Byrd repeal reaction mixed
By Thomas Russell -- Furniture Today, March 6, 2006
Washington — Industry reaction was mixed to news the U.S. government has repealed the Byrd Amendment, a controversial trade law provision that still could give millions of dollars in antidumping duties to some U.S. furniture makers before the repeal takes effect.
Some case goods manufacturers who supported a 2003–2004 antidumping investigation into Chinese-made wood bedroom furniture were upset by the repeal, saying it will hurt their efforts to improve facilities and reinvest in areas such as worker training.
Importers, on the other hand, said the money never should have gone to those companies in the first place. They claim the provision unfairly benefits some companies that also import wood bedroom furniture from China.
The repeal was part of a budget package that President Bush signed into law on Feb. 8. It essentially eliminates the payment of antidumping duties after Oct. 1, 2007, to members of the U.S. Committee for Legal Trade, a group of domestic furniture manufacturers that initiated the antidumping investigation.
The Byrd Amendment, enacted in 2001, funnels antidumping duties to U.S. manufacturers that supported antidumping investigations as a way to help companies unfairly hurt by imports sold here at below fair cost. Before that, the money went into government coffers.
Critics of the provision, including the World Trade Organization, considered the rule to be an unfair subsidy to U.S. competitors and an outdated form of protectionism.
The repeal doesn't eliminate the duties on wood bedroom furniture. And duties collected through Sept. 30, 2007, will still be paid out to the petitioners.
Companies that petitioned for the investigation included North Carolina-based Century Furniture. Ed Tashjian, Century vice president of marketing, said the manufacturers never counted on profiting from the duties.
"This is a result of illegal dumping that was proved by a governmental body," he said. "There is no disagreement the product was dumped, and that fair duties were collected. The petitioners paid for the legal bills out of their own pockets, mostly because it was right and not out of any great expectation of windfall profits, but to stop the process of illegal dumping."
Tashjian said it was wrong to repeal the Byrd Amendment, which rightly distributed money to companies hurt by dumping. The money could have been used to improve the companies' competitiveness and retrain workers, he said.
Doug Bassett, vice president of sales at Vaughan-Bassett, another petitioner, said the group chose to seek the investigation not to make a profit from the duties, but because they believed illegal dumping was occurring.
"When the lawyers ... originally explained the antidumping law to us in May of 2003, they cautioned the Byrd Amendment was likely to be done away with before any of us saw any money at all," Bassett said.
Bill Kemp, president of case goods importer Kemp Enterprises, was pleased at the news. He said the Byrd Amendment gave some U.S. manufacturers an unfair advantage.
Geoff Beaston, president and CEO of case goods importer Fine Furniture Design & Marketing, agreed that repealing the provision was the right action. He said the important thing now is to retrain workers who have lost jobs.
Furniture isn't the only industry to receive money via the Byrd Amendment. United Press International reported that since 2001, the government has paid out more than $1.26 billion in duties to companies claiming to be hurt by low-cost imports. The Washington Post reported that a third of that money has gone to Timken Co., an Ohio-based manufacturer of bearings and steel alloy product.
Last week, Furniture/Today reported the federal government paid out $144,159 in 2005 to 24 furniture companies that were members of the Committee for Legal Trade. This is just a fraction of the $116.9 million in duties collected as of Oct. 1, 2005.
The remainder will be paid out pending the outcome of an ongoing administrative review and other legal proceedings relating to the antidumping case. Duties collected between now and Sept. 30, 2007, also would be collected and distributed to the petitioners, again pending the outcome of legal proceedings and/or administrative reviews.
