Both sides present arguments in furniture antidumping case
Sunset Review hearing opens today in Washington
Thomas Russell -- Furniture Today, October 5, 2010
WASHINGTON — Private cash "settlements" made by Chinese factories to certain domestic manufacturers are legal in the wooden bedroom furniture case, an attorney for the U.S. group argued at an International Trade Commission hearing here this morning.
Joe Dorn, an attorney with King & Spalding, representing U.S. companies that originally petitioned for antidumping duties on Chinese-made bedroom furniture, was among the opening speakers at the session.
The ITC opened its five-year Sunset Review in the wood bedroom antidumping case today by listening to testimony from both the petitioners and from representatives of China factories. The better part of the morning session was taken up by petitioner arguments.
Dorn, speaking for the petitioning group, the American Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade, said the settlements were a legal and voluntary way that Chinese manufacturers have sought to avoid administrative reviews. In such reviews, duties are examined each year by U.S. Department of Commerce officials to determine whether the rates assigned to Chinese producers for shipments in previous years need to be adjusted.
By paying private settlements to the petitioners, the Chinese factories can escape the reviews and avoid the risk of receiving higher, retroactive duties.
Throughout the petitioners' and Dorn's testimony this morning, it became clear that settlement payment have largely gone to offset legal expenses incurred in the case, but it was unclear how much has been collected through the settlements.
Opening statements were also made by William Silverman of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, who spoke on behalf of those who believe the duties should end.
U.S. Reps. John Dingell and Rich Boucher both testified on the petitioners' behalf, saying they believe the duties should continue for another five years.
Petitioners argued that the duties have been effective since they were implemented in 2004. They argued that U.S. wooden bedroom furniture imports have declined since the duties took effect.
They said that in addition to helping the U.S. petitioners make necessary capital investments in their factories, the duties also helped offset the effects of illegally priced bedroom furniture. Under a provision called the Byrd Amendment, which has since been repealed, duties paid through September 2007 have gone to the petitioners, except for an amount tied up in court cases.
The petitioners also discussed the recession and its effect on reducing sales and demand for wooden bedroom furniture. They said that should the duties end, their factories and the domestic industry could be vulnerable, leading to further plant closures and job losses.
Silverman, speaking for opponents of the duties, said many U.S. companies shifted their import sourcing from China to Vietnam, which has no antidumping duties, meaning that U.S. workers have seen no real benefits.
He also argued that some of the petitioners were among those shifting production to Asia, and that some saw that collecting the duties was a more profitable way of making money than producing furniture in the United States.
VIEW ALL GALLERIES
