Sunday, November 28, 2010

The "State of Play" of Antidumping Cases in the EU

On November 24, 2010, Karel De Gucht, EU Trade Commissioner, delivered remarks to the European Parliament on antidumping (AD) issues.  Mr. De Gucht is not my favorite trade official, but I respect his straightforward remarks on the "state of play" of AD matters in the EU.  Here are some highlights:

  • "defence of EU production against international trade distortions should be considered as a necessary component of an open and fair trade strategy."

    Translation - EU will continue to use AD/CVD investigations to protect EU industries.
  • "Trade defence instruments are there for good reasons. In the absence of
    international competition rules and of other rules associated with well functioning
    markets trade defence instruments are the only possible means of protecting our
    industry against unfairly traded goods. We seek to use these rules in the most
    efficient way for our industries."

    Translation - As long as WTO norms allow countries to use AD/CVD investigations to protect domestic industries the EU will continue to use these types of measures.
  • "The international rules on trade defence are being renegotiated in the World Trade
    Organisation. The EU position there is clear: we want to maintain the effectiveness
    of our instruments while protecting our business against protectionist actions by

    Translation - When the EU imposes AD/CVD measures it is a permissible exercise of its rights under applicable WTO norms.  When other countries impose such measures against EU industries it may be protectionist.
  • "regarding the use of trade defence instruments by third countries, we have

    As I noted
    here, exporters in developed countries are likely to face more AD/CVD measures in the short to medium term.
  • "I would like to assure you that we closely follow trade defence actions by third countries and take action when necessary. Such action includes intense monitoring, effective support of affected EU exporters or even starting a dispute settlement procedure at the WTO.  In many cases the Commission's actions lead to the termination of the investigation without the imposition of measures. In other cases, these interventions often result in a lower measure for the EU exporters concerned."

    Translation -- EU exporters, we have your back.
Basically, his remarks boil down to - the EU will protect its domestic industries through continued use of AD/CVD measures and active engagement with third countries that seek to impose such measures against EU exporters.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Around The World In One Click

I've noticed a couple of "interesting" items the last few days which I lump together below:

The Republic of Mauritius -- held a two-day workshop on Trade Remedies "to ensure capacity-building of the private sector" regarding their brand new (passed June 2010), now ready for prime time Antidumping and Countervailing Measures Act.  The workshop appears to be sponsored, at least in part, by the EU's TradeCom Facility.  The TradeCom Facility is financed by the European Development Fund and provides trade-related technical assistance to ACP countries.  It's not my money, but I'm not sure assisting an island nation of 1.2 million people establish AD/CVD laws is the best use of EU funds right now.

EU -- speaking of the EU, it recently released its five-year blueprint for an "assertive" trade policy.  The blueprint is available here.  According to the accompanying press release, the five-year plan proposes:

  1. to complete its ambitious negotiating agenda at the WTO and with major trading partners such as India and Mercosur. Completing this agenda would increase European GDP by more than one percent per year;
  2. to deepen trade relations with other strategic partners, such as the US, China, Russia and Japan, where the main focus will be on tackling non-tariff barriers to trade;
  3. to help European businesses access global markets by setting up a mechanism to redress the balance between open markets in the EU (for example in public procurement) and more closed markets with our trading partners;
  4. to start negotiating comprehensive investment provisions with some of our key trading partners;
  5. to make sure trade is fair, and our rights are properly enforced, translating promise on paper into concrete benefits;
  6. to ensure trade remains inclusive so that the benefits go to the many, not the few. We will spell out how trade can continue to support development as we set up a new framework of rules for trade preferences for developing countries.
Argentina -- imposed antidumping duties of 295% against malleable iron pipe fittings from China.  Brave.  Argentina only recently resumed selling soybean oil to China, which had imposed a ban in April 2010 in response to Argentine antidumping duties against various Chinese products.  Vamos, vamos, Argentina!

Happy Thanksgiving!       

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Google's Free Trade Manifesto

On November 15, 2010, Google posted an interesting white paper that outlines its trade agenda.  "Enabling Trade in the Era of Information Technologies:  Breaking Down Barriers to the Free Flow of Information" describes the importance of the Internet to economic growth, the dramatic increase in governmental interference with the Internet, how these restrictions conflict with existing international trade rules (e.g., GATS), and Google's vision for "free trade" in Internet-related services. 

Google candidly acknowledges that this is "pretty wonky stuff."  (I'd say that is an understatement.)  If you strip out the wonky alphabet soup of trade acronyms (WTO, GATS, APEC, KORUS, etc.) and trade lingo (market access, national treatment, transparency, etc.) the message boils down to:  the Internet is unique so instead of interfering with it, governments should ensure that international trade rules promote free trade in Internet-related services. 

What I find particularly refreshing is that Google acknowledges that existing trade agreements do not necessarily address all of the issues it raises so it asks policy makers to: 

ensure that rules in the next generation of trade agreements reflect new challenges of Internet trade. In this new era, addressing the trade-related problems posed by government censorship and disruption of the Internet will be critical. Fresh, creative thinking will be required in order to properly address the unprecedented problems and opportunities that arise every day.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

What Congress Giveth, Commerce Can Taketh Away?

The US Department of Commerce (DOC) announced this week that it will continue to issue liquidation instructions to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication in the Federal Register of final results of antidumping and/or countervailing duty administrative reviews.  DOC's announcement is available here.  Not exactly riveting stuff but still important because it affects whether DOC decisions are subject to judicial review.

The US Court of International Trade has previously ruled that DOC's so-called 15-day policy is contrary to law because:   
the record does not disclose any consideration of the need for an orderly administration of the statutory scheme for judicial review or the need for Commerce to achieve its regulatory objectives without imposing the unnecessary costs and burdens on affected parties that result from the Department's policy, rule, or practice.
This week's announcement appears to be DOC's attempt to sort of address those concerns.  DOC took a second look at its existing policy and determined that it was reasonable (who needs judicial review when an agency can determine the reasonableness of its own decisions?):
Commerce has determined that the issuance of liquidation instructions 15 days after publication is reasonable because it balances the factors which Commerce must consider in the effective administration of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. 
These factors include:  (1) taking into account the time for alleging ministerial errors, (2) the amount of time CBP needs to liquidate the covered entries, and (3) ensuring the US Treasury receives the correct amount of duties.

DOC did not address the first consideration identified by the court - "an orderly administration of the statutory scheme for judicial review."  The court's concern is that the 15-day policy short-circuits the statutory scheme that allows parties 30 days to file a summons and then another 30 days to file a complaint (followed by an additional period to move for a preliminary injunction that enjoins liquidation of the covered entries).  Instead of grappling with the competing interests, DOC says while the 15-day policy is reasonable, 
Commerce will continue not to issue liquidation instructions if a party provides the Department of Justice with a draft summons, complaint, and motion for preliminary injunction prior to Day 15.
Translation - hey trade bar, Congress may have given you 60 days to file a summons and complaint, but that doesn't mean we have to.

Look, I get that there are competing interests here -- DOC's concern that CBP only has 6 months from publication of the final results to liquidate the entries or they are deemed liquidated at the cash deposit rate claimed at the time of importation v. parties having the full amount of time granted by Congress to decide whether to appeal (by filing the summons) and how to frame the issues (by filing the complaint) -- and that DOC is trying to find a middle ground by saying "we won't issue the instructions if you give our lawyers a draft."  Still, strictly from a separation of powers perspective, it does not seem correct that an administrative agency can effectively shorten the time granted by Congress to seek judicial review.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Thiopental Sodium - Reflux

Last week, I wrote about the US Supreme Court's order that essentially allowed Arizona to use thiopental sodium produced in a non-FDA approved facility located abroad.  Other states such as California, are also reported to be relying on imported thiopental sodium.  According to The Guardian:
The British producer, Archimedes Pharma, denies knowingly selling the drug for use in lethal injections.  As far as the company is concerned, it lawfully injected the drug into the stream of commerce in the UK and it has no control over what happens next.
"The company supplies the product in the UK, in accordance with regulations, through the recognised pharmaceutical supply chain, primarily to wholesalers and hospital pharmacies," it said.
Archimedes said that once the drug entered the complex chain of medical supplies it would not have known where it was eventually sold. "Consistent with applicable regulations, the company does not have information on specific end purchasers or users of its products. The company neither exports the product to the US for any purpose, nor is it aware of any exports of the product," it said.
A London-based human rights group - Repreive - has filed suit in England to bar the export of thiopental sodium for use in executions in the United States.  I wonder if the UK tribunal will consider whether an export ban violates Article XI(1) of the GATT:
No prohibitions or restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, . . . shall be instituted or maintained by any contracting party . . . on the exportation or sale for export of any product destined for the territory of any other contracting party. 
or meets one of the general exceptions found in Article XX.  I seriously doubt it. 

Putting aside the potential WTO issues, what I really want to know is how was the thiopental sodium imported into the United States.  Perscription drugs (and controlled substances) such as thiopental sodium can only be imported into the United States if they are produced at FDA-approved facilities.  There are no foreign FDA-approved facilities for thiopental sodium.  Therefore, it's unclear how someone could have formally declared the drugs and imported them into the United States.  Did someone "informally" import the thiopental sodium in their carry-on luggage and make it available for sale to states?  I sure hope not. 
California is also planning to use a batch of sodium thiopental apparently imported from the UK in an execution that was put on hold last month, it has emerged.