Re: catfish and free trade
[Federal Register: August 12, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 155)] [Notices] [Page 47909-47910] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12au03-34] --- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-801] Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order. --- EFFECTIVE DATE: August 12, 2003 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Welton, Alex Villanueva, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0165, 482-3208, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope Of Investigation For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (``regular'' fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (``shank'' fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (``fillet strips/finger''), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly- flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen ``basa'' and ``tra'' fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). This investigation covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Background In accordance with section 735(a) of the Tariff Act, the Department made its final determination that certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'') are being sold at less than fair value. See Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam(``Final Determination'') 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). We received ministerial error allegations from respondents and petitioners and upon consideration of these allegations, we amended the Final Determination. See Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Amended Final Determination'') 68 FR 43713 (July 24, 2003). Antidumping Duty Order On August 6, 2003, the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(e) of the Tariff Act that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair- value imports of subject merchandise from Vietnam. In addition, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Vietnam that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding. Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (``Customs'') to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after January 31, 2003, the date on which the Department published the Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Re: catfish and free trade
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Devine, James wrote: Isn't a pollak a kind of fish? Yes, but he spells his name with a c. Michael
Re: catfish and free trade
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Eubulides quoted a WP story about tariffs on Vietnamese catfish: Free Trade's Muddy Waters Vietnamese 'Catfish' Spawn a Story of Diplomacy and Domestic Priorities Clashing at the Dinner Table By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page F01 However, the follow FT story from a month ago gives a very different picture. They makes it look as if the WP might have started out by having already swallowed most of the domestic protectionist line. The image the FT paints is of an upsurge of third world entrepreneurialism of exactly the sort we always say we want to foster -- and of the US kicking it in the teeth the minute it succeeds. Also according the FT, Vietnamese catfish was already forced during an earlier round to be marketed as basa and traa. If that's true, then the different species issue that takes up half of the WP article is a red herring. == Financial Times; Jun 14, 2003 ASIA-PACIFIC: Vietnam's catfish farmers left reeling by US duty threat By Amy Kazmin Deep in Vietnam's Mekong Delta, Vo Van Tuong, a 53-year-old catfish farmer, sleeps on his problems every night - literally. His spacious house floats on the broad, deep waters of the Mekong river. Yet it is actually the top of a giant catfish cage that reaches five metres below the water's surface and holds tons of catfish - mature and ready for market but with no willing buyer. Demand now is very low - the American market isn't buying, Mr Tuong says, tossing fish feed to a mass of thrashing catfish through a gaping hole in his living room floor. I am losing money. Maybe in the future I will not be able to continue in this business. In 2000, when Mr Tuong ploughed savings from a lifetime of carpentry into raising catfish, he could sell fish every six months to Agifish, a local processing company that exports catfish fillets to the US, a $590m (E501m, £353m) catfish market. But American catfish farmers mounted an aggressive offensive against imports from Vietnam as they rose from $13m in 1999 to more than $55m in 2002. After heavy lobbying from the influential US farmers, Washington in January slapped preliminary anti-dumping duties of 38-64 per cent on the Vietnamese fillets. Since then Vietnam's catfish exports to the US - previously its biggest single market - has dropped 30-40 per cent, says Truong Dinh Hoe, vice-secretary general of the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers. The brunt of the downturn has been borne by the entrepreneurial Vietnamese families, who invested heavily - often using money borrowed from friends and relatives - to build the expensive and elaborate cages along the Mekong river, and now face falling prices and demand for their fish. Mr Tuong, who invested about 650m dong ($43,000, ?37,000, £26,000) in building four large fish pens, says he has 120 tons of eight-month-old catfish that he has not been able to sell. Until he can find a buyer, he must continue expensive feeding, eroding his bottom line. We now live in agony because we cannot sell, he says. It's very, very depressing. . . . Vietnam's fish-processing industry is still desperately hoping that Washington will conclude that their low catfish price reflects true production costs, given Vietnam's free-flowing river and abundant cheap labour. . . . Whatever the outcome, the great catfish conflict has been a hard lesson for both Vietnam's government and its fledgling private sector about the realpolitik of global trade, damping the euphoria that followed Hanoi's signing of a long-awaited bilateral trade agreement with Washington in December 2001. After the trade deal took effect, Vietnam's exports of textiles, seafood, shoes, furniture, commodities and other products to the US - just $1bn in 2001 - rose to $2.3bn in 2002, and the value for January to March 2003 was nearly triple that of the same period last year. Strong exports were a primary driver of Vietnam's impressive 7 per cent growth last year. Yet most Vietnamese see the US moves against their surging catfish exports as shameless protectionism, violating the spirit of the trade deal. Even before the dumping accusation, US Congress passed a law that only catfish raised in the US could be called catfish, forcing Vietnamese companies to market their fish by lesser- known local names of traa and basa. end excerpt
Re: catfish and free trade
- Original Message - From: Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also according the FT, Vietnamese catfish was already forced during an earlier round to be marketed as basa and traa. If that's true, then the different species issue that takes up half of the WP article is a red herring. :-) You mean something fishy is going on in DC? :-) Ian
Re: catfish and free trade
Isn't a pollak a kind of fish? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Eubulides [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] catfish and free trade - Original Message - From: Michael Pollak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also according the FT, Vietnamese catfish was already forced during an earlier round to be marketed as basa and traa. If that's true, then the different species issue that takes up half of the WP article is a red herring. :-) You mean something fishy is going on in DC? :-) Ian
catfish and free trade
Free Trade's Muddy Waters Vietnamese 'Catfish' Spawn a Story of Diplomacy and Domestic Priorities Clashing at the Dinner Table By Paul Blustein Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page F01 A mess o' catfish has been dumped on the U.S. market. More precisely, the dumping involved fish with whiskers, from Vietnam, some of which may have been masquerading as the sort of catfish found in American waters. So says the U.S. Department of Commerce. In a ruling last month, the department agreed with U.S. catfish farmers and processors that the Vietnamese were selling frozen fish fillets at unfairly low prices. Despite howls from Hanoi that the fillets were cheap because of naturally low costs, Commerce concluded that for the prices to be fair, duties of 37 to 64 percent should be applied. Chalk up another victory for the U.S. side in a dumping dispute -- the U.S. side in this instance being Americans who raise catfish and chop them into fillets, as opposed to those who batter them, fry them, and scarf them down with rice and okra. When stiff dumping duties are slapped on imported goods, the protection that domestic producers obtain comes at the expense of consumers, who lose out on the rock-bottom prices they would otherwise enjoy. The foreign exporters hit with the duties, meanwhile, are often forced to retreat from the market. That outcome isn't completely certain in the catfish case, because the duties set by Commerce will remain provisional pending a decision by another federal agency on whether imports are injuring the U.S. catfish industry. But the case of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From Vietnam offers an instructive look at how, in the arena of U.S. anti-dumping law, American industry gets a leg up on its rivals from overseas. To anyone who likes to see Washington come to the aid of downtrodden American workers, the catfish case is heartening. The duties set by Commerce are aimed at saving from possible extinction an industry that employs about 13,000 people -- mostly in economically depressed areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas -- many of them mothers coming off government assistance, single moms who have never had a job before, breaking a cycle of poverty, according to Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.). But to those who wish the United States would more faithfully practice the free-trade gospel that it preaches, the case is a travesty, illustrating that when it comes to industries with political clout -- steel, sugar and lumber, for example -- Washington often finds a way to curtail foreign competition. Although the anti-dumping laws supposedly establish a level playing field for American and foreign firms, many economists and free-trade proponents deride the laws and their enforcement as tilted in favor of domestic producers. This is the purest manifestation of the hypocrisy of American trade policy, said David J. Rothkopf, a deputy undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration. Anti-dumping law is one of the most effective and most abused [import] barriers that we've got. The catfish case is particularly galling to critics of the anti-dumping rules because of the setback it dealt Vietnam only 18 months after the socialist government in Hanoi signed an agreement with its former enemy in Washington restoring normal trade relations. To secure the accord, which ended the high U.S. tariffs imposed on Vietnamese products since the two sides were at war, Vietnam agreed to lower its own obstacles to trade. Now the catfish issue has erupted into a major controversy in Vietnam, where the media are full of stories about how Washington is blocking one of the few products with which the impoverished nation has a comparative advantage. More than 40,000 fish farmers from the Mekong Delta signed a letter to U.S. officials protesting the decision, saying it ignores the trend toward competition and integration according to established international practices, not to mention the great difficulties it causes our way of life, the Vietnamese press reported. The United States is hardly unique in protecting its industries against dumping by foreigners; many other countries have enacted anti-dumping laws. One reason is that without them, foreign firms might get away with all manner of schemes to drive domestic competitors out of business. For example, Japanese manufacturers have been accused of cranking up production with the quiet encouragement of government planners, selling at profitable prices to customers at home while unloading the surplus cheaply abroad in the hope of snaring markets overseas. No such plots were alleged in the catfish case. Commerce officials aren't saying that the price of Vietnamese catfish is lower here than it is in Vietnam, or below the cost of production, noted Brink Lindsey, a scholar at the free-market-oriented Cato Institute. So how did Commerce conclude that the Vietnamese were dumping to the tune of 37 to 64 percent? The answer is that
