Apparel 
Requirements
| Newsletter | |||
|
Antidumping, Countervailing Petitions Filed on |
|||
|
April
8 , 2002 On March 29, 2002, oil country tubular steel goods were the subject of fourteen antidumping (AD) duty petitions and one countervailing (CV) duty petition were filed with the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the International Trade Commission (ITC). The petitions allege unfair pricing from the 14 countries listed below. These petitions create the possibility that importers will owe AD or CV duties on merchandise imported within approximately the past year. Please feel free to contact us, if you believe that you have concerns as to whether imported merchandise from the following countries may be within the scope of the petitions.
The ITC has announced that it will hold conference on April 19, 2002, written briefs are due by April 24, 2002, and preliminary AD and CV injury determinations are due by May 13, 2002. Background on Antidumping and Countervailing Duties The antidumping (AD) relief is based on U.S. trade statutes which are intended to protect domestic U.S. companies from economic harm suffered as the result of merchandise imported at less than its "fair value." Countervailing (CV) duties are justified where government subsidies are present and provide a foreign manufacturer with an “unfair” advantage over domestic manufacturers. More information on AD and CV duties Why Importers and Manufacturers Must Take Immediate Action A dumping case covers an entire country, yet each major manufacturer/exporter is responsible for submitting its own response to the DOC questionnaire. Each of these responding manufacturers/exporters then receives a separate margin result depending on their pricing structure. There may be considerable variations within the industry of the respondent country, since each firm has its own margin. Those companies who do not participate are assigned to an “all others” category, where the antidumping rate is often substantially higher then for responding companies. For example, in the recent case on Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from China, the seven responding firms obtained margins between 12 and 9 percent. However, non-responding firms were placed into the all “others category,” at 124.50 percent. After such an antidumping order is released importers, will obviously tend to only source merchandise from the manufacturers holding the lowest AD rates. Thus, it is essential that each manufacturer/exporter retain qualified counsel in order to protect its competitive position as soon as possible after a petition is filed by a U.S. domestic industry. The Law Offices of George R. Tuttle Our firm has been assisting importers and foreign manufacturers in international trade law for over 80 years. Our principal antidumping attorney, Steve Spraitzar, has over 20 years of experience in the antidumping area. Our firm also works closely with former DOC antidumping analysts with extensive background in this specific field of law. As an example: in a case involving Porcelain-on-Steel cookware, our client's AD rate was reduced from 66.21% to zero. By using outside consultants, small legal teams, and leveraging our experience, we are often able to handle AD cases for far less than large Washington D.C. firms charge. Often, this cost effectiveness makes a major difference in "opening the doors" for importers and foreign manufacturers who would otherwise be priced-out of participation in the review process by the prohibitive costs charged by some major international law firms. We invite interested companies to discuss these pending antidumping cases and the strategies that we can employ to limit antidumping and countervailing duties liability. Request additional information If you have any questions on any of the issues raised in this newsletter, please contact George R. Tuttle, III at (415) 288-0428 or via email at geo@tuttlelaw.com. George R. Tuttle, III is an attorney with the Law Offices of George R. Tuttle in San Francisco. The information in this article is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship with respect to any event or occurrence, and may not be considered as such.
Copyright © 2002 by Tuttle Law Offices. All rights reserved. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error by our offices or by others, we do not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information and are not responsible for any errors, omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of such information.
|
|||
|
Home
| About Us | Attorney
Profiles | Trade Library Submit
questions or comments to info@tuttlelaw.com
|