China-U.S. Trade Law : International Trade Lawyer & Attorney : Baker Hostetler Law Firm : Trade Remedies, Customs & Export Controls

中文请点击这里

Chief Judge Jane A. Restani of the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) on August 4, 2010 ordered the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) to forego the imposition of countervailing duties on pneumatic off-the-road tires from the People’s Republic of China. Her decision, in GPX International Tire Corporation v. United States, was based on her ruling that US law prohibited DOC from imposing duties higher than the amount needed to offset subsidies on imported products.

The problem for DOC, inherent in the case and as posed by Judge Restani, is that DOC uses surrogate values presumed to be unsubsidized, rather than a company’s actual production costs, to calculate Normal Values. DOC compares these Normal Values in its non-market economy antidumping methodology to the export price, a methodology that should, at least in theory, offset any subsidies on the production of the merchandise (because the comparison has been taken against unsubsidized inputs through surrogate values). If DOC were to impose countervailing duties to offset subsidies that benefit the production of the merchandise, then it would be offsetting the same subsidies twice.

Double counting of subsidies does not occur with DOC’s market economy dumping methodologies (19 C.F.R. §§ 351.405 & 351.406) because, in those cases, Normal Value is calculated based on actual prices in the foreign market and actual costs incurred in that market. Thus, if there were any subsidies imbedded in those prices or costs, they would not be offset by the antidumping methodology and would need to be addressed separately in a countervailing duty investigation.

Judge Restani’s August 4, 2010 decision followed an earlier decision in the GPX case where she sent the matter back to DOC to find a way to avoid the double counting problem. In the earlier case, Judge Restani found that, while DOC had discretion to impose countervailing duties on Chinese merchandise while still considering China to be a non-market economy (the central issue in dispute), DOC had to avoid double counting of subsidies when it applied the countervailing duty law and the antidumping non-market economy methodology to the same products at the same time.

DOC interpreted Judge Restani’s earlier decision as giving it three options: (a) not apply the countervailing duty law; (b) apply the market economy antidumping methodology in that case; or (c) lower the cash deposits imposed in the antidumping case by the amount of cash deposits imposed in the countervailing duty case. DOC decided to lower the antidumping deposits by the amount of the countervailing duty deposits. Judge Restani found that option contrary to US law because there is no provision in the antidumping statute to lower duties by the amount of countervailing duties and because that option is unreasonable as it requires the parties to go through the expense of countervailing duty proceedings that are essentially useless.

Judge Restani ordered DOC to forego imposing countervailing duties on off-the-road tires from China because DOC demonstrated in that case that it did not have the ability to determine the degree to which double counting was occurring in its non-market economy language and offset it directly within that methodology. Thus, the CIT has left open the option in future cases for DOC to try new methodologies to eliminate the double counting within the antidumping nonmarket economy methodology. DOC continues to have the option of imposing countervailing duties to products from China in cases without a companion antidumping case on the same products, or in cases in which it uses its discretion to recognize a market-oriented industry (“MOI”). In that latter instance, considering MOI status, it could continue its general policy of not recognizing China as a market economy while using a market economy methodology for a particular industry. DOC has never recognized an industry in China as “market-oriented,” but it does have the statutory authority to decide to apply market economy methodologies on a case-by-case basis.

DOC, or the petitioners in the GPX case, have the right to appeal Judge Restani’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”). Should they do so, that higher court could overturn Judge Restani’s decision, affirm it, or modify it. Were the CAFC to overturn the decision, DOC would be free to apply countervailing duties to the same products on which it used the non-market economy antidumping methodology. In deciding whether to appeal, however, DOC must consider the risk of appealing and losing. Right now Judge Restani’s decision is binding on DOC only in the GPX case: it does not set precedent that DOC would be forced to follow in all future cases. Were DOC to appeal and have the CAFC affirm Judge Restani’s decision, that affirmation would be binding precedent, prohibiting DOC from applying both the CVD law and the non-market economy methodology to the same merchandise.

Judge Restani’s decision was based solely upon US law. However, China has challenged at the World Trade Organization, on the same grounds of double-counting, the application to China of the countervailing duty law while DOC refuses to recognize China as a market economy. Judge Restani’s decision in GPX demonstrates the value, at least to the companies involved, of appealing to the US court, rather than relying solely on WTO challenges. As we noted in earlier articles on this blog (US Court Decision Ought to Change Chinese Thinking and WTO Challenges Not Always a Panacea for Respondents in Trade Litigation), the WTO process is designed to vindicate governmental interests, but does not often provide much comfort or relief for commercial interests. Appeals in the US courts, by contrast, are a right belonging to the companies themselves that have been hurt by the agency’s challenged actions and, when those companies win in U.S. courts,, the remedy can provide immediate retroactive relief.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

China Is A Target

China has been the primary target of anti-dumping measures around the world for a very long time. More than 30 countries have initiated roughly 600 antidumping cases against 4000 different types of Chinese products during the last two decades. The United States alone has conducted 122 investigations (excluding withdrawals and terminations), and imposed 101 orders against Chinese goods. Approximately 30 percent of all WTO-member anti-dumping investigations have been directed against China.

The Chinese Government and Chinese companies have not consistently cooperated with U.S. authorities or participated fully in investigations. History shows, however, that cooperation and participation matter and that results enabling Chinese merchandise to remain competitive in the U.S. market are always possible.

It Is Possible To Win

For many Chinese companies, the United States is an indispensable market and their very existence depends on retaining access to it. Good legal defenses can be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as having to abandon the market, or sell at non-competitive prices. Failing to participate in antidumping or countervailing duty investigations under the assumption that winning is impossible, either because the American system must be rigged or competent counsel is not affordable, is particularly unfortunate because many companies that do participate fully and with competent counsel can, and often, do prevail.

Historically, Chinese companies have won few antidumping and countervailing duty cases, not because it was impossible to win, but because the Chinese companies were not familiar with the legal and operational procedures of the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, have hired low cost counsel without the experience or resources to defend them effectively, and failed to cooperate fully with the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) or participate at the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). These reasons for failure are far more important than anything that might be supposed about the political environment or anti-Chinese prejudice in the United States.

Before petitions seeking investigations of Chinese steel products began being filed in 2007, the largest case against China (by volume of exports) was Bicycles from the People’s Republic of China. Hundreds of millions of dollars of exports and thousands of jobs across China, Hong Kong and Taiwan were at stake. Chinese exporters hired talented lawyers who led them through multiple submissions and verifications, in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Millions of dollars were spent in legal fees, but more than 100 million dollars of exports were threatened. Paying for competent counsel paid off. Of the nine exporters found dumping, the highest antidumping margin was only 13.67%. Several companies were not found to be dumping at all. The ITC, applying these margins in the analysis of whether a U.S. industry was materially injured or threatened with material injury by Chinese exports of bicycles to the U.S., found none, leading to dismissal of the case.

It Pays To Pay

Chinese respondents in Ball Bearings from the People’s Republic of China spent nearly a million dollars in legal fees, but the leading company, with a multi-million dollar investment in a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility outside Shanghai, received a zero margin and was free from duties. There is no guarantee, of course, that when a Chinese company spends more money on legal services it will necessarily get better results, but there are market reasons why some lawyers command higher rates than others: their time is in more demand, which means the market for services is recognizing their value. It may seem to a company an important savings to hire lawyers for $50,000 or even $100,000 less than lawyers from firms with greater reputations, but when a $100 million market is at stake, the savings on legal fees suddenly does not amount to that much and do not make sound commercial sense.

There are additional considerations. Chinese companies typically want fixed fees for legal services, no matter what may happen in a case. In some instances, petitioners may not want to spend very much themselves and therefore do not apply a great deal of legal pressure on respondents. However, when the opposite is true and petitioners press their case hard, there is much more legal work necessary on the defense. A budgeted commitment for a questionnaire response and perhaps one supplemental questionnaire could turn into multiple supplemental questionnaires. Legal briefing that might have appeared to be routine could require enhanced legal skills and knowledge of the law.

A company may be confident that its records are kept well, only to learn during an investigation that the company standards will not satisfy DOC. In these instances, counsel may require much more time and effort to prepare the company for the audit DOC officials will conduct (called “verification”), which will be a full inspection of the company’s books.

When the fee is fixed and additional legal services are required because of the circumstances of the case, one of three things can happen. The lawyers can do all that is required for the fixed fee and take a financial loss on the case. The company can agree that it will need to pay more for the additional services. Or, the lawyers, without saying much to the company about it, can simply do less, providing less than optimal services because they effectively are not being paid to do all that is required.

It may be unethical not to do all that is needed when payment may not be forthcoming, but in most instances that is what happens. Chinese companies insist upon the fixed fee and will not pay more; the lawyers cannot afford to do a great deal more. The lawyers then do the minimum necessary to get through the case, and the company suffers without ever being told that the lawyers are doing less than they should be doing.

For all these reasons (and there are many others), it pays to pay: participation and cooperation in the case is always better than refusing or limiting participation. Paying for the best available legal services is always better than trying to get through the case on the cheap, particularly when the cost is compared to what is at stake. It is always better to be flexible about fees because every possible contingency in the case cannot be anticipated in advance, and because there will always be unscrupulous lawyers (as there are unscrupulous businessmen) who will promise more than they can deliver, and will do as little as possible to earn their fees.

The Bigger Picture In Trade Remedy Disputes

Many Chinese businessmen and government officials, in our experience, seem to believe that the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations initiated by the United States (and Europe) are part of a larger, undeclared China-US (or China-West) trade war, and that the U.S. Government is behind the scenes controlling the outcome of the cases to the detriment of Chinese companies. There are undoubted protectionist biases in the trade laws that the U.S. government is required to respect, but trade remedy investigations and reviews are more conflicts between companies in different countries competing for the same market share than they are contests between nations. Americans are not unaware that, should they play unfair at home, their own exports may face unfair practices in China and elsewhere, which is why they subscribe to the WTO and a common rule worldwide.

There is little or no benefit for a company to conjure world trade as a conspiracy, and there is ample contrary evidence that respect for laws and institutions can pay off. Chinese companies would benefit more by participating and cooperating fully, fighting as hard as possible according to the legal rules, hiring competent American counsel and participating fully in all phases of the DOC and ITC investigations, instead of blaming or speculating on political motivations behind poor results.

Summary: Improving The Chinese Prospects Of Winning

How can Chinese companies win antidumping and countervailing duty cases? They first need to hire competent U.S. lawyers with experience and proven track records. The homework necessary to choose counsel is not simple, but again not impossible. They cannot listen to lawyers touting their own credentials without proof. They need to ask questions. Their focus, however, should be on the quality of the lawyers and their services, their reputation and their experience. It should not be only on price. Until recently, many trade remedy petitions were brought against merchandise from other countries. Respondents in other countries have never depended so much on the price of legal services the way Chinese companies have done, and there is a contrast in results that suggests powerfully that it pays to pay.
Second, Chinese companies need to commit to cooperation with the investigating agencies and participation in every phase of the investigations. They need to commit resources and devote themselves to fighting hard to win. They need to consider the potential expense of defending their interests in the U.S. market against the potential value of losing access to the market. They need to think in the medium and long term, for once shut out of the market by an adverse outcome, it could take five years or more (the period awaiting a sunset review of an antidumping or countervailing duty order) to get back in. And they must know that, when their market access is challenged in the U.S., a challenge in Europe likely will follow, and vice versa. The global market means global challenges, and a problem in one place inevitably becomes, sooner or later, a problem in another.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link