 |
Premium Seafood Co., Inc."The Most Respected Name in the Seafood Industry" For Over 15 Years! |
Anti-Dumping Lawsuit
PREMIUM SEAFOOD ENDORSES THE FOLLOWING NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE ACTION:
NFI Action: NFI
strongly opposes the Byrd Amendment and has endorsed H.R. 1121, legislation
pending consideration before the House of Representatives designed to repeal the
onerous Byrd Amendment because of the barrier to free trade that it creates.
NFI’s government relations team continues coordinate lobbying and communications
outreach efforts with other industry groups in order to influence the opinions
of our nations’ lawmakers in favor of more fair trade practices and against the
Byrd Amendment.
Fishing is the World's Next Resource War
NOTE ON THE ANTI-DUMPING SECTION OF THE WEBSITE --
November 5, 2005
The anti-dumping situation has become too complex for this websites' format. Premium Seafood suggests that you follow up with other more involved resources. You can find the appropriate links for this on our links pages.
However, we invite you to read the earlier submissions below which remain here and which have been posted from earlier timeframes of this action.
| ITC explains how it will conduct changed circumstances shrimp imports review |
| SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [By Ken Coons] - April 2, 2005 - The ITC issued the
following release explaining how it will conduct its changed circumstances
review investigations regarding imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp
from India and Thailand: The Commission will conduct six-month reviews and will make its determinations by October 31, 2005. At the conclusion of its reviews, the Commission will determine whether revoking the antidumping duty orders on imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India and Thailand issued as a result of its earlier investigations would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury to the U.S. industry. If the Commission makes affirmative determinations at the conclusion of its reviews for either order, the corresponding order issued in February concerning imports of these products from India and/or Thailand will remain in place. If the Commission makes a negative determination for an order, that order will be revoked. The Commission will hold a public hearing in connection with these reviews. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at the ITC Building in Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, no later than 5:15 p.m. on Thursday, September 8, 2005. Persons wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date. Persons who have not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations but who have testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. For more information, see the Commission's Federal Register notice dated April 29, 2005, or contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-1802. The Commission also seeks written submissions for the record. Persons who have not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of pertinent information on or before 5:15 p.m. on September 21, 2005. All written submissions must conform with Commission rules and will be available for public inspection, unless they contain business proprietary information. Further information concerning the Commission's changed circumstances review investigations, including citations of applicable rules and deadlines, may be obtained from the Commission's Federal Register notice dated April 29, 2005, or from the Office of the Secretary, 202-205-1802. Ken Coons Seafood.com |
| Thailand and India on shrimp, may revoke duties |
| SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [USITC] - April 25, 2005. The U.S. International
Trade Commission (ITC) today announced that it will conduct changed
circumstances reviews concerning its January affirmative
injury determinations regarding imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp
from India and Thailand. The Commission determined to self-institute the reviews by a 5-1 vote. Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Marcia E. Miller, Jennifer A. Hillman, Charlotte R. Lane, and Daniel R. Pearson voted in the affirmative. Chairman Stephen Koplan voted in the negative. At the conclusion of its reviews, the Commission will determine whether revoking the antidumping duty orders on imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India and Thailand issued as a result of its earlier investigations would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury to the U.S. industry. If the Commission makes affirmative determinations at the conclusion of its reviews, the orders issued in January concerning imports of these products from India and/or Thailand would remain in place. If the Commission makes negative determinations, the orders would be revoked. Details concerning the scheduling and conduct of the Commission's changed circumstances reviews are being developed and will be announced in the near future and published in the Federal Register. BACKGROUND On January 6, 2005, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by imports of certain non-canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam that the U.S. Department of Commerce had determined were being sold in the United States at less than fair value. At that time, the Commission cited concerns about the possible impact of the December 2004 tsunami on certain frozen warmwater shrimp industries of Thailand and India and announced that it would collect information and accept submissions on whether the tsunami's impact on those industries in the affected countries warranted the Commission self-instituting changed circumstances reviews. The changed circumstances provision allows the Commission to conduct a review when changed circumstances make such a review appropriate. The Commission's decision today to self-institute changed circumstances reviews reflects its judgment that there are sufficient changed circumstances to warrant conducting reviews. However, the Commission's decision to conduct changed circumstances reviews is not predictive of the outcome of the reviews. The Commission's decision in the reviews will be based on the factual record developed during the reviews and will determine whether revocation of the existing antidumping duty orders on imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. John Sackton, Editor And Publisher |
ITC Statement on Shrimp Tariff Actions
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [ITC News release] January 7, 2005
Washington, DC- The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) today
announced its determinations in its final phase antidumping investigation
concerning certain frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil,
China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam that the U.S. Department of
Commerce has determined are sold in the United States at less than fair value.
Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Marcia E. Miller, Jennifer A.
Hillman, and Daniel R. Pearson found two like products in these investigations:
canned warmwater shrimp and prawns and certain non-canned warmwater shrimp and
prawns.
They made affirmative determinations with respect to certain non-canned
warmwater shrimp and prawns from all six countries, finding that an industry in
the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of these products.
With respect to canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from China, Thailand, and
Vietnam, they made negative determinations.
They found that imports of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil,
Ecuador, and India were negligible. (Imports are generally deemed 'negligible'
if they accounted for less than 3 percent of all such merchandise imported into
the United States within the most recent 12-month period for which data are
available preceding the filing of the petition.)
Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane found one like
product and voted in the affirmative with respect to all countries.
The Commission, citing concerns about the possible impact of the recent tsunami
on the shrimping industries of Thailand and India, announced that it will
collect information and invites submissions on whether the tsunami's impact on
the affected countries' industries warrants the Commission self-initiating a
changed circumstances review. The changed circumstances provision allows the
Commission to address situations in which changed circumstances warrant review
of an injury determination that has culminated in the issuance of an antidumping
order.
As a result of the Commission's affirmative determinations, the U.S. Department
of Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order on imports of certain
non-canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,
Thailand, and Vietnam. As a result of the Commission's negative determinations,
no orders will be issued on imports of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from
China, Thailand and Vietnam. As a result of the Commission's negligibility
findings concerning imports of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil,
Ecuador, and India, those investigations will end.
The Commerce Department previously made an affirmative critical circumstances
determination with regard to certain imports from China. Therefore,
Commissioners who made an affirmative injury determination today are required to
determine whether the imports are likely to undermine seriously the remedial
effect of the antidumping order Commerce will issue. All six Commissioners made
negative determinations with regard to critical circumstances in this
investigation.
The Commission's public report Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and
Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam (Investigation
Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Final), USITC Publication 3748, January 2005) will
contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the
investigation.
Copies may be obtained after February 11, 2005, by calling 202-205-1809 or from
the Office of the Secretary, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may
also be made by fax to 202- 205-2104.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Office of Industries
Washington, DC 20436
Shrimp Case: Follow the money
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [News analysis] by John Sackton –Jan 7, 2005 - Washington
DC, -- The six International Trade Commission members meeting yesterday in
Washington voted unanimously that injury has occurred to domestic shrimp
producers from imports. As a result, the final duty determinations announced by
the Dept. of Commerce last month will formally go into effect.
The ITC is scheduled to transmit notice of its determination to the Department
of Commerce (DOC) on January 19. Shortly after, the DOC will publish an
antidumping duty order for each country. That document will restate the dumping
margins applicable for exporters from each country, including any amendments to
be made as a result of allegations of calculation errors filed by petitioners
and respondents.
Most seafood industry participants were expecting the ITC to rule in favor of
injury, despite the legal arguments marshaled by ASDA that suggested that the
real problem was that producing farmed shrimp was more cost effective than
producing wild shrimp.
The industry has adjusted to the proposed dumping duties, with five out of the
six targeted countries receiving duties at levels far less than originally
requested. The sixth country, China, has been hit with a very high country-wide
rate of 55.2%. The table below shows the progression from the original petition,
to preliminary duty, to final duty.
The most useful final duty rate is the separate or all others rate, which is the
average duty imposed on a particular country for those companies actually
exporting.
The table shows that, with the exception of China, final duty amounts were far
lower than originally alleged by the petitioners.
(separate rate or all other rate)
Country Petition Prelim Final
Brazil 32%
to 349% 36.9% 10.4%
China 112.81% to 263.68% 49.1% 55.2%
Ecuador 85%
to 166% 7.3% 3.3%
India
82.30% to 110.09% 14.2% 9.5%
Thailand 57.64% 6.4% 6.0%
Vietnam
25.76% to 93.13% 16.0% 4.4%
SSA is claiming that the weighted average duty overall should be about 17%,
while ASDA says the actual 2005 weighted average will be about 5%. The
difference is that the SSA assumes Chinese exporters will send the same volume
of shrimp, to be taxed at 55%, that they did prior to duties. This assumption is
ludicrous. This shrimp will not be a factor in the U.S. market. As a result, the
ASDA estimate of an average duty of 5% appears far more realistic.
To understand the next steps in the duty case, you need to follow the money.
Despite the rhetoric about duties being important to level the playing field for
domestic shrimpers, it is obvious that a 5% duty is not going to have an impact
on the price of domestic Gulf shrimp.
So what next. The key money issue is what may be available under the Byrd
Amendment. The domestic producers are hoping for a multi-million dollar
windfall.
And they may get it.
The total value of U.S. shrimp imports in 2003 was over $3.5 billion. Excluding
China, which has been significantly cut out of the U.S. market, the total value
of shrimp exports from the remaining five countries to the U.S. was $2.24
billion.
The anti-dumping duties have been generally applied as a range, so it is
unrealistic to think that the companies hit with the highest duty (Kim Anh in
Vietnam, Norte Pesca in Brazil) will be exporting subject products to the U.S. A
more realistic way to calculate the overall impact is to take the country-wide
rate, which is closer to the average duty paid on imports from a given country.
Applying the country-wide rates to the 2003 figure of $2.24 billion, we get an
average duty level of 6.1%, and a total potential value of the duties of $140
million dollars.
This represents nearly 50% of the annual total disbursements under the Byrd
amendment of $300 million per year projected by the Congressional budget office
for the next three years. Given that dozens of trade cases draw on the same pool
of money, the experience of most petitioners is that they get far less from the
Byrd Amendment than they request. But some companies get huge windfalls.
Using the example of crawfish, in 2003 and 2004, several companies each received
over $1 million in US Taxpayer money.
Some of the largest payouts were
Company Year Claim Payout Atchafalaya Crawfish 2003 $5,550,018.00 $1,366,771.94 2004 $5,940,653.00 $894,142.59 Seafood International Dist 2003 $4,266,131.00 $1,050,596.26 2004 $4,231,815.00 $636,941.09
The complete list for 2003 is below:
Name Claim Payout A&S Crawfish $ 60,890.83 $14,995.24 Acadiana Fishermen's Co-Op $2,366,031.00 $582,669.24 Arnaudville Seaford $185,310.00 $45,635.26 Atchafalaya Crawfish Proc $5,550,018.00 $1,366,771.94 Basin Crawfish Processors $2,406,595.00 $592,658.71 Bayou Land Seafood $2,552,529.00 $628,597.06 Blanchard Seafood, Inc ( $881,219.69 $217,013.05 Processors Alliance) Bonanza Crawfish Farm $1,867,272.94 $459,842.88 C.J.'s Seafood & Purged Crfish $323,540.00 $79,676.39 Cajun Seafood Distributors $1,650,747.00 $406,520.25 Carl's Seafood $1,035,399.40 $254,982.03 Catahoula Crawfish $3,693,549.35 $909,589.78 Choplin Seafood $1,127,324.04 $277,619.80 Clearwater Crawfish $11,290.88 $2,780.54 Crawfish Enterprises, Inc. $1,976,484.82 $486,737.88 Processors Alliance) Harvey's Seafood $823,368.30 $202,766.31 Louisiana Premium Seafoods $609,320.54 $150,053.97 Phillips Seafood $443,088.82 $109,117.01 Prairie Cajun Wholesale $2,979,817.00 $733,822.89 Randol's Seafood & Resturant $1,419,075.60 $349,467.82 Crawfish Processors Alliance) Riceland Crawfish $1,669,136.00 $411,048.80 Schexnider Crawfish $554,977.00 $136,671.09 Seafood International Dist $4,266,131.00 $1,050,596.26 Sylvester's Processors $1,012,187.46 $249,265.75 Teche Valley Seafood $183,084.00 $45,087.07 Totals for Case $39,648,387.67 $9,763,987.05
Now, imagine this applied to the shrimp case. First of all, the amounts will be
hundreds of times larger, and there will be hundreds of companies involved.
Secondly, the distributions will be highly skewed. There is huge variation in
what amounts are claimed and paid, and it is very clear that the largest payouts
go to the companies claiming the largest volumes of sales.
Because the Byrd amendment does not require that the money be invested in the
business, or put any restrictions on it at all, even that the company still be
in the seafood industry, there is nothing that would require domestic shrimp
companies to invest this money in their businesses. Instead, it is like a
lottery payout, with no strings attached except taxes.
To get to this point, states like Louisiana have imposed taxes and fees, and
contributed public money. Also, the federal government has funded the Wild
American Shrimp Campaign to the tune of $3 million dollars.
It would appear that there should be some attempt on the part of domestic
recipients of Byrd money to pay the public expenses for such things out of a
possible Byrd windfall.
The one thing that all sides agree on in the shrimp case is that for years, the
domestic industry has not been able to invest and modernize because it has been
on the brink, or over the brink, of financial disaster.
The imposition of duties has provided a tremendous opportunity in both marketing
and investment for the domestic shrimp industry. However, under the present laws
it is highly doubtful that whatever money is paid out will actually be used in
this way. Instead, it will simply go into the accounts of those who signed on to
the petition.
A fairer, and more productive, approach would be that proposed by some of the
importers, to set up a fund of up to $100 million, paid by a voluntary import
tax, that would then be used to invest and modernize the shrimp industry. This
would provide a transition to a modernized, improved domestic industry, that
could compete and provide wild shrimp for the U.S. domestic market.
Further the record for Byrd payouts gives no guarantee that some of the domestic
shrimp fishing families most impacted by the low prices will see any money.
Instead, it is likely that future payouts will simply line the pockets of those
companies lucky enough to receive them, with little or no impact on the growth
and competitiveness of the industry, except where individual owners make a
voluntary investment, or share the payout with their fishermen.
At a minimum, domestic industry companies could pledge that any Byrd monies they
receive would first go to payback the states and organizations that have paid
out millions to bring the anti-dumping case, and then to invest such money in
the marketing or infrastructure of the industry, instead of simply cashing out
on the backs of the importers and consumers.
If fishing were treated the way we treat agriculture in this country, this whole
issue never would have arisen. Instead, the government would have stepped in at
an early stage with assistance to domestic shrimp fishermen and shrimp
companies, to help them compete in the world market. The latest farm bill,
signed two years ago by Pres. Bush, gives US farmers $190 billion in subsidies
over the coming 10 years, representing about 25% of their total output.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
mailto:jsackton@seafood.com
Final anti-dumping tariffs announced, Brazil and Ecuador fare particularly well
December 20, 2004
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS BY John Sackton -- Washington DC- Dec 20, 2004- The U.S.
Dept. of Commerce announced final anti dumping duties against four countries
today.
The actual margins were -
Final Dumping Margins :
Brazil
Margin
Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda. (EMPAF) 10.70%
Central de .
9.69%
Norte Pesca S.A.
67.80%
All Others Rate
10.40%
Ecuador
Margin
Exporklore S.A. 2.35%
Exportadora De Alimentos S.A. (Expalsa) 2.62%
Promarisco S.A. 4.48%
All Others Rate 3.26%
India
Margin
Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) 13.42%
Devi Sea Foods Ltd. (Devi) 5.02%
Nekkanti Seafoods Limited (Nekkanti) 9.71%
All Others Rate 9.45%
Thailand
Margin
Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd.,
and Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd. (collectively Rubicon Group)
5.79%
Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., (Thai-I-Mei) 6.20%
The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (UFP) 6.82%
All Others Rate 6.03%
Some of the major impacts of this decision, assuming it is upheld on the final
injury determination in January, are:
--Brazil is back in the U.S. shrimp market. From an all others rate of 36.9% in
the preliminary round, the rate is now down to 10.4%.
--India has fared well also, with duties for 'all others' reduced from 14.2% to
9.45%, and one Indian company, Devi, received a 5.02 rate.
--Ecuador has a nominal tariff with the all others rate at 3.26%, and some
companies just above 2%.
--Thai companies did not fare as well as they predicted, with the rate for all
others going only from 6.39% down to 6.03%. This is somewhat surprising given
the numerous statements from Thai officials and exporters that they expected
lower duties.
The net effect is that of the six original countries which included India,
Thailand, China, Vietnam, Ecuador and Brazil, only China got hit with duties so
high as to keep them out of much of the U.S. market.
The exporters in the other countries will face varying impacts, and some will
have higher costs, but none so severe as to prevent these companies from
competing in the U.S. market if they want to.
Above all, the total decision will not raise the overall price of shrimp in the
U.S. by any significant, or even measurable, amount. Changes in costs of a few
percentage points are not enough to add a per pound cost of $0.50 to $1.00 to
the price of shrimp in a billion pound market.
The biggest likely effect will be to introduce a new certainty into the
international shrimp trade, and this certainty about costs will lead to higher
production. If the U.S. economy continues to grow, we expect that total shrimp
imports to the U.S. in 2005 will be greater than the amounts in 2004.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
seafood.com
FOR THE FACT SHEETS
Preliminary Determinations in the Antidumping Duty Investigations:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Preliminary Determination in Antidumping Duty Investigations:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand
Breaking News: Vietnam shrimp duties slashed
November 30, 2004
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton - Nov 30, 2004- The U.S. Department of Commerce
has just released its final determinations of shrimp anti-dumping duties for
China and Vietnam.
In both cases, the DOC upheld it earlier finding that these countries were
dumping shrimp on the U.S. market.
In the case of China, the differences between the preliminary duty rate and the
final duty rate were not substantial, with the exception of an increase in the
rate for Red Garden (associated with Red Chamber) from 7.67% to 27.89%.
For Vietnam, the duties were dramatically reduced. First, the country wide
special duty rate for Vietnam, which includes all companies who have been
granted a special rate on the basis that they demonstrate they are free from
government control, has been slashed from 16.1% in the preliminary phase to
4.38% in the final phase.
Also, the 3 out of the 4 mandatory responding companies from Vietnam saw their
duties go down as well.
The new specific company rates (with original rates in parenthesis) are
Minh Phu Seafood Corporation 4.21% (14.89%)
Kim Ahn Co., Ltd. 25.76% (12.11%)
Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Co. 4.13% (18.68%)
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation 4.99% (19.60%)
The upshot is that a significant majority of Vietnamese shrimp exports can come
into the U.S. at a duty rate of less than 5%.
Chinese producers did not fare as well. With the exception of Zhanjiang Guolian
Aquatic Products which maintained is zero or de minimis status, two other
companies saw their rates only go down slightly. Thus Allied Pacific group went
from a 90% to 84.93%, and Yellin from 98% to 82%. These changes are not
significant enough to impact trade flows.
On the other hand, Shantou Red Garden saw its favorable preliminary duty of
7.67% increased to 27.89%.
The final duty determinations are clearly a big win for Vietnamese exporters,
who now will be able to compete with Thailand and Ecuador in supplying the U.S.
market with frozen warm water shrimp.
The significant reductions in duties for the Vietnamese companies also suggest
that shrimp exporters among the four market economies, India, Thailand, Ecuador
and Brazil, may see lower final rates.
Exporters in both Thailand and Ecuador have said that they expect their final
duty rates to be lower than their preliminary rates.
The decision for the other four countries will be announced around December
12th.
The final determination of injury by the ITC for China and Vietnam will be made
by January 12th, 2005, and will go into effect one week later.
The CITAC/ASDA shrimp task force expects to strongly contest the injury
determination phase of this anti-dumping case, and the ITC decision to find
injury is not a foregone legal conclusion, although it may be a foregone
political conclusion.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
|
Tuesday Nov. 30th is DOC announcement on final shrimp anti-dumping duties on China and Vietnam |
|
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John
Sackton - Nov 23, 2004- The Dept. of Commerce has confirmed that they will
be making their final determination of anti-dumping duties against
China
and Vietnam on Monday, Nov. 29th. The decision will then be released on
Tuesday, November 30th. In accord with past practice, the final determination will be released at 12 noon. |
|
Shrimp Importers Alert Customs to Potential Disaster |
|
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton – Nov 23, 2004- Last week, in a meeting organized by NFI (National Fisheries Institute), a number of major shrimp importers met with mid-level U.S. customs officials to alert them about a potential disastrous consequence of new customs regulations. At issue is how importers will be required to post a bond to cover their potential duty liability for shrimp imports from companies targeted with anti-dumping duties. Customs has proposed a new regulation that says once final duties go into effect, following the ITC final determinations at the end of January, they will send a letter to each importer telling them the amount of the new customs bond that will have to be posted to continue importing. Some legislators from Louisiana had put pressure on Customs to revise their procedures due to the experience in the crawfish case. With crawfish, several small importing companies closed and never paid Byrd money that they retroactively owed to the Louisiana crawfish companies that had brought the crawfish anti-dumping suit. Customs also has not gotten paid in certain other trade cases, including garlic, green onions, and others. The issue arises when duties are changed, and the importer of record is found to owe a higher duty than first thought. If the amount is not covered by a Customs bond and the company defaults, the government has no recourse to collect the money. The shrimp importers, however, suggested that the proposed remedy would be an economic disaster that would force many importers out of business. They said that the financial requirements customs was proposing may not even be supported by the bonding industry, and could be so onerous that 15 to 30 days after receiving the notice, some importers may not be able to operate at all. Right now, most importers, including companies that have a decades long track record, post a $50,000 customs bond. Under the new regulations, companies would be assigned a customs bond based on their total annual volume of business with a country targeted for anti-dumping tariffs. So as an example, a company that imported $20 million worth of shrimp from China and Vietnam, that could potentially see a 100% duty, could suddenly be liable for a $20 million bond. Such a bond may not be possible to get without a substantial payment or letter of credit, tying up more capital than an importer may have. The result would be to put that importer out of business, regardless of whether he continued to do business with companies targeted with high duties or not. That particular company would have no chance to switch suppliers, or to potentially buy from a non-targeted country. As one of the industry participants in the meeting said, 'your approach is like saying because some people cheat on their tax returns, we are going to require all Americans to pay their taxes a full year in advance.' The importers had no issue with the need for Customs to protect their ability to collect duties that are owed. At issue was whether they would work with responsible importers to come up with a satisfactory approach, or use a method that would have huge unintended economic consequences. Some of the customs officials appeared sympathetic to these concerns, and a number of Congressional leaders have contacted customs on behalf of the importers. Most participants left the meeting thinking some compromise would be worked out, either in allowing importers to avoid posting a liability for the entire year, or to have customs monitor their actual import history under the new duty levels to determine what amount of bond was truly needed. The disaster would be if customs blindly assumed no companies would change suppliers based on anti-dumping duties, and forced importers to post impossibly large bonds for business that they never intend to do. Such a requirement would end up forcing a number of importers out of business. The final customs decisions will not be known until early next year. -John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441 Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com |
|
10 southern representatives sign letter to U.S. DOC supporting shrimpers as shrimp decision looms |
|
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Knight Ridder Washington Bureau ]November 23, 2004
By Charles Homans- wASHINGTON-The signers of the letter to the Commerce
Department urging action on behalf of U.S. shrimpers were: Reps. Solomon
Ortiz, D-Texas; Billy Tauzin, R-La.; Gene Green, D-Texas; Max Sandlin,
D-Texas; Ron Paul, D-Texas; Chris John, D-La.; David Vitter, R-La.; Walter
Jones, R-N.C.; Gene Taylor, D- Miss.; and Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas. |
Associated Press
July 28, 2004
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - The Bush administration will decide on Thursday if tariffs
should be imposed on cheap, pond-raised shrimp allegedly dumped on the U.S.
market from Brazil, Ecuador, India and Thailand.
U.S. shrimpers in the southern United States, who say they have been driven out
of work by artificially low-priced shrimp imports, sought tariffs against the
four countries, as well as China and Vietnam. The case involves about 74 percent
of imports of frozen and canned warm water shrimp valued at about $2.3 billion.
The battle is between American fishermen who still catch shrimp in boats and an
explosion of shrimp farms in developing nations.
The petitioners have asked for the steepest tariffs against Brazilian exporters
- from 32 percent to 349 percent. Exporters from the other countries face a
range of tariffs from 58 percent to 166 percent.
The U.S. Commerce Department has already made a separate ruling on Chinese and
Vietnamese imports on July 6, proposing duties from almost 8 percent to 113
percent for Chinese exporters and 12 percent to 93 percent for the Vietnamese.
China and Vietnam, which make up about 25 percent of imports, were dealt with
separately because they are not considered market economies.
The ruling on China and Vietnam and Thursday's decision are preliminary. The
Commerce Department is to make a final ruling, which needs the approval of the
U.S. International Trade Commission. A final decision is expected by mid-2005.
All six countries, which have developed strong shrimp farming industries, deny
the dumping charges.
``Ecuador is not dumping and it expects to be vindicated,'' said Michael Kaye, a
trade lawyer for Ecuador.
Instead, the countries say they are producing more shrimp thanks to better
farming techniques and increased demand.
The Southern Shrimp Alliance, an eight-state group that orchestrated the
antidumping petition, argues that farm-raised imports to the United States
dramatically increased only after Europe and Japan in 2001 blocked imports
because of preservatives in shrimp.
That forced exporters to sell their shrimp at rock-bottom prices in the United
States, which has seen a 70 percent increase in imports since then, said Deborah
Regan, a spokeswoman for the Southern Shrimp Alliance.
``If it's efficiency, what happened?'' Regan said. ``What occurred that allowed
them to increase productivity?''
What seems certain on Thursday, according to experts, is that the Commerce
Department will find that some level of dumping has taken place.
``The way the system is set up you almost always find dumping,'' said Paul
Brinkman, a trade lawyer who is not involved in the shrimp case. He typically
works on behalf of importers.
``By the time a case is initiated by the Commerce Department, it is commonplace
for the Commerce Department to find dumping, even if it is a small margin,''
Kaye said.
Brinkman expects the dumping margins will be smaller than those handed out to
China and Vietnam, in part because federal officials will be dealing with market
economies.
In determining duties for non-market economies, officials compare U.S. prices
with those of a third country with a market economy considered similar to the
non-market country.
``It is much more difficult to control the outcome of the analysis in dealing
with a market economy,'' Kaye said.
``The sad thing about this case is that the people who will be most hurt by this
are the consumers,'' Kaye said. He said fishermen may find their petition
backfiring as Americans buy fewer shrimp.
``It will make shrimp unaffordable again and it may end up hurting the U.S.
shrimpers who are trying to get relief,'' Kaye said. ``There is a smaller pie
for everyone to share.''
The Southern Shrimp Alliance argues that consumers have not benefited from the
low-priced imports. The group claims that distributors, restaurants and ``other
middlemen'' exceedingly mark up shrimp.
``They've been taking windfall profits since 2000 by increasing the price of
shrimp for consumers even though the price of shrimp has fallen dramatically,''
Regan said. ``They have taken $4.2 billion (in 2002) above what they call
reasonable profits. That amount could easily absorb 100 percent the duties
without passing a penny to consumers.''
She said the consuming industries and importers have made ``consumers think that
'dumping is good for me,' but they have not benefited from dumping.''
On The Net:
Southern Shrimp Alliance: http://www.shrimpalliance.com/
Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition and American Seafood Distributors
Association: http://www.citac.info/shrimp/index.php
CAIN BURDEAU Associated Press Writer
| Both NY Times and Wall St. Journal Come Out Strongly Against Shrimp Tariffs
in Editorials |
| SEAFOOD.COM NEWS - by John Sackton- Lead
editorials this week in both the New York Times and the Wall St. Journal
have come out strongly against shrimp tariffs. Both newspapers' editorial
boards have accepted the argument that farmed shrimp is cheaper to produce
than wild caught shrimp, and that the U.S. trade laws are being used
unfairly to favor domestic shrimpers over American consumers. Both The full Wall St. Journal Editorial from Monday, July 19 and the New York Times Editorial from today, July 21st, are reprinted or linked below: BUBBA GUMP PROTECTIONISM (The Wall Street Journal, New York) Celluloid shrimper Forrest Gump liked to quote his mama's axiom that 'life is like a box of chocolates: You never know what you're gonna get.' Maybe ol' Forrest understood U.S. anti-dumping law and the Byrd Amendment that may soon guarantee U.S. shrimpers a six-figure payout, courtesy of American consumers. The crustacean crowd has filed an anti-dumping suit against six countries that export shrimp to the U.S. -- $2.4 billion worth in 2002. Ostensibly they want tariff increases on imported shrimp, but that's just the chum. What shrimpers are really trolling for is the cash from the Byrd Amendment, which transfers new duties into the nets of petition 'supporters.' To be clear, the petitioners don't need mega-duties to clean up. The Commerce Department's July 6 preliminary ruling against the non-market economies named in the suit, China and Vietnam, featured new tariffs as high as 112 percent. On July 28 Commerce will rule on the four accused market economies: Thailand, Brazil, India and Ecuador. Ninety percent of the shrimp sold in the U.S. is now imported, and Americans are better off for it. According to the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC), shrimp as a share of total food consumption increased 45 percent among low-income families from 2000 to 2002. CITAC also finds that while the U.S. shrimp industry employs 13,000, shrimp consuming industries employ 250,000. The reason for the import jump is simple: Shrimp farming is more efficient than fishing, but it requires waterfront property that in the U.S. has higher value in other uses. Low-wage countries also have the workforce to prepare the shrimp by hand, a superior method of processing. Mexican shrimpers have been left out of the suit but not by accident. According to the trade journal Seafood.com, the Alliance admitted dropping Mexico from the suit because individuals 'contributed significant funds to the legal fight to achieve anti-dumping duties.' Mexicans may have yielded to this extortion, but that doesn't rule out an escalating trade war. The American Soybean Association has complained to Commerce Secretary Don Evans that Thailand has threatened to stop imports of soybeans and soy meal -- a $206 million market in the 2002-2003 marketing year -- if Thai shrimp are hit with tariffs. That's the thing about protectionism -- you never know what costs you're gonna pay. -Wall St. Journal [Copyright 2004 Kyodo News Service Japan Economic Newswire ] *************************************************** *************************************************** The New York Times Editorial can be read in full here: New York Times: Shrimp and Mischief Published: July 21, 2004 Excerpts are here: These have been surprisingly busy days on the trade front. The United States is pushing forward on free trade agreements with Africa, Australia and Central America, while negotiating with Europe and others in an attempt to revive a stalled effort to lower the barriers that make it hard for farmers in the developing world to sell their products. Along with all this progress, however, there have been some distressing reminders of how easy it is for protectionist interests at home to undermine the nation's commitment to free trade, at a high cost to consumers and the overall economy. The spurious antidumping case brought against imported Vietnamese and Chinese shrimp is one particularly unfortunate example. The Bush administration decided earlier this month that shrimp farmers in those two countries were unfairly dumping their shrimp in the American market. As a result, they will face tariffs ranging up to 113 percent. The charges are unfair, but because Vietnam and China are not market economies, the Commerce Department has much license to estimate their shrimp exporters' costs and claim that their prices are improperly set below that level. These antidumping cases are notoriously easy for American businesses to win, and the Bush administration has been especially solicitous of aggrieved industries, particularly those thought to have political clout. Even more scandalous, American industries can profit from bringing antidumping cases, thanks to a law that allows complaining companies to pocket some of the tariffs collected if they win. The World Trade Organization has ruled that this practice is illegal, but it continues anyway. In Vietnam, this shrimp protectionism is seen as only the latest example of American hypocrisy. Washington implored Hanoi to open up its economy and sign a trade deal that would help bring its farmers into the world of global commerce. But given what's happened since then, Vietnam now assumes that America doesn't really want it to succeed. Last year, Washington slapped unwarranted tariffs on another Vietnamese export, catfish. The Chinese got word of the shrimp move just as Washington persuaded Beijing to drop a tax rebate for its domestic semiconductor companies that unfairly hurt American competitors. Now the shrimp case will invite retaliatory mischief; such cases always do. Things may still get worse, as Washington has yet to decide antidumping cases against a group of other nations that include Brazil and Thailand. Sophisticated overseas shrimp farms can bring shrimp to market far more cheaply than American fishing trawlers can. Imported shrimp now accounts for nearly 90 percent of the domestic market, and the resulting lower prices have made shrimp, once a luxury item, the nation's most popular seafood. This all flows naturally from the laws of economics that this country is supposed to believe in. copyright - New York Times July 21, 2004 |
| Wall St. Journal Article Questions Funding and Basis of Shrimp Tariff Suit |
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton – June 11, 2004- In a prominent article today, the Wall St. Journal questioned both the basis of the Dept. of Commerce’s judgments about the cost of shrimp, and also the mechanism by which the anti-dumping suit was funded. The article says that “the multi-billion dollar shrimp spat has emerged as a case study on how contorted the U.S. trade rules have become.” First, the article looks at the funding mechanisms. The WSJ says that “to pay their huge legal bills in the shrimp-dumping case, U.S. shrimpers …received cash from their Mexican competitors—who were then not targeted in the dumping case.” The legal costs were also paid from a U.S. congressional fund meant to rehabilitate the domestic industry. The article then focuses on Byrd Amendment monies. “The shrimpers have touted huge government payments down the road” based on Byrd Amendment monies. Opponents of shrimp tariffs suggested that a 15% average tariff, that reduced U.S. imports by 50%, would take in $180 million per year in duties, providing more than $800,000 per year to each of the more than 200 companies that backed the case. The Journal says that last year, based on the 1997 Louisiana crawfish case, one company in Louisiana received a $1.3 million government check. According to the article, “Shrimp companies in late 2002 posted hundreds of flyers in ports from North Carolina to Texas urging shrimp fishermen to cough up $100 per fishermen to raise an initial $600,000 legal fund. ‘You must register to participate in any monetary benefits that may accrue’ the flyers read.” Debbie Regan, a spokesperson for the Southern Shrimp Alliance, said that the SSA has not pitched potential payments as a main reason for the case and has stated that such payments may never come. Also the Louisiana Shrimp Industry Coalition has recently said that they have not made the case based on Byrd monies, and that those funds were not necessarily going to be there. The article also suggests that the Dept. of Commerce is using a very convoluted analysis to determine shrimp costs. While the usual case is to look at actual cost and sales records, the DOC has asked foreign suppliers to act as if they only sold a single product: raw headless shrimp. They have forced foreign suppliers to convert other products, such as cooked and peeled shrimp, into an equivalent raw headless form. Opponents say this method favors U.S. domestic shrimpers. However, in response to questions, James Jochum, the DOC’s top anti-dumping official, told the Journal that the actual methodology to be used by the Department is still up in the air. John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441 Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com |
New Interactive Map Shows Shrimp Trade
Petition Threatens 20 U.S. Jobs for Each Job 'Protected'
PR Newswire
June 10, 2004
WASHINGTON, Jun 9, 2004 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The CITAC/ASDA Shrimp Task
Force today posted an interactive map of the United States on its website at
http://www.citac.info/shrimp/map/index.html that shows the number of U.S. jobs
on a state-by-state basis that are put at risk by the trade petition filed by
domestic shrimpers compared to the number of U.S. jobs that could be
"protected."
An economic analysis done earlier by The Trade Partnership found that there are
20 US shrimp-consuming jobs involved in processing or distribution for every US
shrimp-producing job, a 20 to 1 ratio, or 250,000 jobs to approximately 13,000.
Higher prices for shrimp, if duties are imposed, will cause many of these shrimp
processing and distributing jobs to disappear, and the take-home pay of others
to suffer.
"We wanted to make it easy for the public, policymakers, and the media to see
how many more jobs in the U.S. are put at risk than those 'protected' by this
baseless petition against imported shrimp," said Wally Stevens, Chairman of the
Shrimp Task Force. "Just click on a state and it will show that there are many
more Americans employed in the shrimp consuming industries than in shrimp
producing industries in every state except for Louisiana, where the ratio is one
to one."
"Some may be surprised at the low numbers of workers employed in the U.S. shrimp
producing industry; however, these statistics are from information provided to
the U.S. International Trade Commission by the petitioners themselves -- the
domestic shrimp producing industry," said Laura Baughman of the Trade
Partnership, who authored the study.
Approximately 90 percent of all shrimp consumed in the U.S. comes from imports.
The trade case was filed against imported shrimp from Thailand, China, Vietnam,
India, Ecuador, and Brazil, which account for about 75% percent of shrimp
imports in the U.S. market, with a 2002 value of $2.4 billion. The petitioners
are alleging dumping margins ranging from 30% to over 200%.
"Why are shrimp producing jobs more important than shrimp consuming jobs?" asked
Stevens. "And how are the petitioners able to use U.S. trade law to potentially
take away American jobs? This trade case isn't going to help anyone -- it's only
going to make things worse. Jobs will be lost if duties are placed on imported
shrimp."
The shrimp jobs map uses employment data submitted by US shrimpers and
processors to the International Trade Commission to calculate shrimp-producing
jobs. The Trade Partnership used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
and National Marine Fisheries data to calculate shrimp-consuming jobs.
"Placing a tax on imported shrimp will do nothing to 'save American jobs,' as
petitioners have claimed," continued Stevens. "It will only deny consumers a
healthy and safe food they want at an affordable price. Shrimp will be taken off
the menu, off the shelf, and off the tables of millions of American families.
Economic isolationism simply isn't the solution to the shrimpers' problems."
Due to the threat that antidumping taxes pose to both consumers and to the
consuming industries that serve them, the Consuming Industries Trade Action
Coalition (CITAC) has formed an alliance with the American Seafood Distributors
Associations (ASDA), bringing together concerned grocers, restaurants,
processors, distributors, business councils, and other consuming groups to form
the CITAC/ASDA Shrimp Task Force. The goal of the Shrimp Task Force is to assure
that the U.S. government considers all the facts in the case fairly and
objectively, with a full understanding of the ramifications to all American
interests of any decision.
For more on this issue, visit http://www.citac.info/shrimp.
SOURCE CITAC/ASDA Shrimp Task Force
CONTACT: George Felcyn of The PBN Company, +1-202-466-6210, or
George.Felcyn@pbnco.com, for CITAC/ASDA Shrimp Task Force
URL: http://www.citac.info/shrimp http://www.prnewswire.com
Breaking News May 21, 2004: SSA Files for Critical Circumstances Determinations
Against Asian Shrimp Exporters
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton – May 21, 2004- On May 19th, the same day on
which the DOC announced a delay in its preliminary determination, the SSA filed
a petition alleging “critical circumstances” against four countries targeted in
the shrimp anti-dumping suit.
The four countries are China, Vietnam, Thailand, and India. The SSA did not
allege “critical circumstances” against Brazil or Ecuador.
The SSA filing was possibly made before they knew whether the DOC would extend
the date of their preliminary determination.
According to statute, a determination of preliminary circumstances can only come
into effect at the time a preliminary determination is made, and by statute,
retroactive duties applied because of critical circumstances can only go back 90
days prior to the date of the preliminary determination.
In the filing, the SSA alleges that between August 2003 and March 2004, imports
from Thailand increased 62.2%, imports from India increased 48.4%, imports from
China increased 113.9%, and imports from Vietnam increased 30.3%.
They compare the amount of imports for the six months from August to March with
the prior six months, i.e. March through August.
In their filing, they also claim that knowledge of the impending anti-dumping
action was widespread.
They also admit in the filing that critical circumstances don’t apply unless the
level of anti-dumping duties is greater than 25%. Since there is no level of
anti-dumping duty established, they fall back on the anti-dumping duties they
sought in the original petition.
In their filing, they sought duties of between 30% and 267% on imported shrimp
from the subject countries.
The filing of a critical circumstances petition by the plaintiffs has been long
expected, and the actual filing is no surprise. What is unusual is the date of
filing, which seemed targeted towards a June 8th decision, rather than the
decision now postponed until July 6th for China and Vietnam, and July 29th for
the other countries.
If the DOC accepts the critical circumstances designation, imports from China
and Vietnam will be subject to retroactive duties as of April 13th, and imports
from India and Thailand would potentially be subject to duties as of May 6th.
The fact that this filing does not include Ecuador and Brazil does not preclude
the right of the SSA to bring a critical circumstances filing against these two
countries at a later date.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com
| Dept. of Commerce May be Preparing to Blast China and Vietnam over Shrimp
Tariffs |
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton May 20, 2004- The fact that the U.S. Dept. of Commerce is handling two groups of countries involved in the shrimp anti-dumping case separately may indicate trouble for Chinese and Vietnamese shrimp exporters. The DOC said the reason for the extension was 'due to the extraordinarily complicated nature of the cases, as reflected in the number of firms involved in the investigations and the complexity of the transactions at issue.' However, when asked why they had indicated that the two non-market economies, China and Vietnam, would be decided earlier, they said 'The difference in the deadlines for the determinations involving market and non-market economy countries is due to the Department's need to complete cost investigations and identify appropriate comparison markets in the investigations involving market economy countries.' Yesterday, the DOC said it would extend its decision on China and Vietnam until July 2nd (to be announced July 6th), but they would extend their decision on Ecuador, India, Thailand and Brazil until July 28th, to be announced on the 29th. At issue are the responses of individual companies who can prove to the DOC the actual levels at which they sold shrimp in the U.S., and the actual levels they sold in third country markets, or in domestic markets. The DOC will then use this information to calculate duty rates on a company by company basis. However under a proposed change in the rules, the DOC may no longer offer companies in non-market economies, called 'Section A respondents,' the chance to prove their independence and receive the lower separate rate. They would instead be subject to the high country-wide rate. This has infuriated the Consumer Industries Trade Action Council, which is opposed to unfair tariffs. Last week, Jon Jenson, CITAC President said 'We are displeased that the DOC is considering an abdication of its responsibility to judge fairly the independence of producers and exporters in NME [non market economy] countries. The DOC appears to be sending a message that it prefers higher dumping margins over fairness and objectivity.' The Commerce dept. has not said when it will implement this new rule, but the deadline for comments is June 1st. If it then applies this rule to all companies in China and Vietnam, it will be able to impose tariffs based on a fictitious cost structure, derived not from actual company data, but from Commerce Dept. assumptions, even when these assumptions contradict actual company financial data. [EDITORIAL COMMENT BY JOHN SACKTON In many ways the Commerce Dept's distinction between market and non-market economies is totally outdated, since some of the most dynamic, aggressive and competitive capitalist companies in the world are located in countries such as China and Vietnam. Instead of accepting the ability of these companies to compete, the DOC is opening itself up to charges that it is erecting unfair trade barriers, by continuing to use these outdated rules. It is hard to see how a country that welcomes foreign investment, and has numerous subsidiaries of major international companies, cannot be called a market economy. Clearly, investors treat these countries as markets for growth and investment, but apparently that is not good enough for the DOC. JS--] John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441 mailto:jsackton@seafood.com |
| DOC Postpones Preliminary Shrimp Tarrif Decision |
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton May 19, 2004 -- The U.S. Dept. of Commerce has just announced a postponement of the preliminary determination of shrimp tariffs, which was due to be made on June 8th. The preliminary determination for China and Vietnam is now scheduled for July 2nd. The Preliminary determination for Brazil, Ecuador, Thailand and India has been postponed until July 28th, the maximum postponement allowed by statute. Regarding China and Vietnam, the DOC has confirmed that the decision will not be announced until July 6th, due to the July 4th holiday. Further, it appears that the decision does not come into effect for another 7 days, until it is published in the Federal Register. According to unofficial estimates, this means that the effective date for any retroactive duty on shrimp from China or Vietnam would be 90 days prior to July 13th, or around April 13, 2004. Regarding Brazil, Thailand, India and Ecuador, the DOC says that this decision will be announced on July 29th, and published in the federal register on August 5th. 90 days back from August 5th would mean that if critical circumstances are alleged for these countries, the date for retroactive tariffs would be no earlier than May 6th, again based on unofficial calculations. The Dept. of Commerce gave no official reason for the delay. John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441 mailto:jsackton@seafood.com |
| Delay in Shrimp Tariff Decision Highly Likely |
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton – May 6, 2004 – It now appears highly likely that the U.S. Dept. of Commerce will delay a decision on shrimp tariffs past the June 8th initial deadline. Last week, the plaintiffs filed amended cost data on shrimp production in various targeted countries. If the Dept. of Commerce accepts this amended data for review, as most people think is extremely likely, it would add another 40 days to the preliminary investigation. Any delay in the date of the preliminary determination would also delay the date upon which critical circumstances, if alleged, become operable. By statute, the DOC can delay a preliminary determination in this case to as late as July 28th, which is 50 days beyond the June 8th deadline. Either the DOC or the plaintiffs can initiate a delay. Past practice suggests that the DOC will likely ask the plaintiffs to make such a request, in order to give the DOC time to review the new material. However, if no such request is forthcoming, the DOC can determine on its own that a delay is necessary for a complete review. It is not clear exactly what is in the amended cost data filed by the Southern Shrimp Alliance in this case. However, companies in the targeted countries have now submitted their actual cost data on shrimp to investigators, and this data is what is used by the DOC to calculate dumping margins, if any. If the plaintiffs feel that the margins are too low, they would likely submit additional data to try and convince the DOC to use their figures, rather than the costs submitted by the companies, or at least introduce some doubt into the costs currently being calculated. There was a huge drop in shrimp import volume after March 8th, due to uncertainty as to whether shipments from the six target countries would be subject to retroactive duty. A delay would move that date forward, and it would also move forward the latest date on which the plaintiffs could allege “critical circumstances.” By statute the retroactive preliminary tariffs, if any, can only go back 90 days prior to the date of the preliminary determination. Critical circumstances must be alleged no later than 20 days prior to a preliminary decision, or at the moment around May 19th. So it would make sense that any decision by the plaintiffs to request a delay would be made before they are forced to tip their hand on whether to allege critical circumstances or not. The prospect of a delay could cause some further disruption in the shrimp market. Companies that had planned to import shrimp from the target countries after the preliminary tariffs were announced will now have to delay their decisions, or make arrangements to mitigate their risk. As a result, the period of uncertainty about the volume and price of shrimp imports will continue for another two months, should this delay come into effect. John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441 mailto:jsackton@seafood.com |
Operators, Distributors, Others Unite to Fight Shrimp Trade Case; Tariff on
Imported Shrimp will be Detrimental to Industry and Consumers, They Say
APRIL
09, 2004 --
The International Foodservice Distributors Association (IFDA), Falls Church, VA,
expressed its "strong opposition" to the proposed tariffs, specifically noting
that if a tariff were to be imposed, the cost of shrimp would be artificially
inflated, impacting foodservice distributors' business and forcing American
consumers to bear the majority of these costs.
"Shrimp is the top-selling seafood in the United States, and imported product
supplies 90% of the nation's demand. Shrimp imports represent a $3.6 billion
business and businesses involved with imports generate $9.8 billion in economic
activity according to a 2003 study," wrote David French, IFDA senior
vice-president, government relations, in a letter to Secretary of Commerce
Donald Evans.
French pointed out that domestic shrimp is seasonally ocean-harvested, while
imported shrimp is farm raised. "Shrimp farming has become a highly efficient
global business, offering economies of scale, full traceability of product, and
year-round harvesting. Today, consumers can find an abundance of high-quality,
uniform-sized, affordable shrimp at their supermarkets and restaurants, due not
to dumping, but to the success of these foreign farming operations," French
explained.
The case of the opponents was further bolstered at a press conference here last
week, announcing the formation of the Shrimp Task Force, an alliance between the
Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) and the American Seafood
Distributors Association (ASDA), to fight the damaging petition filed with the
International Trade Commission (ITC).
Wally Stevens, president of ASDA, observed: "Shrimp is America's favorite
seafood because of imports. It is a safe and healthy food, and over the past
five years, has become a reasonably priced staple of Americans' diet instead of
a luxury that only the wealthy can afford. This petition could take three
quarters of this country's shrimp out of restaurants and grocery stores. The
only way American consumers can be assured of a steady supply of shrimp, as they
have become accustomed to, is to defeat this petition."
The trade case was filed on Dec. 31, 2003, against Thailand, China, Vietnam,
India, Ecuador, and Brazil, which account for about 75% percent of shrimp
imports in the U.S. market, with a value of $2.4 billion. The petitioners are
alleging dumping margins ranging from 30% to over 200%.
Erik Autor, CITAC board member and vice president of National Retail Federation,
said, "The goal of the Shrimp Task Force is to guarantee that shrimp continues
to be widely available at a reasonable price for American consumers, and to
ensure that the 250,000 American workers employed in shrimp consuming industries
are not harmed by this petition. CITAC and ASDA have come together to combat the
PR and lobbying campaign conducted by the petitioners and educate policymakers,
the media and the public on the potential devastating ramifications of this
baseless trade case. The facts need to get out."
Autor also explained that the small group of petitioners stands to gain a hefty
financial windfall should duties be imposed because of the Byrd Amendment, a law
that directs revenues from dumping duties to the petitioners and others who
support the case. Those eligible (42 processors and 185 shrimp fishing firms)
would receive a conservatively-estimated annual payment of $180 million or
$829,493 for each company in payouts of antidumping special interest taxes on
food imports. He also explained how materials circulated by the Southern Shrimp
Alliance solicited support for the antidumping petitions by promoting Byrd
monies as the primary motivation for joining the petition.
"When it boils down to it," Autor said, "this trade case is nothing more than an
attempt by a small group to convince the U.S. government to place a food tax on
consumers, which in turn, provides petitioners with a hefty financial windfall
-- all at the expense of American consumers."
One shrimp processing executive, Russ Mentzer, ceo of King & Prince Seafood
Company, in Brunswick, GA, a foodservice supplier that marinates and breads
shrimp, joined with CITAC and ASDA representatives, saying, "Why are these
shrimping jobs more important than our company's shrimp-processing jobs? And how
are the petitioners able to use U.S. trade law to potentially take away American
jobs? This trade case isn't going to help anyone -- it's only going to make
things worse. Jobs will be lost if huge duties are placed on imported shrimp.
That's not right, and it's not fair."
An economic analysis done by The Trade Partnership found that there are 20 U.S.
shrimp-consuming jobs involved in processing or distribution for every U.S.
shrimp-producing job, a 20 to 1 ratio, or 250,000 jobs to approximately 13,000.
Higher prices for shrimp, if duties are imposed, will cause some of these shrimp
processing and distribution jobs to disappear, and the take-home pay of others
to suffer.
Concluded Autor, "The case will do nothing to 'save American jobs,' as some
petitioners have publicly said. It will only cost jobs and serve to deny
consumers a healthy and safe food they want at an affordable price. U.S.
shrimpers can't catch any more shrimp than they are already catching. The
petition will result in shrimp being taken off the menu, off the shelf, and off
of the table of millions of American families. Economic isolationism simply
isn't the solution to the shrimpers' problems."
FEBRUARY 20, 2004
International Trade Commission Sides With
Domestic Shrimp
Filers in
Anti-Dumping Dispute
In a unanimous vote on the
shrimp anti-dumping petition on Tuesday, the U.S. International Trade Commission
sided with the filers of the petition, ruling that the domestic shrimp industry
has suffered injury. Sen. John Breaux (D., La.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.)
and Rep. Chris John (D., La.) praised the ruling. The case now goes to the
Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration, which will
determine the extent of dumping and fix margins. The ITC is expected to forward
its written opinion to Commerce by March 1. Enhanced Web Coverage:
To read the complete text of the ITC's press release announcing its ruling,
which is posted on the members' section of the NFI Web site, click
here. To read a statement by the American Seafood Distributors Association,
click
here. To read the Southern Shrimp Alliance statement, click
here.
Common Shrimp
Anti-Dumping Questions Answered Here
NFI has compiled a question-and-answer sheet for common
questions regarding the ongoing shrimp anti-dumping case, "Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand,
and Vietnam (Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068)." To access it from the NFI
Web site, click
here.
February 17, 2004
News Release 04-017
Inv. No. 731-TA-1063-1068 (P)
The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) today determined that there is a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value.
All six Commissioners voted in the affirmative.
As a result of the Commission's affirmative determinations, the U.S. Department of Commerce will continue to conduct its antidumping investigations of imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, with its preliminary antidumping determination due on or about June 8, 2004.
The Commission's public report Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam (Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 3672, February 2004) will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigations.
Copies of the report are expected to be available after March 16, 2004, by calling 202-205-1809 or from the Office of the Secretary, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Requests may also be faxed to 202-205-2104.
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Office of Industries
Washington, DC 20436
FACTUAL HIGHLIGHTS
Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China,
Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Preliminary)
Product Description: For purposes of these
investigations, the products covered are certain warmwater shrimp and prawns,
whether frozen or canned, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised
(produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or
tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in
frozen or canned form. The products described above may be from any species of
warmwater shrimp and prawns, which are generally classified in, but not
limited to, the Penaeidae family. The predominant end-use for warmwater shrimp
and prawns is human consumption. The merchandise subject to this investigation
is provided for in subheadings 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09,
0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24,
0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, 1605.20.10.30, and 1605.20.10.40
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Status of Proceedings:
1. Type of investigation: Preliminary antidumping.
2. Petitioners: Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
3. Investigation instituted by USITC: December 31, 2003.
4. Conference: January 21, 2004.
5. USITC vote: February 17, 2004.
6. USITC notification of Department of Commerce: February 17, 2004.
U.S. Industry:
1. Number of U.S. firms (processors) in 2003: 42.
2. Production during 2003: 169,737,000 pounds.
3. Employment of production and related workers (processors): 2,124.
4. U.S. apparent consumption during 2003: 1,047,591,000 pounds.
5. Ratio of quantity of total imports to U.S. apparent consumption
during 2003: 86.7 percent.
U.S. Imports:
1. Quantity of subject imports during 2003: 649,680,000 pounds.
2. Value of subject imports during 2003: $2,432,553,000.
-- 30 --
International
Trade Commission to Rule
On Shrimp Anti-Dumping Allegations Feb. 17
The commissioners of the International Trade Commission have scheduled a
vote for Tuesday, Feb. 17 on the preliminary determination in the shrimp
anti-dumping case. If they find, based on their preliminary investigation,
that there has been dumping, the case goes to the Department of Commerce's
International Trade Administration, which will determine the extent of
dumping and fix margins. The vote is scheduled for 11:00 a.m.
The ITC will issue a press release that day on the result.
Contact Jane Earley.
NFINSIDER
- Feb. 13, 2004;
Volume 3, Issue 7
Thomas Ressler,
Editor
FACT SHEET
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and Vietnam
On January 21, the Department announced the initiation of antidumping duty investigations on imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, and Vietnam.
These investigations were initiated after having found that the petitions filed by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee met our statutory requirements.
Next Steps: The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is scheduled to issue its preliminary injury determination on or before February 17. If the ITC should find that there is a reasonable indication that the domestic industry is materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, as a result of imports of shrimp, the investigations would proceed, and the Department would be scheduled to make its preliminary determinations in June 2004. If the ITC makes a negative determination on imports from one or more of the named exporting countries, then those investigations would be terminated.
Petitioner: The Petitions requesting the initiation of these investigations were filed on December 31, 2003 by The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, whose members are located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.
Product Description: Products covered include warmwater shrimp, whether frozen or canned, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen or canned form.
Initiated Dumping Margins
|
Country |
Alleged Margin Range |
|
Brazil |
32% to 349% |
|
Ecuador |
85% to 166% |
|
India |
82.30% to 110.09% |
|
People’s Republic of China |
112.81% to 263.68% |
|
Thailand |
57.64% |
| Vietnam |
25.76% to 93.13% |
Case Calendar