US affirms Asian plastic bag
imports detrimental to local trade
The US International Trade
Commission has determined that certain plastic bags imports from China, Malaysia, and
Thailand had been materially
detrimental to its domestic industry, given its sales at less
than fair value, the International Trade Administration said in a
press statement on Thursday, Jul 15. All six of its commissioners
had voted in the affirmative, based on the investigations which
were ongoing since end-June.
The plastic bags which were
investigated were defined as polyethylene retail carrier bags,
which also typically provided without any consumer packaging and
free of charge by retail establishments. As such, the US
Department of Commerce will be issuing anti-dumping orders for
imports from the above-mentioned countries. The case has been
ongoing since Jun 20, 2003, when the petition was filed by the
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee, and its individual
members which include several domestic bag manufacturers in the
US.
Asian exports of plastic bags to the
US were expected to continue, primarily due to the advantage of
cheaper labor cost in Asia compared to the US. Trade flows,
however, may shift to the other countries in region as the
dumping penalties imposed on China, Malaysia and Thailand may
result in a loss of cost competitiveness from these countries.
Other players however said that the dumping duties are unlikely
to alter trade flows much as the duties imposed by are targeted
on specific companies rather the whole country per se. As such,
the convertors are just inclined to transfer their market share
to local affiliates, and move to do business elsewhere. Already,
some regional convertors have shifted their base centers to
equally competitive, though less controversial countries like
Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia.
Meanwhile, US import statistics in
2003 showed that the volume of plastic bags from China and
Thailand had risen by 35% and 34% respectively from the previous
year, even as the investigations are being conducted. The
increase in export volume may be attributed the
"pre-positioning" of the stocks before the new duties
are imposed, one source said. Only Malaysian imports to the US
appeared to be affected with volume down 48% over the same time
period.
Nevertheless, most players believed
that the full impact of the dumping duties on trade patterns
would become evident only by early next year.
米商務省、中国産ＰＥ袋などに反ダンピング課税
米商務省は20日、中国、マレーシア、タイ産のＰＥ袋製品（1億7500万ドル相当）に対し、反ダンピング税を課すことを決定した。
これによると、中国産製品に1〜123％、マレーシア産に0．14〜101．74％、タイ産に2．84〜122．88％の課税措置を取る。最終的に課税措置を取るのは今年6月上旬という。
米国際貿易委員会はこの問題に関して今年8月に採決を行い、最終裁定を下す。
米国商務省は2003年7月10日に反ダンピング調査を開始した。法律上は調査開始の 140 日以内、即ち11月27日までに仮決定を出す必要がある。しかし、調査の申請者からの要請があれば仮決定を50日延期できる。
10月16日に申請者から延期要請があり、これに基づき商務省が延長決定をした。申請者の延長要請の理由は不明だが、調査開始後、米国内で大きな議論を呼んでいる。同業者の多くが中国や東南アジアに進出したり進出しようとしているほか、申請者の中にも実はこれらの国の会社との関係が深いところがある。需要家側の多くは大反対しており、「申請者は輸入品の価格ではなく、自社の品質が悪いために売上が減っただけ」と公聴会で主張した会社もある。
ダンピング査定をされれば3国からの輸入はなくなるが、代わりに他の国から入るだけとの見方が多い。
Chemnet Tokyo 2003年12月09日
米国によるPE袋のAD仮決定は年明けか
商務省等の審議がなぜか大幅に遅延
米商務省など関係省庁が中国、マレーシア、タイの3カ国のポリエチレン・リテールキャリーバッグ（PE袋）を対象に進めているアンチダンピング審議が大幅に遅れており、わが国商社筋では仮決定が下される時期が年明けになるとの見方を強めている。
米国では、国内のPE袋業界が中国など3カ国から輸入されているPE袋が同製品業界を大きく圧迫しているとの訴えを起こしたのを受けてITC（ユナイテッド・インターナショナル・トレードコミッショナー）や商務省が今年7月以降アンチダンピング調査を続けている。当初は、8月中に仮決定するとの意向が関係省庁から示されていたが、実際には審議が大幅に遅れていていまだに明確な方針が打ち出されないままきている。一時は、12月上・中旬に仮決定されるとの観測が関係筋の間に広がっていたが、最近では1月中旬にずれ込むと見る向きが増えている。
大手商社の調べによると、米国におけるPE袋の需要は年間約1,100億袋で、そのうちの300億袋（およそ30万t）が中国、マレーシア、タイの3カ国からの輸入で占められている。仮に米国がAD提訴に踏み切れば、これら3カ国が対日輸出に一段と拍車をかけてくる可能性がある。
Chemical Week, July 16, 2003
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC; Washington) says
it has launched a preliminary antidumping investigation into
polyethylene (PE) bags imported into the U.S. from China,
Malaysia, and Thailand. The USITC will rule by September on
whether a formal investigation is warranted. A group of plastics
processors, the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee, filed
the claim with USITC on June 20. "The petition claims that
plastic bags are being sold in the U.S. at dumping margins of
78%-122%, resulting in a significant increase in imports,"
says P.J. Juvekar, analyst with Citigroup Smith Barney (New
York). Imports of plastic bags from China are up 400% over the
past five years, and CMAI (Houston) recently estimated that the
U.S. is importing the equivalent of one world-scale PE plant in
plastic bags annually.
68 FR 42002, July 16, 2003 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene
Retail Carrier Bags from The People's Republic of China,
Malaysia, and Thailand
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 2003.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 20, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
received a petition on imports of polyethylene retail carrier
bags (``PRCBs'') from The People's Republic of China (``the
PRC''), Malaysia, and Thailand, filed in proper form by PCL
Packaging, Inc., Sonoco Products Company, Superbag Corp.,
Vanguard Plastics, Inc., and Inteplast Group, Ltd. (referred to
hereafter as ``the petitioners'').
On June 25, 2003, the Department requested additional information
and clarification of certain areas of the petition. The
petitioners filed supplements to the petition on June 30, 2003
and July 8, 2003.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), the petitioners allege that imports of
PRCBs from the PRC, Malaysia, and Thailand are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the Act and that such
imports are materially injuring and threaten to injure an
industry in the United States.
The Department finds that the petitioners filed this petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested
parties as defined in section 771(9)(c) of the Act. Furthermore,
with respect to the antidumping duty investigations the
petitioners are requesting the Department to initiate, they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support (see ``Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition'' below).
Wall Street Journal 2003/10/10
Plastic Bag Fight Pits U.S.
Makers V. U.S. Importers
By THADDEUS HERRICK
When fierce overseas competition forced a Sonoco Products Co.
plastic bag-making business to close its Santa Maria, Calif.,
plant last year, ending 100 jobs, the company went on the
offensive.
Sonoco and four other U.S. makers of plastic shopping bags, used
by grocery and department stories, charged that manufacturers in
China, Thailand and Malaysia were violating U.S. antidumping laws
by selling the bags in the U.S. below cost. In a petition to the
International Trade Commission, the U.S. manufacturers, calling
themselves the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee, charged
that the alleged dumping cost them $300 million a year in sales.
But the fight over products that cost as little as a penny apiece
involves a surprising web of allies and adversaries, underscoring
just how complex global trade has become.
The issue also highlights the difficulty in distinguishing
between U.S. and foreign manufacturers: In the dispute, some U.S.
producers are aligned against other U.S. companies that have
turned to Asia for their own bag production. Two of the
manufacturers crying foul are linked to foreign companies -- one
Canadian and one Taiwanese -- while a third company relies on a
Mexican business by the same name to serve as a distributor and
supplier. Yet another company supporting the petition just opened
a plant in China.
At the same time, the petition has drawn the ire of a major
customer, retailer Target Inc., which argues that U.S.
manufacturers are exaggerating their losses and simply can't
match the quality of the Asian producers.
"It would be almost laughable if it weren't so bloody
serious," says Vic Platta, vice president of sales and
marketing for Advance Polybag of Metairie, La., a company Sonoco
is accusing of dumping. Advance recently invested $7.1 million in
a Thai plant that is expected to meet 20% of U.S. demand, making
it an "imminent threat" to other U.S. companies,
according to the petition before the trade commission.
The petition could prevail. The U.S. has filed 17 antidumping
orders against a variety of imports from China in the past five
years, and in August, the commission ruled it had adequate
evidence that U.S. plastic bag-makers had been harmed -- or
threatened with harm -- to justify a full investigation. A
preliminary ruling is expected from the Department of Commerce as
early as late November.
In addition to Sonoco, which is based in Hartsville, S.C., the
petitioners include Superbag Corp. of Houston, Vanguard Plastics
Inc., Inteplast Group Ltd., and PCL Packaging Inc., whose
Canadian parent PCL Packaging Corp. is based in Barrie, Ontario.
At least six other companies in the U.S. and Canada are listed as
supporters of the petition.
Complicating the case, some of the petitioners themselves have
business ties to foreign companies. For example, Inteplast, of
Livingston, N.J., is partially owned by an Asian bag maker,
Formosa Plastics Group of Taiwan. Superbag is owned by a family
that once owned a plastics-making business in Mexico and
maintains a "strategic alliance" with Superbag de
Mexico. Testimony before the International Trade Commission
further revealed that Vanguard, of Dallas, has imported from Hong
Kong, and Sonoco from Brazil.
The U.S. companies trace their woes back to 2000, when plastic
shopping-bag imports from China, Thailand and Malaysia began to
surge. From 2000 to 2002, the companies say, those three
countries doubled their U.S. market share, to 30% of bags sold
from 15%. U.S. makers saw their share fall to 60% from 80% in the
period. From 2002 to 2003, Asian imports rose 18% more, the
petitioners say.
In 2001, Vanguard closed its Compton, Calif., plant, laying off
50 workers, leaving seven plants still in operation in the U.S.
This year, Sonoco shut all five of its U.S. plants for four days
over Memorial Day and six days over the Fourth of July because of
mounting inventories. "We're just hanging on," says Rex
Varn, Sonoco's division vice president and general manager.
U.S. manufacturers argue that plastic bags produced in the U.S.
and Asia are the same quality, but that Internet bidding has
forced the price down, allowing aggressive Asian companies to bid
below their real cost. They say the Asian producers want to put
the U.S. manufacturers out of business, seizing the U.S. market's
100 billion plastic bags a year.
Most retailers buy bags from Asia through distributors, and have
been reluctant to involve themselves in the trade spat. But
Target, the nation's second-largest retailer and one of the few
companies to purchase the bulk of its 1.8 billion bags a year via
the Internet, has come out swinging against the petition.
Jim Johnson, who heads procurement for Target, testified before
the International Trade Commission that U.S. producers seldom
meet Target's specification's for bags 24 inches in length, nor
does their printing produce clear, crisp images like the Asian
manufacturers. Once, said Mr. Johnson, a domestic producer
delivered Target bags with the name Wal-Mart printed in the
pleat. "Quality issues of this type have a significant
impact on our purchasing decisions," he said in testimony.
In an interview, Mr. Johnson said that he was surprised the U.S.
manufacturers filed a petition.
Another force buffeting U.S. manufacturers is the soaring price
of U.S. natural gas, which produces the resin used to make
plastic for the bags. Asian producers purchase their resins from
Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, where the
price of gas is barely above $1.50 per million British thermal
units. The price of U.S. natural gas, by contrast, has run
between $4 and $6 per million BTU most of this year.
U.S. companies don't talk about the sharply lower costs of
natural gas for Asian manufacturers, because it weakens their
complaint about dumping. Yet such savings have undoubtedly lured
some American concerns to set up operations in Asia, too, further
blurring the distinctions between U.S. and foreign companies.
Ampac Packaging LLC of Cincinnati testified against Asian
manufacturers, despite opening a plant in Nanjing, China, last
year. The company did so "purely as a defensive measure
against import competition," John Dill, the company's chief
financial, officer told commissioners.
By most accounts, antidumping measures would wipe out the
plastic-bag-making industry in China, Thailand and Malaysia.
People opposed to penalties say that if those imports are
stopped, plastic bags will simply come from somewhere else where
labor is inexpensive. "I don't care what the petitioners
say," William Perry, a lawyer for some Chinese exporters and
U.S. importers, told commissioners, "these bags will never
be produced in the United States."
68 FR 61656, October 29, 2003
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags
From the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand
ACTION: Notice of postponement of preliminary determinations in
antidumping duty investigations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 29, 2003.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is postponing the preliminary
determinations in the antidumping duty investigations of
polyethylene retail carrier bags from the People's Republic of
China, Malaysia, and Thailand from November 27, 2003, until
January 16, 2004. These postponements are made pursuant to
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Postponements of Due Dates for Preliminary Determinations
On July 10, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
initiated the antidumping duty investigations of imports of
polyethylene retail carrier bags from the People's Republic of
China, Malaysia, and Thailand. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From The
People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 68 FR 42002
(July 16, 2003).
In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``the Act''), the notice of initiation stated
that the Department would issue its preliminary determinations no
later than 140 days after the date of initiation, or November 27,
2003. See id.
On October 16, 2003, the petitioners, the Polyethylene Retail
Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, PCL Packaging,
Inc., Sonoco Products Company, Superbag Corp., Vanguard Plastics,
Inc., and Inteplast Group, Ltd., made a request for a 50-day
postponement of the preliminary determinations, pursuant to
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e). Under
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if the petitioners make a timely
request for an extension of the period within which the
preliminary determination must be made under subsection
733(b)(1), the Department may postpone making its preliminary
determination by no more than 50 days after the date on which the
preliminary determination is normally due. Petitioner's request
for postponement was timely, and the Department finds no
compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance
with section 733(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is postponing
the deadlines for issuing the preliminary determinations.
January 16, 2004, is 50 days from November 27, 2003, and
therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act,
the Department is postponing the preliminary determinations in
these investigations until January 16, 2004.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f).