PC Strand Producers File Trade Cases Against China
05/28/2009 - Three domestic producers of prestressed concrete steel wire strand file antidumping and countervailing duty petitions charging that dumped and subsidized imports of PC strand from P.R. China cause material injury to the domestic industry.
Three domestic producers of prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions charging that dumped and subsidized imports of PC strand from P.R. China cause material injury to the domestic industry.
|
Prestressed concrete steel wire strand — PC strand — is a steel strand produced from brite wire of carbon steel, suitable for use in prestressed concrete. It is used in pre-tensioned and post-tensioned prestressed concrete construction applications.
Prestressing allows concrete to withstand tensile forces without cracking. Typical applications include bridge decks, bridge girders and piling, precast concrete panels and structural supports, roof trusses, floor supports, and foundations in areas with expansive soils.
|
Petitioners are alleging dumping margins ranging from 140.31 to 314.99%, with an average margin of 223.47%. They also allege that the Chinese government has provided significant subsidies to Chinese PC strand producers.
The U.S. has experienced substantial volumes of PC strand imports from China over the past three years, and the petitioners say these imports have injured competing U.S. PC strand producers. Imports from China accounted for over 90% of all PC strand imports into the U.S. market in 2008, at levels in excess of 175,000 tons in each year since 2006.
The petition alleges that China has expanded its share of the U.S. market over that period at the expense of U.S. producers by selling PC strand at prices that significantly undercut domestic market prices. As a result, the domestic industry has suffered declines in production, sales, employment, and, ultimately, profitability.
The petition further alleges that China, which has massive, unused capacity, is likely to increase exports of PC strand to the U.S. market if duties are not imposed.
"The volume of imports of PC strand from China alone in 2008 was higher than the peak aggregate volume of injurious imports of PC strand from five countries that were the target of successful trade cases we filed on behalf of this industry five years ago," commented Kathleen W. Cannon, the domestic industry's trade counsel. "Capacity to produce PC strand in China is massive and a huge overhang of capacity currently exists that threatens further injury to the U.S. industry absent relief."
The purpose of antidumping duties is to offset the amount by which a product is sold (in the U.S.) at less than fair value. Because China is a non-market economy, the U.S. Department of Commerce will determine whether dumping exists by comparing the amount by which PC strand is sold by Chinese producers and exporters in the U.S. market to a constructed cost derived from the Chinese producers' actual input quantities to produce the product valued at market economy values.
The petitions also allege that Chinese producers and exporters of PC strand have been targeted by the Chinese government for preferential treatment as part of various strategic plans implementing China's industrial policy objectives, including the promotion of exports of value-added steel products. The U.S. International Trade Commission will determine whether such imports are a cause of material injury to the domestic industry.
The petitions will cause the U.S. Department of Commerce to determine whether to initiate the antidumping duty investigation within 20 days, and the USITC to reach a preliminary determination of material injury or threat of material injury within 45 days. The entire investigative process takes approximately one year, and final determinations of injury, dumping and subsidies will occur in mid-2010.
Petitioners in this case are American Spring Wire Corp. of Bedford Heights, Ohio; Insteel Wire Products Co. of Mt. Airy, N.C.; and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. of Dickson, Tenn. Petitioners are represented in these actions by Kathleen W. Cannon and Paul C. Rosenthal of the law firm Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP.
