United States of America: Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of coated paper imported from China and Indonesia
Three U.S. paper companies (NewPage Corporation, Appleton Coated LLC, and Sappi Fine Paper North America) and the United Steelworkers (the labor union representing workers in this industry) filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions on September 23, 2009 against imports of certain types of coated paper from China and Indonesia. The paper products covered by the petitions include coated paper used in high-quality writing, printing, and other applications.
Following final determinations of antidumping margins of 7.6-135.83% (China) and 20.13% (Indonesia) and subsidy margins of 17.64-178.03% (China) and 17.94% (Indonesia) by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and final affirmative injury determinations by the U.S. International Trade Commission on October 22, 2010, the AD and CVD orders went into effect.
The petitioners had estimated that total imports of coated paper into the U.S. market rose from 131,687 tons in the first six months of 2008 to 185,422 tons in the first six months of 2009, and that imports from the two countries account for nearly 30% of the domestic market. Imports from the two countries reached $317.9 million in 2008.
Comments from one of the petitioners would tend to support the view that the timing of the filing was intended to provide a counterpoint to the G-20 meetings that began the very next day. After noting that it had already been a petitioner in the section 421 case that recently led to the imposition of safeguard protections on imports of tires from China (see the GTA description of this measure), President Leo Gerard of the United Steelworkers stated that these latest petitions were filed “with no disrespect or lack of hospitality toward Chinese officials as they arrived in the city of our international headquarters – Pittsburgh – for the G-20 summit. Proof of that is we included as a defendant in this case China’s fellow G-20 country of Indonesia, who can keep them company in court.”
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
|Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations?||No|
|Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered?||No|
|Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government?||No|
|Was such evidence identified?||No|
|Is such evidence publicly available?||No|
|Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives?||No|
|Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken?|
|Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory?||No|
|Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation?||No|
Date of inception: 22 Oct 2010
GTA Evaluation: Red
In addition to the hyperlinked material in the description, see the items available through http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/2009/coa....