Update: August 27, 2010
Domestic producers of wire decking filed an appeal today challenging the decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission that unfairly traded imports of wire decking from China were not injuring the U.S. decking industry. The appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court of special jurisdiction that reviews trade case determinations. The U.S. industry contends that the Commission’s decision is not consistent with the law or supported by substantial record evidence.
The case arose from antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings filed with the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission in June 2009 by domestic producers of wire decking. In June 2010, the Commerce Department issued its final determinations, finding that wire decking from China was both dumped and subsidized. Despite the findings of unfair trade practices by Commerce, the International Trade Commission, in a split 4 to 2 vote,
| Advertisement |
|---|
|
|
According to its report, the Commission recognized that the volumes of imports of wire decking from China were significant, that the unfairly-traded imports were undercutting U.S. prices in over 90 percent of comparisons, and that the domestic industry was in a weakened state and had suffered declining trade and financial performance over the period. Nonetheless, the Commission did not find that the unfairly traded imports contributed significantly to the industry’s poor performance, despite the significant volumes and overwhelming instances of underselling, and instead attributed the declines suffered entirely to the declines in demand.
By law, the domestic industry is entitled to appeal the Commission’s decision and has chosen to exercise its right to do so in the decking case. The industry believes that the Commission’s decision is at odds with the facts and the law. John Caldwell, the President of ITC Manufacturing, stated: “Our industry has struggled to compete with the low prices at which the Chinese decks are sold. We have suffered lost sales and reduced revenues as well as job losses due to these unfair imports. I believe the Commission was wrong in finding that our injury was not due to the dumped imports. If our injury was only due to the recession, why did our industry’s condition improve in first quarter when demand was still depressed? Our industry won back sales and was able to price reasonably again in early 2010 once the preliminary duties were imposed, showing that it was the unfair imports and not demand that caused our problems.”
Kathleen Cannon, counsel to the domestic industry, stated that a downturn in the economy is recognized in the law as making an industry even more vulnerable to the effects of unfair imports. She added that despite the negative finding by the Commission, she continued to believe the facts of the case were strong. In particular, Ms. Cannon cited the extensive underselling and price suppression caused by a significant volume of imports that was directly correlated to the financial downturns the industry suffered. She further indicated that the Commission’s database did not account for all imports, but only considered data from those importers who chose to respond to questionnaires. As a result, she said, the Commission’s database did not recognize the increases in import market share that actually occurred.
Wire decking consists of wire mesh that has been reinforced with structural supports and designed to be load bearing for use in rack storage systems in a warehouse, commercial or industrial storage installation. The plaintiffs in the appeal are AWP Industries, Inc. of Frankfort, Kentucky, ITC Manufacturing, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona, J&L Wire Cloth LLC of St. Paul, Minnesota, Nashville Wire Products. Mfg. Co., Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee, and Wireway Husky Corp. of Denver, North Carolina. Plaintiffs are represented in this case by Kathleen W. Cannon of the law firm Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP.
