Libbey, Inc.
Toledo, Ohio  43604
August 31, 2005

 The Honorable E. Clay Shaw
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trade
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On July 25, 2005, the Subcommittee issued Advisory No. TR-3.  The Advisory requested written comments for the record from interested parties regarding proposed bills concerning “technical corrections to U.S. trade laws and miscellaneous duty suspension proposals.”  The Advisory included a list of the particular miscellaneous trade bills about which comments were requested.  This letter is Libbey Inc.’s (Libbey) response to the Subcommittee’s request.

Libbey is a leading supplier of tableware products in the U.S. and Canada.  Based in Toledo, Ohio, Libbey operates glass tableware manufacturing plants in the United States in Louisiana and Ohio, in Portugal and in the Netherlands.  In addition, through its Syracuse China, World Tableware, and Traex subsidiaries, it is a leading provider of ceramic dinnerware, metal flatware, and plastic products to the foodservice industry in the United States.  Libbey exports glassware to more than 90 countries around the world and also provides technical assistance to a number of foreign glass tableware manufacturers.

H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Should Not Be Included in a Miscellaneous Trade Bill Package

In particular, Libbey is concerned about, and opposes, two bills.

H.R. 1121 --   “A bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930”

H.R. 2473 --   “A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to determining the all-others rate in antidumping cases”

Strong Trade Remedy Laws Are Important To Maintaining Fair Trade

As a major U.S. manufacturer of glass tableware and ceramic dinnerware, both import-sensitive products, Libbey is a strong and long-standing supporter of strong trade law remedies.  Effective and useable trade remedy laws are necessary, indeed, crucial to maintaining a level playing field for U.S. manufacturers and their workers.  Libbey thus believes that any attempt to weaken trade remedy laws should be rejected because it will make it harder for U.S. companies and workers to compete fairly with subsidized and dumped imports.

Moreover, without effective trade remedy laws in place, trade liberalization policies will lose public support. 

Because H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 Would Weaken Crucial Trade Remedy Laws, They Will Attract Controversy and Strong Opposition

A miscellaneous trade bill is not intended to be a vehicle for controversial legislation.  Bills that weaken trade remedy laws will cause controversy.  Because both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 will weaken trade remedy laws, they will cause controversy.  Hence, they should not be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.

H.R. 1121:

• This bill proposes to repeal the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”).
• CDSOA has strong bi-partisan support from Members of Congress and the public.  Any attempt to repeal CDSOA would attract intense controversy and strong opposition.
• Under CDSOA, duties that are collected as a result of continued dumping or subsidization are distributed by the U.S. government to certain eligible domestic parties in industries found to have been injured by dumped or subsidized imports.
• CDSOA has no effect on how dumping and subsidy rates are calculated or on how much in duties importers must pay.  All it does is simply distribute money pursuant to generally applicable criteria when unfair trade practices do not cease.
• CDSOA distributes money only to the extent dumping and subsidization continues after an order.  If dumping and subsidization cease, no funds are collected or distributed.

H.R. 2473:

• This bill proposes to weaken the antidumping law by deleting the word “entirely” from subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930.  These provisions concern the calculation of the “all others rate.”
• This proposal is not simply a technical change.  In fact, it would effect a substantial and harmful change to the antidumping law by making in virtually impossible in a large number of cases for the Department of Commerce to calculate an “all-others” dumping rate for non-investigated exporters.
• The “all-others” rate is the rate that applies to all exporters that were not investigated.  It is calculated as the weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for those individual exporters that were investigated.
• Currently, Commerce does not include in the weighted average any margins based entirely on “facts available” data.  Commerce does include in the weighted average margins based partially on “facts available.”  Margins based on partial facts available are not uncommon.
• “Facts available” data (data substituted for actual company-specific data) is applied by Commerce when an exporter fails to submit data required to calculate a dumping margin.
• H.R. 2473 proposes to prohibit Commerce from calculating the “all others” rate from any margins based on facts available, partial or entire.  This would mean that, in many cases, there would be no useable margins from which to calculate an “all others” rate.
• · substance, H.R. 2473 would weaken the antidumping law.  Administratively, H.R. 2473 would cause severe problems for Commerce in carrying out its statutory responsibilities to administer the antidumping law.
• In sum, because H.R. 2473 would attract controversy and engender strong opposition from domestic party users of the antidumping law, it should not be included in a purportedly non-controversial miscellaneous trade bill package.

Miscellaneous Trade Bills Are Not Appropriate Vehicles to Implement WTO Panel or Appellate Body Decisions

A further reason not to include H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 in a miscellaneous trade bill package is that they are apparent attempts to implement legislatively controversial decisions by WTO dispute panels and Appellate Body.  “Non-controversial” miscellaneous trade bills are not an appropriate vehicle to effect such legislative changes to trade remedy laws.

Moreover, on both the CDSOA and the “all-others” rate issues, Congress and the Administration have criticized the WTO panels and Appellate Body for overreaching their authority.  They have said that these (and other) WTO decisions have tried to impose on the U.S. obligations that were not negotiated and which are apparent from the text of the WTO Agreements.  In addition, Congress has repeatedly told the Administration to seek a resolution of these controversial decisions through negotiations at the WTO, which the Administration is currently doing in the context of the Doha Round.  Both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473, if legislated, would interfere in these efforts.

Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, both H.R. 1121 and H.R. 2473 would “attract controversy,” weaken the trade remedy laws, and give rise to strong opposition.  Neither H.R. 1121 nor H.R. 2473 should be included in a miscellaneous trade bill package.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Allene Kovach
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary