Text Box: Text Box: Text Box: Text Box: Text Box: Text Box: Text Box: Text Box: Text Box:

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

Text Box:

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

Page 1

Rounded Rectangle: Site Index Rounded Rectangle: Home

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

Determining US Antidumping Trade Policy

The U.S. International Trade Commission

Understanding The Steps In Antidumping

U.S. Antidumping Investigation Methods

Understanding Industry Support

in a Petition

Special Trade and Antidumping Guide

 Understanding US Trade and Tariffs

 

About this Guide - Table of Content

Forbes Financial Magazine has put together this brief guide to be used as getting started guide when gathering information about whether or not you may want to file a antidumping petition with the United States Department of Commerce.  Because of the complexity in trade regulation and the complexity in locating single source information this guide was compiled to help provide you with a starting point while you gather your information. 

 

Parts of this guide may be incomplete and it is only meant to capture some of many key points and site examples to hopefully give you a better understanding of the U.S. antidumping process provided by the United States trade resources.  The information in this guide has mostly been compiled from the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the Office of the United States Trade Representative and LII Connell Information Institute as well as other divisions of the United States Government and it is in no way a full or complete guide on trade. 

 

It will be best for you to visit all these sites and gather more details as well as get help from people specializing in trade and trade law to get more details in understanding this complex area.

 

LII Cornell Information Institute

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_trade

 

US Customs and Border Protection

https://www.cbp.gov/trade

 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements

 

United States International Trade Commission

https://www.usitc.gov/

 

Stopfakes.gov

https://www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=U-S-International-Trade-Commission

 

Heritage.org - A Guide to Antidumping Laws By Bryan T. Johnson

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1992/07/bg906nbsp-a-guide-to-antidumping-laws

 

Antidumping And Countervailing Duty Handbook

https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/handbook.pdf

 

Meeting the Conditions to File a Petition

To initiate an investigation, the Department of Commerce must determine that a petition is filed by an interested party and has the support of the industry producing the domestic like product in the United States (“industry support”).

 

The Department of Commerce will determine that the petition has sufficient industry support if it meets two criteria:

 

     1) “25% Test”

 

The domestic producers or workers who support the petition must account for at least 25% of the total production of the domestic like product

 

The ratio for the 25% test is derived by:

 

 

                (Total production volume of all petitioners and supporters)

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  (Total U.S. production volume)

 

 

     2) “50% Test”

 

The domestic producers or workers who support the petition must account for more than 50% of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the petition.

 

The ratio for the 50% test is derived by:

 

 

                (Total production volume of all petitioners and supporters)

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              (Total U.S. production volume of those expressing a position)

 

 

The petition should identify all producers of the domestic like product along with their addresses

 

in addition, the petition must include information relating to the degree of industry support for the petition, including:

 

     1) the total volume and value of U.S. production of the domestic like product,

 

       and

 

     2) the volume and value of U.S. production of the domestic like product produced by the petitioner(s) and each domestic producer identified.

 

 

Typically, information should be provided for the most recently complete calendar year.

 

How the U.S. Government Determines Dumping

1) A U.S. company submits a petition to the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce, alleging that a foreign company is dumping its product in the U.S.

2) If the Commerce Department determines that sufficient evidence exits, it will proceed with an investigation.

3) The ITC then may start its own investigation to determine whether there is injury to any domestic companies.

4) If the ITC finds there has been material injury to a U.S. company, the Commerce Department will determine whether the product in question is being sold in the U.S. at "less than fair value," or at a lower price than that sold in the home market or a third country market.

5) If the Department issues a preliminary finding that sufficient evidence of such pricing practices exists, it will direct the U.S. Customs Service to suspend the importation of the product, or require U.S. importers of the product to post a deposit. This bond must be paid to the U.S government in the event that a final determination finds that the product is being sold at less than fair value.

6) The ITC, at this point, must determine if there is any actual material damage to U.S. companies caused by the alleged dumped imports.

7) If the ITC determines that the dumping has caused injury to a U.S. manufacturer, the products then are subjected to "antidumping duties" equal to the amount of the determined dumping margin. The dumping margin is the difference between the price of the "dumped product" and the price the product would sell for if it were being sold at a "fair" price, according to calculations by the ITC. If, however, the ITC finds that there is insufficient evidence, the case is dismissed.

 

Antidumping Investigation Methods

Investigation Methods
When the Commerce Department attempts to determine when a product is being dumped, it compares the "U.S. price" with the product's "foreign market value." The U.S. price is determined by the purchase price when the good enters the U.S., minus packaging costs, import duties, and taxes. In other words, the exporter's sale price will be reduced by the amount of fees paid and other pre-sale costs that result from selling products in the U.S. After this amount is determined, the Commerce Department will then determine if the price reflects a "fair market value" (FMV). The FMV can be determined in three ways, namely:

1) Home Market Price
(19 U.S.C. Section 1677b(1)(A).) The Commerce Department tries to determine how much the same product is sold for in the country where it is manufactured. If the price in the home market is more than the U.S. purchase price, the Department normally finds that dumping has occurred.

2) Third Country Price
(19 U.S.C. Section 1677b(1)(B).) If there are no home market sales of the product, or the sales are so small that it is impossible to determine a market price, the price that the product sells for in a third country may be used. If that price is higher than in the U.S., the Commerce Department normally would find that dumping has occurred.

3) Constructed Value
(19 U.S.C. Sections 1677b(a)(2), 1677b(b), and 1677b(e).) If the market value of the product cannot be determined either by a home market price or a third country price, the Department will rely on a "constructed value." The constructed value method attempts to establish the exact cost of production of the product in question by using "best available information," which includes financial statements and documents on the product and companies in question. If this method is used, the U.S. government requires the foreign company under investigation to provide financial statements, production cost documents, and any other kind of document necessary to determine the costs of production.

If the company does not provide the information in a specified period of time, the Commerce Department will then look to a third country of similar "level of industrialization" to determine how much "similar" products in that country cost to produce. This might mean that Commerce will ask the U.S. companies that initiated the case to provide information on the accused foreign companies.

When it constructs value, the Commerce Department adds an 8 percent profit margin to its calculated production cost to estimate a "fair" sale price in the U.S. This effectively means that if a foreign company cannot sell its product in the U.S. for at least an 8 percent profit, it likely will be found guilty of dumping. If a foreign company is willing to accept only a 7 percent profit on a shipment of sweaters, for example, the Commerce Department would find it guilty of dumping those sweaters in the U.S.

 

About The Harmonized Tariff Schedule

About Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

 

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) was enacted by Congress and made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States.

 

The HTS comprises a hierarchical structure for describing all goods in trade for duty, quota, and statistical purposes.

 

This structure is based upon the international Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS), administered by the World Customs Organization in Brussels ; the 4- and 6-digit HS product categories are subdivided into 8-digit unique U.S. rate lines and 10-digit non-legal statistical reporting categories.

Classification of goods in this system must be done in accordance with the General and Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation, starting at the 4-digit heading level to find the most specific provision and then moving to the subordinate categories.

The "general" rates of duty subcolumn contains U.S. normal trade relations duty rates; products of some NTR countries may be eligible for preferential tariff programs, as reflected in the "special" subcolumn. Column 2 (the so-called "statutory rates") applies to countries listed in general note 3(b); the general notes set forth the rules for applying the HTS. Embargoes, anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, and other very specific matters administered by the Executive Branch are not contained in the HTS.

The USITC maintains and publishes the HTS (in print and on-line) pursuant to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988; see the preface to the HTS for additional explanatory material. However, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the HTS.

 

Countries The U.S. Can Do Business With

Duty rates for goods from most countries are listed in Column 1, General sub column of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Countries whose goods qualify for these rates are considered countries with which the U.S. has "Normal Trade Relations" (NTR). Countries not covered by NTR are commonly referred to as "Column Two" countries, meaning duty rates for products from these countries are listed in Column two of the HTS. Currently, the only countries with Column Two status are Cuba and North Korea.

 

Many countries that qualify for column one rates may also qualify for preferential duty rates under a variety of special trade agreements as listed in the "Special" sub column of Column 1. For more information please refer to the publication Trade/International Agreements. You may also refer to the General Notes in the HTS, Sections 3-18. See the below chart for a key to the symbols used to identify the various trade agreements in the "Special" sub column.

 

Generally, goods may not be imported from or exported to Burma, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and parts of Sudan, as well as to any person or entity named in the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list. In addition, certain restrictions are in place on imports from, and exports to, Iraq. For more information please contact the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or visit their Web site. For restrictions on the exports of certain goods with military applications, please contact the Bureau of Export Controls, Department of Commerce at (202) 482-4811.

Harmonized Tariff Schedule  Column 1 displays US NTR Normal Trade Relation Tariff

Column 2 displays countries without US NTR Tariff amounts.

For More Information https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/regulations/commerce-control-list-ccl

For More Information: https://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/index.htm

 

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSA), is the primary resource for determining tariff (customs duties) classifications for goods imported into the United States. It can also be used in place of Schedule B for classifying goods exported from the United States to foreign countries.[1] The Harmonized Tariff Schedule classifies a good based on its name, use, and/or the material used in its construction and assigns it a ten-digit classification code number, and there are over 17,000 unique classification code numbers. Although the U.S. International Trade Commission publishes and maintains the Schedule in its various forms, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the only agency that can provide legally binding advice or rulings on classification of imports.[2]

 

The Schedule is based on the international Harmonized System, the global system of nomenclature that is used to describe most world trade in goods, maintained by the World Customs Organization (WCO).[2] Virtually all countries base their tariff schedules on the WCO's Harmonized System.

 

The tariff schedule has 99 chapters under 22 sections, and various appendices for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and intermediate chemicals for dye. Raw materials or basic substances generally appear in the early chapters and in earlier headings within a chapter, whereas highly processed goods and manufactured articles appear in later chapters and headings. For example, Section I and Section II cover animals and plants, while Sections XVI, XVII, and XVIII cover "Machinery and Mechanical Appliances", "Vehicles, Aircraft, and Vessels", and "Precision Instruments, Clocks and Watches, and Musical Instruments".

 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule 2016 HTSA Supplement Edition  https://hts.usitc.gov

For More Information: https://hts.usitc.gov/?query=4011  (Search)

 

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Programs under which special tariff treatment may be provided, and the corresponding symbols for such programs as they are indicated in the "Special" subcolumn, are as follows:


Generalized System of Preferences....................................................................................................
United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement.................................................................................
Automotive Products Trade Act.........................................................................................................
United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act...................................................
Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft.................................................................................................
North American Free Trade Agreement:
Goods of Canada, under the terms of general note 12 to this schedule..............................................
Goods of Mexico, under the terms of general note 12 to this schedule..............................................
United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement........................................................................................
African Growth and Opportunity Act.................................................................................................
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act..........................................................................................
United States-Israel Free Trade Area.................................................................................................
United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Implementation Act................................................................
Agreement on Trade in Pharmaceutical Products................................................................................
Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act....
Uruguay Round Concessions on Intermediate Chemicals for Dyes....................................................
United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act........................................................................
United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act...................................................
United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement................................................................................
United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.......................................................
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act................................................
United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.......................................................
United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act.......................................
United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act...........................................

For More Information: https://hts.usitc.gov/?query=4010  (Search)

For More Information:  https://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/trade_program/trade_program_tariff.asp

Special Tariff Programs and Eligible Countries

 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative

             EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

White House with storm sky in Washington DC. Stock Photo - 18704759

The United States has free trade agreements in force with 20 countries

 

The United States has completed negotiations of a regional, Asia-Pacific trade agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement and is in negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) with the European Union, with the objective of shaping a high-standard, broad-based regional pact.

 

Until the early 1960s, the Department of State was responsible for conducting U.S. trade and investment diplomacy and administering the President's trade agreement program.  In the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Congress called for the President to appoint a Special Representative for Trade Negotiations to conduct U.S. trade negotiations. 

 

The Act provided for the Special Trade Representative to serve as chair of a new interagency trade organization established to make recommendations to the President on his trade agreement program. The legislation reflected Congressional interest in achieving a better balance between competing domestic and international interests in formulating and implementing U.S. trade policy.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962

Text Box:

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

Text Box:

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

Text Box:

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

 

Determination of Industry Support

Determination of industry support. In determining industry support for a petition under section 702(c)(4) or section 732(c)(4) of the Act, the following rules will apply:

(1) Measuring production. The Secretary normally will measure production over a twelve-month period specified by the Secretary, and may measure production based on either value or volume. Where a party to the proceeding establishes that production data for the relevant period, as specified by the Secretary, is unavailable, production levels may be established by reference to alternative data that the Secretary determines to be indicative of production levels.

(2) Positions treated as business proprietary information. Upon request, the Secretary may treat the position of a domestic producer or workers regarding the petition and any production information supplied by the producer or workers as business proprietary information under § 351.105(c)(10).

(3) Positions expressed by workers. The Secretary will consider the positions of workers and management regarding the petition to be of equal weight. The Secretary will assign a single weight to the positions of both workers and management according to the production of the domestic like product of the firm in which the workers and management are employed. If the management of a firm expresses a position in direct opposition to the position of the workers in that firm, the Secretary will treat the production of that firm as representing neither support for, nor opposition to, the petition.

(4) Certain positions disregarded.

(i) The Secretary will disregard the position of a domestic producer that opposes the petition if such producer is related to a foreign producer or to a foreign exporter under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act, unless such domestic producer demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that its interests as a domestic producer would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping order or a countervailing duty order, as the case may be; and

(ii) The Secretary may disregard the position of a domestic producer that is an importer of the subject merchandise, or that is related to such an importer, under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act.

(5) Polling the industry. In conducting a poll of the industry under section 702(c)(4)(D)(i) or section 732(c)(4)(D)(i) of the Act, the Secretary will include unions, groups of workers, and trade or business associations described in paragraphs (9)(D) and (9)(E) of section 771 of the Act.

(f) Time limits where petition involves same merchandise as that covered by an order that has been revoked. Under section 702(c)(1)(C) or section 732(c)(1)(C) of the Act, and in expediting an investigation involving subject merchandise for which a prior order was revoked or a suspended investigation was terminated, the Secretary will consider “section 751(d)” as including a predecessor provision.

For More Information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/19/351.203

There are different ways of calculating whether a particular product is being dumped heavily or only lightly. The agreement narrows down the range of possible options. It provides three methods to calculate a product’s “normal value”.

 

Calculating the exporters price during an antidumping investigation. 

 

1. Gather the product price in the exporter’s domestic market.

 

When this cannot be used, two alternatives are available:

2. The price charged by the exporter in another country.

3. The calculation based on the combination of the exporter’s production costs, other expenses and normal profit margins.

 

And the agreement also specifies how a fair comparison can be made between the export price and what would be a normal price.

 

Calculating the extent of dumping on a product is not enough. Anti-dumping measures can only be applied if the dumping is hurting the industry in the importing country. Therefore, a detailed investigation has to be conducted according to specified rules first. The investigation must evaluate all relevant economic factors that have a bearing on the state of the industry in question.

 

If the investigation shows dumping is taking place and domestic industry is being hurt, the exporting company can undertake to raise its price to an agreed level in order to avoid anti-dumping import duty.

 

The law defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation.

 

Methods Used For Calculating Price

Specifically, the US authorities compare the domestic average value of $250 to individual export prices. Then the US authorities treat the so-called "negative dumping margins" as zero when an export price is higher than the $250 domestic average value.

 

Here in the example above we show 4 transactions in from a exporter in China and the average selling domestic price is $250.00.  Add all 4 transactions up and then divide by 4 and you get the average value of $250.00.

 

Now we take the average selling domestic price minus the Export Price to see what the dumping margin is.  See the red lines.  The red arrow is how much each transaction is minus the average $250.00 price.

 

Transaction 1 and 2 are higher then the average price of $250.00 so there was NO dumping on these two transactions.  Transactions 3 and 4 show that theses transactions were sold below the average DOMESTIC price in China and these 2 transaction would be considered DUMPING.

 

The Yellow Box shows the amount these transactions sold BELOW the domestic exporters average selling price.

 

Determining Average Export Product Cost

Text Box:

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

When a U.S. company charges a foreign company with dumping, the Commerce Department assumes that the products in question are similar. For example, if U.S. farmers charge Colombian farmers with dumping, it is assumed that the American farmers are accusing the Colombians of dumping the identical crop to that produced by the Americans.

It should be noted that when you compare fruits or vegetables from the US to a foreign country this is or has been generally a simple process because Corn, Potatoes, Plum Tomatoes, Carrots, Peppers etc. are basically the same in each company and therefore the only difference would be price.  This is now however changing as the classification of GMO crops are introduced and its far more complex when reviewing GMO crops that are Roundup Ready (systemic herbicide treated crops).  There is no way to determine if the GMO crop has had roundup applied as a herbicide although Monsanto encourages farmers to use roundup on all GMO crops that they have with the modified gene which prevents the food crop from dying.

Similar issues can be observed when buying products like baby formula from the Chinese which had melamine in the formula.  Also in 2008 you can reference the 2008 Chinese milk scandal.  Then there was the Chinese powdered eggs with melamine.

These examples tell the start of the story of how “like for like” products can be an art of deception and the US Customs and Border Protection team does not inspect products of these types any further the reading a label.  They can only make sure the required labels are placed on the product which determine the ingredients and these products have the FDA approval.  This becomes a challenge as in our example above it almost sounds like we have a set of steps that could work but that’s only if you know about melamine and you are looking for this on a label.

What if its another product with a different ingredient or a ingredient that has been processed from another supplier first and then purchased by a Chinese company that uses the contaminated ingredient but they assume its safe.  In the melamine example a supplier can make chocolate milk by purchasing a melamine source of milk without the knowledge that the milk has melamine in it.  Then the chocolate milk company adds chocolate to the milk and other ingredients and they place a label on the milk which will of course pass customs without issues.

Comparing products for true like for like results can be an extremely complex process especially when we have no standards set for the make up of the products.  In the case examples above we focused mostly on food products however metal such as steel rods, rebar, I-beam or other metals can be laced with contaminates which can weaken the structural integrity of a building and product which can cause safety concerns as well as under cutting the US manufacturers price but still appearing to provide like for like product under the current US and global trade policies.

 

Determining Like For Like Product

Source: Forbes Financial Magazine

Text Box:

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

Determining like product with a patent can be another complex area when assessing like for like product comparison.  Examples of these can be chemical cleaners, plastic materials, rubber compounds which are used in tires, belting and other industrial applications.

 

It can be extremely complicated even with a great set of guideline mapping out how products should be tested and compared before entry to the country.  The objective is to give authorization to import the goods only after proper testing has been done with the factory making the products and the factory must also allow random inspection or it would not be allowed to export into the US.  This is quality control and a quality standards control division which at this time the US import program does not support.  This would need to be changed under the leadership of the presidential administration of the US.

 

Many articles have been written about the US using unfair like for like product inspection and comparison during trade dumping petition and enforcement.  We think the authors of such articles haven’t got a clue as to how complex the process of like for like comparison can be.  Often times lesser quality product is said to be compared to a US upper class product and a tariff will be applied because it is said to be like for like.  We can site many such examples of Chinese manufacturers that make inferior goods and try selling against a product line people in the US assume is truly a like for like product but nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Product quality of simple items such as electric motors can be an example where the electric motor has slight out of round parts which create additional vibration and ware of the bearings and field magnets.  Additionally the magnet used in the armature can be inferior quality as well as the motor bearings being of cheap quality.  Trying to assess a motor made in the US to a Chinese import can be a task as you see the parts but can not tell the quality issues we have detailed above.  This in itself allows a Chinese manufacturer to undersell what is considered like for like product cheaper then a US made product simply by using inferior parts in the make up of the product.

 

If global trade is ever going to be improved the very first thing that needs to change is a global product like for like product database which details the construction of any product made to be matched using the same materials and specifications.  This is the only way to improve global trade relations and provide consumers and manufacturers a fair and even trade program along with agreed to safety specifications for food, materials and finished goods.

 

Like For Like Product Database Missing

Source: Forbes Financial Magazine

Text Box:

FORBES FINANCIAL MAGAZINE 2016

 

(© 2016 The Forbes Corporation All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.)

The compilation of materials gathered here by the editors of The Forbes Financial Magazine and the pages holding them are protected by copyright, with the copyright held by The Forbes Financial Magazine.

Distribution of these pages on the Internet does not constitute consent to any use of this material for commercial redistribution either via the Internet or using some other form of hypertext distribution. Links to the collection or individual pages in it are welcome.

Many of the judicial opinions, statutes, regulations and other legal materials accessible from these pages are maintained by other institutions. Their use is, therefore, subject only to such conditions as those institutions set.

In those cases where the underlying texts are government documents, those texts lie in the public domain. The Forbes Financial Magazine does not assert copyright in US Government works, but we do claim copyright in markup, navigation apparatus, and other value-added features of electronic editions of government publications. This material is covered by a Creative Commons license, viewable at:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

In brief, the terms of that license are that you may copy, distribute, and display this work, or make derivative works, so long as

· a) you give the The Forbes Financial Magazine credit;

· b) you do not use this work for commercial purposes; and

· c) you distribute any works derived from this one under the same licensing terms as this.

Potential commercial users/licensors should contact us at:  Sales@TheForbesCorporation.com

 

Copyright and Attribution

U.S. International Trade Administration

Industry Support

For More Information:  http://enforcement.trade.gov/petitioncounseling/pcp-industry-support.html

What countries can we do business with?

For More Information: https://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/index.htm

U.S. International Trade Commission

For More Information:  https://www.usitc.gov/

For More information: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1992/07/bg906nbsp-a-guide-to-antidumping-laws

About this Guide

Calculating Price is more Complex Then you Think!

Below is an example of how the US may determine the cost of a product from an exporter in China or another country.

The Problem of Comparing Products

The Need for Global Trade to have a Like for Like Product Specification and Details Database

 

LLPSDD

Copyright

The Investigation Process. The U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) jointly administer America's cumbersome antidumping law. The steps in a dumping case are as follows:

A, A* or A+

AU

B

BH

C

 

CA

MX

CL

D

E or E*

IL

JO

K, P or P+

P

L

R

MA

SG

OM

PE

KR
CO

PA

Products Eligible for Special Tariff Treatment.

Code

Description

Eligible Country or Group

A

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) (duty-free treatment).

GSP2016

A+

Only imports from least-developed beneficiary developing countries eligible for GSP under that heading (duty-free treatment).

GSP2016_LEAST_DEV

AU

Australia Special Rate

Australia

B

Automotive Products Trade Act (APTA) (duty-free treatment)

Canada

BH

Bahrain Special Rate

Bahrain

C

Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (duty-free treatment)

NTR (MFN)

CA

NAFTA for Canada (duty-free treatment)

Canada

CL

Chile Special Rate

Chile

CO

Colombia Special Rate

Colombia

D

Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) (duty-free treatment)

AGOA2016

E

Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)

CBERA

IL

Israel Special Rate (duty-free treatment)

Israel

J

Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA). This program expired on July 31, 2016.

ATPA

J+

Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). This program expired on July 31, 2016.

ATPA

JO

Jordan Special Rate

Jordan

K

Agreement on Trade in Pharmaceutical Products (duty-free treatment)

NTR (MFN)

KR

Korea Special Rate

Korea

L

Uruguay Round Concessions on Intermediate Chemicals for Dyes (duty-free treatment)

NTR (MFN)

MA

Morocco Special Rate

Morocco

MX

NAFTA for Mexico

Mexico

OM

Oman Special Rate

Oman

P

Dominican Republic- Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)

CAFTA + Dom. Rep.

P+

Dominican Republic- Central America Free Trade Agreement Plus (DR-CAFTA Plus)

CAFTA + Dom. Rep.

PA

Panama Special Rate

Panama

PE

Peru Special Rate

Peru

R

Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA)

CBTPA

SG

Singapore Special Rate

Singapore

Morocco

Morocco FTA

Oman

Oman FTA

Panama

Panama TPA

Peru

Peru TPA

Singapore

Singapore FTA

European Union (EU)

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP)

Trans-Pacific Partnership

Brunei,

Chile,

New Zealand,

Singapore

Australia,

Canada,

Japan,

Malaysia,

Mexico,

Peru

Vietnam

Australia

Australian FTA

Bahrain

Bahrain FTA

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Guatemala

Honduras

Nicaragua

CAFTA-DR (Dominican Republic-Central America FTA)

Israel

Israel FTA

Jordan

Jordan FTA

Korea

KORUS FTA

Canada

Mexico

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)