Steel Groups Release China Subsidies Report
Five U.S. steel associations on July 27 released a report (here) that documents a high rate of China's subsidies flowing to steel manufacturers in recent years, creating runaway global overcapacity, according to a statement by the organizations (here). The American Iron and Steel Institute, the Steel Manufacturers Association, the Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports, the Specialty Steel Industry of North America and the American Institute of Steel Construction released the report, which reviewed the 25 largest steel companies in China and displays the amounts and types of government subsidies received in recent years. The Chinese government remains a majority shareholder in top-output steel companies, fueling the industry through subsidies such as cash grants, equity infusions, mandated mergers and acquisitions, preferential loans and directed credit, land use subsidies, utility subsidies, raw material price controls, tax policies and benefits, currency policies and weak enforcement of environmental regulations, the groups said in the report. China’s 822 million tons of steel produced in 2014 composed about half of world production, and production facilities under construction are expected to accelerate operations in the near future, with global capacity expected to grow in the short term, they said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Based on the report and other previous findings, China should not be granted “market economy” status for antidumping and countervailing duty purposes at the World Trade Organization after its WTO accession protocol expires Dec. 11, the groups said. The U.S.-China Business Council said (here) the U.S. should stop using "non-market economy" AD/CV duty methodology, and use an alternative, WTO-compliant formula provided for under the 2015 Trade Preferences Extension Act. That law includes a provision that allows Commerce to ignore real prices and costs if there is a “particular market situation” wherein a foreign producer’s costs don’t reasonably reflect the normal costs of the goods being produced (see 1602290025). That would allow Commerce to continue to use surrogate prices, as it does as part of its non-market economy method, though this time using as a basis Article 2.2.1.1 of the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, rather than China’s accession protocol. The Chinese Embassy to the U.S. didn’t comment.