harm to state-to-state relations.”
Most recently, President Barack Obama himself declared in his State of the Union address that with the agreement in place, “China does not set the rules in that region; we do.”
The ironic point is that the Doha Round WTO negotiations collapsed in large part because of the intransigence of the developing countries, led by India, and yes China. Killing the WTO round when there is a TPP alternative was not a good strategy for the developing countries, and yet that is just what they did. Many scholars have argued that the biggest winners in trade deals are developing countries, and yet India in particular is the country with China’s help that stopped the Doha Round in its tracks.
TPP TEXT AND TRADE ADVISORY REPORTS
As stated in prior blog posts, on November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”). This is an enormous trade agreement covering 12 countries, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, and covers 40% of the World’s economy. To read more about the TPP and the political negotiations behind the Agreement see past blog posts on www.uschinatradewar.com.
The attached text of the Agreement is over 6,000 pages, Chapters 1 – 2 – Bates 1 – 4115 Annex 1 – 4 – Bates A-1-1074 Chapters 3 – 30 – Bates 4116 – 5135 Press Release – Joint Declaration Fact Sheet.
On November 5th, the Treasury Department released the text of the Currency Manipulation side deal, Press Release – 12 Nation Statement on Joint Declaration Press Release – Joint Declaration Fact Sheet TPP_Currency_November 2015.
On December 2nd and 3rd, 2015 various trade advisory groups operating under the umbrella of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) Group issued reports on the impact of the TPP on various industries and legal areas. All the reports can be found at https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/advisory-group-reports-TPP and many of the reports can be found here. ITAC-3-Chemicals-Pharmaceuticals-Health-Science-Products-and-Services ITAC-2-Automobile-Equipment-and-Capital-Goods ITAC-5-Distribution-Services ITAC-8-Information-and-Communication-Technologies-Services-and-Electronic-Commerce ITAC-6-Energy-and-Energy-Services ITAC-9-Building-Materials-Construction-and-Non-Ferrous-Metals ITAC-10-Services-and-Finance-Industries ITAC-12-Steel ITAC-11-Small-and-Minority-Business ITAC-14-Customs-Matters-and-Trade-Facilitation ITAC-15-Intellectual-Property ITAC-16-Standards-and-Technical-Barriers-to-Trade Labor-Advisory-Committee-for-Trade-Negotiations-and-Trade-Policy JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE. Almost all of the reports are favorable, except for the Steel Report, which takes no position, and the Labor Advisory Report, which is opposed because it is the position of the Unions.
NEW TRADE AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT BILL
On February 11, 2016, the new trade and customs enforcement bill passed the Senate and is on its way to the President for signature. In an announcement, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) praised the Senate for passing the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, stating:
“We are now sending to the President a bipartisan bill to establish a 21st century customs and border protection system that facilitates trade and strengthens enforcement. This pro-growth bill will make it easier for our workers to compete in global marketplaces and level the playing field.
“By using a Conference Committee to reconcile our differences, this bill also marks a return to regular order. I congratulate the Senate, especially my partners Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, and I urge President Obama to sign this bill into law as soon as
On December 9, 2015, in an announcement, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member, Ron Wyden, announced a final agreement on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. A copy of the bill, the conference report and summary of the bill are attached, Trade-and-Environment-Policy-Advisory-Committee.pdf Summary of TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015 CONFERENCE REPORT TRADE FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 20152 JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE.
CHINA’S NME STATUS—ANOTHER HOT TOPIC FOR 2016
As mentioned in the prior blog postlast newsletter, interest groups on both sides of the issue have increased their political attacks in the debate over China’s market economy status in US antidumping and countervailing duty cases. On December 11, 2016, pursuant to the China – World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Accession Agreement, the 15 year provision, expires.
More specifically, with regards to the application of the US antidumping non-market methodology to the Chinese imports, the United States faces a looming deadline under the WTO Agreement. Section 15 of the China WTO Accession Agreement, which originated from the US China WTO Accession Agreement, provides:
Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping . . .
(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: . . .
(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. . . .
(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member’s national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.
In other words, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, Commerce’s right to us a nonmarket economy methodology “shall expire 15 years after the date of accession”. China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 so Section 15(d) should kick in on December 11, 2016.
The question that is now being debated is whether Section 15(d) automatically ends the possibility of using a non-market economy methodology to China or if it can still be applied if petitioners can show that market conditions do not prevail for producers of the product under investigation.
If the Commerce Department is the decision maker, nothing would happen on December 11, 2016, but as USTR Froman states below, the US government has not yet made a determination.
As also mentioned in previous blog posts, the Europeans appear to be leaning to giving China market economy status in December 2016, but the US government is opposed.
On January 21, 2016, the US China Business Council (“USCBC”), which represents many companies doing business in China, such as Boeing, called on the United States to grant China market economy status under the antidumping law as required by the WTO. In its 2016 Board of Directors’ Statement of Priorities in the U.S.-China Commercial Relationship, the USCBC stated that the U.S. should take this step as a way of building “confidence in the bilateral relationship” with China, and solidify the foundation for “mutually beneficial commercial relations.” The USCBC is the first major U.S. business group to weigh in on the issue.
In a conference call with reporters on Jan. 19, USCBC President John Frisbie stated that while the issue is “not on the radar” for a lot of companies because it deals with the minutiae of trade remedy law, there is the potential for a “big problem” in U.S.-China relations if Washington does not grant market economy status to Beijing. He argued that the U.S. is obligated to automatically grant market economy to China under the terms of the WTO accession protocol and that “attempts to find legal wiggle room in this are pretty thinly supported at best.”
Although the Commerce Department’s position of opposing market economy for China is clear, the USTR has stated that it still has not made a decision on the matter. In Jan. 13 comments at the Wilson Center, USTR Michael Froman said the U.S. government has “not made any decision” with regard to whether the United States should grant market economy status to China. Froman also denied reports that the U.S. has pushed the European Commission not to grant China market economy status. “We are not encouraging the EU to take any particular position.”
On January 29th, however, it was reported that the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, known as INTA, stated that economic leaders in Brussels should not recognize China as a market economy under the World Trade Organization’s rules, as Beijing has not taken the necessary steps to curtail the government’s influence on commercial activities. INTA stated:
“It should be clear that EU should speak with a single voice stating that China is not fulfilling, for the time being, the EU five technical criteria for defining a market economy, and the importance to define a common strategy to reinvigorate and apply our anti-dumping procedures on various products suffering from the strong trade distortion caused by Chinese exporting companies.”
On January 29, 2016, European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom stated that the Commission plans to conduct an impact assessment on granting China market economy status (MES) in antidumping cases that will weigh not only the legal and economic implications, but any potential geopolitical fallout as well.
In a Jan. 28 speech in Brussels to the European Chamber Of Commerce In China (ECCC), and in a Jan. 27 letter to members of the European Parliament, Malmstrom left no doubt that a major part of this analysis will involve an assessment of how failing to grant MES to China might impact relations with Beijing stating, “The Commission is now examining the implications of this [expiration], including the economic impact of any change to our anti-dumping rules,” Malmstrom further stated in her ECCC prepared remarks. “But let me be clear that the overall economic importance of our close relationship with China is also an important part of our analysis.”
In response to a December letter from two members of the center-right European People’s Party, Malmstrom stated:
“I take good note of the concerns you express in your letter and I appreciate the points you raise, given in particular that this is a very complex issue and one which demands that we take full account of all the legal, economic and political ramifications. The Commission is carefully analyzing the legal implications of the expiry of certain provisions of China’s WTO accession protocol and carrying out an impact assessment.”
Several sources said Malmstrom is personally in favor of granting China MES, and one insisted this view is shared by the commission’s director-general for trade, Jean-Luc Demarty.
On February 5, 2016, it was reported that the European Commission is considering at least four changes to the way it enforces its trade remedy law that it believes would blunt the impact of extending market economy status to China in antidumping cases and thereby make that change more politically palatable to affected domestic industries.
The first of these measures is the so-called “cost adjustment” methodology, which the EU has previously used in AD cases to offset what it considers to be the artificially low price of Russian gas. But the cost adjustment methodology has been challenged at the WTO by Russia and Argentina, and its legal soundness is therefore in question.
Second, sources say the commission has suggested it could eliminate the EU’s “lesser duty rule,” which generally imposes AD duties only in the amount necessary to offset the injury to the domestic industry.
A third mitigating measure the Commission has floated is “strengthening” the antisubsidy enforcement, most likely by devoting greater resources to investigating the web of subsidy programs provided at different levels of government in China.
Fourth, it has proposed “grandfathering” in the dozens of existing AD orders against Chinese imports that are already on the books in the EU.
EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom this week said that it would be “politically unrealistic” to simply grant MES to China in the context of AD cases without taking some form of mitigating steps. She spoke on Feb. 1 at the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, France.
Both Lange and Malmstrom said they would be discussing the issue with Beijing, and the commissioner underscored that not granting China MES at all “might have an impact on our trade and investment relations” with China, which could have a cost for EU business. “These effects are very difficult, if not impossible, to estimate in advance,” she warned.
But it was also reported on February 5th, that a European Commission analysis projects that granting market economy status (MES) to China in antidumping (AD) cases without mitigating measures could directly cost as much as 188,300 jobs in affected European Union industries.
On February 10, 2016, the European Commission issued a notice requesting public comment by April 20 on whether the Commission should make China a market economy pursuant to the WTO Agreement. In the Notice the European Commission stated:
“This public consultation is part of an in-depth impact assessment that will include a careful study of the economic effects of any potential change broken down by member states, with a particular focus on jobs”
While the Commerce Department may make its decision within the context of a specific case, an EU policy shift would require a change to the law. The European Commission was very clear about the impact of the legal change in the notice:
“Should an amendment of the anti-dumping legislation be deemed necessary, this may result in lower anti-dumping duties which may not offset the negative effects of dumping and may further increase dumped imports causing further injury to the EU industries concerned. This in turn may result in putting a number of jobs in the EU at risk.”
CRISIS IN US TRADE POLICY WITH ALUMINUM FACTORIES CLOSING, NEW RAW ALUMINUM TRADE CASES COMING, AND THE FAILURE OF TAA FOR COMPANIES TO HELP LARGER COMPANIES
As indicated in my last blog post, in light of the impact of the aluminum extrusions case on the US market, the import problem has now moved upstream. The next round of antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China looks like it will be on raw aluminum products. But the aluminum story will probably parallel the steel story over the last 40 years.
The US Aluminum Industry will probably bring many antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China aimed at Chinese aluminum imports based on nonmarket economy methodology with fake numbers resulting in high antidumping rates shutting out the Chinese product. But the Chinese imports will be simply replaced by imports from other countries, such as Korea, where the Commerce Department will use normal market economy antidumping methodology resulting in low, if not 0%, antidumping rates against those countries. So in the long run antidumping and countervailing duty cases cannot save the US manufacturing companies, only slow the decline.
On February 6, 2016, in an e-mail to his constituents, however, Congressman Dave Reichert, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means, illustrated the real human costs of the trade war. In the attached e-mail he mentioned the impact of aluminum imports on aluminum manufacturing companies in Washington State and the loss of jobs in his district, stating:
Support for Local Workers
In November of last year, the aluminum manufacturing company, Alcoa, announced its plans to idle its smelting operations in Ferndale and Malaga, Washington, resulting in the loss of 880 local jobs. Many of these employees had worked at the plant for years and depended on that employment to provide for their families.
I am pleased to say that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) approved assistance for these workers in the form of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) after several members of the Washington Delegation and I requested support for them.
Now these workers will have the opportunity to receive job training, assistance in finding new employment, and aid as they reenter the workforce.
Retraining under the TAA for Workers program may be a nice idea for the aluminum workers from these factories, but retraining means nothing if the jobs do not exist. That is why the labor unions are so adamantly opposed to Trade Agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership, and at least on the face opposed to TAA for Workers because the retraining does not result in employment at comparable wages. Thus when it comes to the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), the labor unions have been very clear that they want to “kill the rotten” and that is why so many Democratic Congressmen and Senators oppose the TPP and other Trade Agreements.
But there is now a much bigger problem created by this trade crisis, which could result in the United States moving into a much more protectionist era with high tariffs on imports from many different countries, including China and Mexico. The loss of jobs by manufacturing industries and for the lower middle class, in truth, is a major reason for the rise of Donald Trump and Senator Bernie Saunders in the Presidential primary. The outsiders are the ones surging in the Presidential primary in New Hampshire because many of their supporters are blue collar workers in the lower middle class, who strongly believe that the US Government has forgotten about them and simply does not care about them. If Donald Trump or Bernie Saunders becomes President, based on their statements in the primaries, they would reject the Trans Pacific Partnership and could literally tear up past trade agreements, such as NAFTA. US Trade Policy is facing a crisis and the possible move into a much more protectionist era created by a major failure in Trade Policy.
On February 11, Dan Henniger for the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled “Donald Trump Among the Canaries” compared Trump to the canary in the Coal Mine that warns miners if there are toxic gases in the mine stating:
Just as dying canaries warned coal workers that the shaft was filling with toxic gases, New Hampshire’s voters have told the political status quo, to coin a phrase, you are killing us.
As Henniger goes on to state, however, the core of Trump’s argument is his attack on Trade:
At the core of the Trump campaign is one policy idea: imposing a 45% tariff on goods imported from China. In his shouted, red-faced victory speech Tuesday, he extended the trade offensive to Japan and Mexico.
Some detail: Combining the value of goods we sell to them and they to us, China, Mexico and Japan are the U.S’s Nos. 1, 3 and 4 trading partners (Canada is No. 2). They are 35% of the U.S.’s trade activity with the world. The total annual value of what U.S. producers—and of course the workers they employ—sell to those three countries is $415 billion. . . .
Mr. Trump says the threat alone of a tariff will cause China to cave. Someone should ask: What happens if they don’t cave? Incidentally, unlike Mexico, China has between 200 and 300 nuclear warheads and 2.4 million active-duty forces. Irrelevant?
In contrast to Japan and Taiwan, which are dependent upon the United States for their national security, what these nuclear warheads mean is that if the United States throws a trade rock at China, China will throw a trade rock back. That is just what is happening in the US China Trade War today.
That failure in US Trade Policy, however, is the US failure of Congress to support the only trade program that works and saves import injured manufacturing companies—the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Firms/Companies program. As stated in prior blog posts, because of ideological purity among many Republican conservatives in Congress and the Senate, the TAA for Companies program has been cut to $12.5 million nationwide. This cut is despite the fact that since 1984 here in the Northwest, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”) has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program.
To understand the transformative power of TAA for Companies, see the TAA video from Mid-Atlantic TAAC at http://mataac.org/howitworks/, which describes in detail how four import injured companies used the program to change and turn their company around and make it profitable. One of the companies was using steel as an input, and was getting smashed by Chinese imports. After getting into the program, not only did the company become prosperous and profitable, it is now exporting products to China.
This cut back to $12. 5 million nationwide makes it impossible for the TAA for Companies program to work with larger US companies, which have been injured by imports. The TAA for Companies program simply does not have the resources to do the job, and hard right conservatives see any Government support as anathema to their ideology of no interference in the marketplace. Their position is no government help despite the fact that government actions, the trade agreements, have caused the problem.
Thus a large Alcoa Aluminum factory is not a company that can take advantage of the program. Alcoa would not submit themselves to a petition process for a mere $75,000. TAA for Companies simply cannot do much when a factory closes. Working with a factory the size of Alcoa’s, however, would be working with an entity that vastly exceeds anything in the $12.5 million TAA for Companies program.
TAA for Companies is hamstrung by neglect with a maximum technical assistance per firm level that has not changed in at least 30 years. This forces the TAA Centers in the United States to focus on small and medium size enterprises (under $50M in sales) while the big job creators are the larger Medium Size Enterprise, which account for most of the sector’s well-known job creation performance.
In case you don’t know about TAAF, this is a program that offers a one-time, highly targeted benefit to domestic companies hurt by trade. The benefit is not paid to the companies, but to consultants, who help the company adjust to import competition.
The program is amazingly effective. Between 2010 and 2014, 896 companies with more than 90,000 employees in the program increased average sales by 40% and employment by 20%, achieving impressive double-digit productivity gains. Essentially, all of the 15,090 jobs lost to imports before company participation in the TAAF program were regained.
To put that in context, the very much larger TAA for Worker Program’s appropriation for FY 2015 was $711 million. The TAA for Worker (TAAW) Program spends roughly $53,000 per year to retrain a single employee AFTER a job has been lost due to trade. The mission for each program is very different – TAAF’s primary mission is to save the company AND the jobs, while TAAW’s mission is to retrain workers after the jobs have already been lost. Now you should ask which is the smarter investment?
Moreover, when the company is saved, it and its workers pay Federal and State taxes so the program essentially pays for itself. The more stunning fact – if the TAAF program saves just 300 jobs per year on a national basis for which TAA for Worker resources of $53,000 aren’t required for retraining efforts, the program easily pays for itself up to its $16 million authorization level.
Global trade has evolved over the past 40 years and perhaps it’s time for trade policy to adapt to those changes. The original mission for TAA was more concerned with the impact of increased imports on US workers, and the vast majority of funds have been dedicated to the TAA for Workers program. The landscape has changed as more than 5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 40 years, and the mission for TAA must now shift to maintaining a robust core of manufacturing companies and jobs. Without a vibrant core of manufacturing firms, the US won’t have the capacity or capabilities to achieve growth through export expansion no matter how many free trade agreements are passed, and all the training in the world is not going to bring back those manufacturing jobs.
ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS – THE COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE STRIKES BACK
On November 20, 2015, the Commerce Department issued its final determination in the 2013-2014 antidumping review investigation of aluminum extrusions from China. Based on surrogate values, Commerce issued antidumping rates of 86.01%, but for companies that did not cooperate, Commerce issued antidumping rates of only 33.28%.
In addition, in the Countervailing Final Determination for 2013, Commerce issued a countervailing duty rate ranging from 3.59% to 222.82% with most companies receiving a rate of 61.36% rate. See CVD Aluminum Extrusions 2013 Final Review Notice.3424528-01 CVD Aluminum Extrusions 2013 Decision Memo.3424530-01 CVD FINAL DECISION MEMO
As mentioned in prior blog posts, the Commerce Department has been expanding the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders to include multiple products, such as curtain walls, the sides of buildings, auto parts, refrigerator handles, geodesic domes and multiple other products. In two recent decisions, the Court of International Trade has struck back.
But on February 10th in the Court of International Trade case, Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. Ltd., Jango Curtain Wall Americas Co. and Permasteelisa North America Corp. v. United States case, SHENYANG CURTAIN WALL CASEJudge Pogue reversed and remanded the Commerce Department/s determination that curtain wall units are covered the aluminum extrusions from China antidumping order. In that decision, Senior Judge Pogue stated:
Because Commerce’s scope ruling redefines key terms contrary to the plain language of the AD&CVD Orders, it is not in accordance with law; because it does not reasonably consider the characteristics of Plaintiffs’ merchandise and the evidence that weighs against the agency’s determination, it is unsupported by substantial evidence; because it offers insufficient reasons for treating similar products differently, it is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court remands to Commerce for further consideration in accordance with this opinion.
Judge Pogue then describes the Curtain Wall Units in question:
Because “complete curtain wall units form part of a larger curtain wall system specifically designed for a building,” unassembled curtain wall units “are sold and delivered to the job site in segments pursuant to the schedule stipulated in the contract to supply the larger system. If that system is “for a multi-story skyscraper,” then it may require shipments of curtain wall units and installation hardware “over a period of months,” with “[e]ach entry dovetail[ing] with the contractor’s construction schedule so that complete curtain wall units can be immediately installed onto the building when the container arrives at the job site.”
Judge Pogue pointed to subassemblies stating:
While Commerce “enjoys substantial freedom to interpret and clarify its antidumping duty orders, it can neither change them, nor interpret them in a way contrary to their terms.” Here, Commerce has changed and expanded the terms of the AD&CVD Orders by redefining “subassembly” and ignoring the scope language that limits products covered.
Accordingly, Commerce’s Redetermination is not in accordance with law. . . .
In contrast, Commerce does not consider the ample evidence on the administrative record defining and explaining the product at issue here. Commerce does not consider whether a single-entry, unitized curtain wall is a real product, outside the realm of its own ungainly semantic gymnastics, that is imported with any regularity into the United States.
On February 1, 2016, in Whirlpool Corp. v. United States, WHIRLPOOL ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS SCOPE, the CIT ruled that certain refrigerator door handles should not be included in the Aluminum Extrusions case, while also ruling that other handles should have been included in the case.
THE ONGOING STEEL CASES
On February 9, 2016, the US Steel Companies urged the Obama Administration to use all channels to obtain details from China regarding its promise to cut steel production capacity. Thomas Gibson, the president and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), stated in a press conference made clear that there has been no official information on China’s promised capacity cuts, just Chinese press reports stating that the State Council has announced it will begin this year to cut 100-150 million tons of overcapacity over five years.
Many pundits, however, are questioning the Chinese government’s economic data making it hard to discern what’s really happening in the economy. China has a glut of old-line factories that make products like steel, glass and cement. That industrial overcapacity stems from years of debt financed investment in industries that now show little sign that they can repay those loans.
According to Chinese statistics, China produced 804 million tons of steel last year, even as demand faltered. Over all, China’s steel-making capacity was set to reach 1.17 billion tons last year.
The Chinese government’s State Council, or cabinet recently announced that it would close 100 million to 150 million tons of steel-making capacity. That would mean cutting capacity by an amount similar to the total annual steel output of Japan, the world’s No. 2 steel maker.
But it is a balancing act for the Chinese authorities. Li Xinchuang, the head of the China Metallurgical Industry Planning and Research Institute, recently told the official Xinhua news agency that the planned steel mill closings could cost 400,000 jobs. “Large-scale redundancies in the steel sector could threaten social stability,” he warned.