New Articles

China Ramped Up Safety Glass Exports Threefold in Past Decade

safety glass

China Ramped Up Safety Glass Exports Threefold in Past Decade

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Safety Glass – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights‘. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

China boosted safety glass supplies abroad nearly threefold in the past decade, from $1.3B to $3.0B, topping the global exporter ranking. With an average annual growth rate of +8.5% over the last decade, China emerges as the fastest-growing supplier. Germany held the leading position in global exports until 2010, but now, it remains the largest safety glass importer, along with the U.S. and Vietnam. In 2020, the global safety glass trade reduced by -6% y-o-y to 366M square meters, and China’s supplies accounted for 58% of that volume. In value terms, global trade fell to $9.5B last year, dropping by -10% y-o-y.

Global Safety Glass Exports by Country

Global safety glass exports declined to 366M square meters in 2020, which is down by -6.2% compared with the year before. Total exports indicated noticeable growth from 2010 to 2020: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.3% over the last decade.

In value terms, safety glass exports reduced from $10.5B in 2019 to $9.5B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% from 2010 to 2020.

China prevails in safety glass export structure, amounting to 214M square meters, which was near 58% of total exports in 2020. Germany (29M square meters) held the second position in the ranking, followed by Poland (19M square meters). All these countries together held approx. 13% share of total exports. The following exporters – Italy (13M square meters), Turkey (11M square meters), France (8.7M square meters), the Czech Republic (8.7M square meters), Belgium (8.3M square meters), Hungary (8M square meters), the Netherlands (6.1M square meters) and Mexico (5.7M square meters) – together made up 19% of total exports.

In value terms, China ($3B) remains the largest safety glass supplier worldwide, comprising 31% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Germany ($1B), with a 11% share of global exports. It was followed by Poland, with a 7.6% share.

From 2010 to 2020, the average annual rate of growth in terms of value in China totaled +8.5%. The remaining exporting countries recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: Germany (+0.2% per year) and Poland (+4.3% per year).

The average safety glass export price stood at $26 per square meter in 2020, with a decrease of -3.4% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major exporting countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was the Czech Republic ($46 per square meter), while China ($14 per square meter) was amongst the lowest. From 2010 to 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Mexico, while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

World’s Largest Safety Glass Importers

In 2020, Viet Nam (33M square meters), Germany (31M square meters), the U.S. (30M square meters), South Korea (24M square meters), Thailand (21M square meters), France (17M square meters), Belgium (12M square meters), the Netherlands (10M square meters), Italy (8.9M square meters), the UK (8.3M square meters), Taiwan (Chinese) (7.7M square meters) and Spain (7.1M square meters) was the main importer of safety glass in the world, comprising 65% of total import. Poland (6.4M square meters) followed a long way behind the leaders.

In value terms, the largest safety glass importing markets worldwide were Germany ($1.1B), the U.S. ($955M) and Viet Nam ($738M), together comprising 29% of global imports.

Source: IndexBox Platform

Groundnut Oil

Global Groundnut Oil Trade Intensifies on Booming China’s Demand

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Groundnut Oil – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Global groundnut oil imports reached $671M in 2020. In physical terms, global imports spiked by +15% y-o-y to 444K tonnes in 2020, mainly due to rising demand from China. China represents the world’s largest importer of groundnut oil, with a 61%-share of global import volume. In 2020, China’s groundnut oil imports jumped from $225M to $433M. Brazil and Argentina remain the key exporters of groundnut oil.

Global Groundnut Oil Imports

Global groundnut oil imports rose significantly to 444K tonnes in 2020, surging by +15% against the previous year’s figure. Over the period under review, total imports indicated a noticeable increase from 2010 to 2020: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.9% over the last decade.

In value terms, groundnut oil imports skyrocketed to $671M (IndexBox estimates) in 2020. In general, total imports indicated a buoyant expansion from 2010 to 2020: its value increased at an average annual rate of +4.9% over the last decade.

China dominates groundnut oil imports with a figure of 269K tonnes, which was approx. 61% of total imports in 2020. Afghanistan (43K tonnes) occupied the second position in the ranking, followed by Italy (39K tonnes). All these countries together took approx. 19% share of total imports. The following importers – the Netherlands (15K tonnes), Hong Kong SAR (15K tonnes), Belgium (11K tonnes), Benin (10K tonnes) and France (8.1K tonnes) – together made up 13% of the total imports.

In value terms, China ($433M) constitutes the largest market for imported groundnut oil worldwide, comprising 65% of global imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Italy ($66M), with a 9.8% share of global imports. It was followed by Hong Kong SAR, with a 4.6% share.

In 2020, China’s imports of groundnut oil spiked from $225M to $433M. From 2010 to 2020, groundnut oil imports into China grew from $87M to $433M, rising at an average annual rate of +17.4%. The remaining importing countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Italy (+2.6% per year) and Hong Kong SAR (+2.3% per year).

In 2020, the average import price amounted to $1,509 per tonne, picking up by +30% against the previous year. In general, the import price indicated modest growth from 2010 to 2020, increasing at an average annual rate of +1.2% over the last decade.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Hong Kong SAR, while Benin was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the Netherlands attained the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

World’s Largest Exporters of Groundnut Oil

In 2020, Brazil (67K tonnes) and Argentina (56K tonnes) represented the key exporters of groundnut oil worldwide, reaching nearly 48% of total exports. India (36K tonnes) took a 14% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Iraq (10%), Nicaragua (6.5%) and China (4.9%). Senegal (8.5K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

In value terms, Brazil ($112M), Argentina ($79M) and India ($59M) constituted the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2020, with a combined 63% share of global exports. These countries were followed by China, Nicaragua, Iraq and Senegal, which together accounted for a further 20%.

Source: IndexBox Platform

ferroalloy exports

Indonesia Sharply Expands Ferroalloy Exports to China

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Indonesia – FerroAlloys – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Indonesia sharply increased ferroalloy exports due to booming demand from its major trade partner, China. The supplies to China grew nearly twofold, while the total exports from Indonesia spiked from 1.6M tonnes in 2019 to 2.9M tonnes in 2020. In value terms, China’s purchases comprise 96% of total ferroalloy exports from Indonesia. 

Ferroalloy Exports from Indonesia

Ferroalloy exports from Indonesia surged from 1.6M tonnes in 2019 to 2.9M tonnes in 2020. In value terms, ferroalloy exports jumped from $2.6B to $4.7B (IndexBox estimates) last year.

China (2.8M tonnes) was the main destination for ferroalloy exports from Indonesia, with a 97% share of total exports. In 2020, the supplies to China grew by +97.3% y-o-y. India (56K tonnes) followed China, accounting for 1.9% of Indonesian exports.

In value terms, China ($4.5B) remains the key foreign market for ferroalloy exports from Indonesia, comprising 96% of total exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($129M), with a 2.7% share of total exports.

The average ferroalloy export price stood at $1,648 per tonne in 2020, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. Average prices varied somewhat for the major external markets. In 2020, the country with the highest price was India ($2,292 per tonne), while the average price for exports to China totaled $1,635 per tonne. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to India.

Source: IndexBox Platform

sugar

Brazil’s Sugar Exports to Reach the Highest Level with Doubling Supplies to China

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Brazil – Sugar – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

From January to August 2021, Brazil’s exported 23.7M tonnes, which was 26% larger than in the same period of 2020. This year, China’s sugar purchases from Brazil have doubled, reaching 4M tonnes. Shipments to Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates have also grown sharply. Last year, sugar exports from Brazil hit record 27M tonnes, jumping by +67% y-o-y. In value terms, exports constituted $7.4B. China, Algeria and Bangladesh were the largest importers of Brazilian sugar in 2020. 

Brazil’s Sugar Exports by Country

From January to August 2021, Brazil’s sugar exports reached 23.7M tonnes, up 26% from the same period in 2020. In value terms, exports exceeded $5.8B over eight-month of 2021. It is expected that sugar exports from Brazil will hit the last year’s record by the end of 2021.

This year, soaring supplies to China, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates provided the most export increment. China’s sugar purchases rose twofold against the same period of 2020, reaching 4M tonnes by September 2021.

In 2020, the amount of sugar exported from Brazil skyrocketed to 27M tonnes, jumping by +67% compared with 2019. In value terms, sugar exports skyrocketed by +70% y-o-y to $7.4B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

China (4.7M tonnes), Algeria (2.4M tonnes) and Bangladesh (2.3M tonnes) were the main destinations of sugar exports from Brazil, with a combined 35% share of total exports. These countries were followed by India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Morocco, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and Egypt, which together accounted for a further 51%.

In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of shipments, amongst the leading countries of destination, was attained by Malaysia, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth. Malaysian sugar purchases from Brazil grew fourfold in physical terms.

In value terms, China ($1.3B), Algeria ($669M) and Bangladesh ($628M) constituted the largest markets for sugar exported from Brazil worldwide, with a combined 35% share of total exports. These countries were followed by India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Morocco, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and Egypt, which together accounted for a further 50%.

In 2020, the average sugar export price amounted to $277 per tonne, almost unchanged from the previous year. Average prices varied noticeably for the significant foreign markets. In 2020, the countries with the highest prices were Morocco ($281 per tonne) and Bangladesh ($279 per tonne), while the average prices for exports to Iraq ($263 per tonne) and Indonesia ($269 per tonne) were amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable growth rate in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Morocco, while the prices for the other significant destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox Platform

soap china

China Doubles Soap Exports to $1.4B

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘China – Soap – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2020, Chinese exports of soap in different forms increased twofold, reaching 779K tonnes in physical terms or $1.4B in value terms. The U.S. remains the largest importer of soap from China, accounting for 43% of the Chinese exports. Australia and Japan follow the U.S. with a combined 16%-share of total exports. Among the leading importers, the U.S. featured the most intensive growth of soap purchases from China. The average export price for soap from China stood at $1,772 per tonne in 2020.

Chinese Soap Exports

Soap exports from China skyrocketed from 377K tonnes in 2019 to 779K tonnes in 2020. In value terms, soap exports surged from $658M to $1.4B (IndexBox estimates) over this period. Over the past decade, soap exports from China increased more than threefold, from 216K tonnes to 779K tonnes.

The U.S. was the main destination for soap exports from China, with a 43% share of total exports. Moreover, soap exports to the U.S. exceeded the volume sent to the second major destination, Australia, fivefold. Japan ranked third in terms of total exports with a 7.3% share.

Last year, the U.S. featured the most intensive growth rate of soap imports from China. Chinese soap supplies to America rose from 103K tonnes in 2019 to 331K tonnes in 2020. Exports to Australia increased twofold, reaching 67K tonnes in 2020. Over the last year, Japan boosted soap imports from China from 34K tonnes to 57K tonnes.

In value terms, the U.S. ($571M) remains the key foreign market for soap exports from China, comprising 41% of total exports. The second position in the ranking goes to Japan ($113M), with an 8.2% share of total exports. It is followed by Australia, with a 7.9% share.

The average soap export price stood at $1,772 per tonne in 2020, growing by +1.6% against the previous year. Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the Philippines ($2,383 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Chile ($1,170 per tonne) was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable growth rate in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Japan, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox Platform

section 301

Section 301 Case Offers Importers a Chance at Refunds as Administration Contemplates Further Tariff Action

After a summer of wrangling, Plaintiffs in the ongoing Court of International Trade (‘CIT’) case challenging List 3 and 4A Section 301 duties on imports from China got a big win: in September the Government conceded that it is not able to administer a repository system that would require each importer to continually submit entry-specific information to preserve its rights to actual 301 duty refunds. The arguably unnecessary and burdensome repository system was the Court’s solution to the fact that the Government refused to stipulate that Plaintiffs would have the right to duty refunds on liquidated entries in the event their claims are ultimately successful. Usually, imports are “liquidated”think “finalized”on a rolling basis about a year after entry, so the Government’s position meant that Plaintiffs could potentially lose their rights to duty refunds on more and more entries each day as the CIT litigation continues to play out.

In the end though, after months of intransigence, the Government changed its position and agreed to stipulate that refunds on liquidated entries would be available post-judgment for all Plaintiffs’ entries that were unliquidated as of July 6, 2021. This about-face brings an end to this particular squabble, guarantees Plaintiffs will have access to duty refunds on this set of entries if they win, and allows the case to proceed to the merits. It also suggests that going forward, the Government intends to put forth any possible argument, however tenuous or impractical, to deny refunds to as many importers as possible even if the Plaintiffs prevail on the merits.


While the fact that the Government is vigorously defending its position may not be surprising, it does underscore the benefits of joining the litigation: if List 3 and 4A duties are ultimately declared unlawful, the next debate will center around the extent and form of relief that will be granted to importers who paid these unlawful duties, including which companies will actually get refunds. Actual Plaintiffs in the case will be in the best position to obtain these duty refunds, while the Government will likely make every effort to prevent the ruling from applying more broadly to all importers.

Door Still Open to Join Section 301 Litigation

The CIT case challenging List 3 and 4A duties, which began over a year ago, could very well reach the oral argument stage by early 2022 (barring any further tangential matters brought on by the Government’s efforts to limit potential duty refunds). This would set the stage for a CIT ruling in 2022. Yet the door is still open for other US importers that continue to pay List 3 or 4A duties on China-origin products to join the ongoing litigation and benefit from a potential Plaintiff win once the case and any related appeals are decided.

This opportunity is still available due to multiple arguments that extend the statute of limitations each time duties are assessed on an entry subject to List 3 or 4A. To boot, the burden associated with participating as a new Plaintiff will likely remain quite low in light of the fact that the day-to-day proceedings are led by a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee that has already been established. So while the extent to which Section 301 duty refunds will be available to Plaintiffs and other importers is still up in the air, importers can still file a complaint to join the CIT litigation and improve their chances of benefiting from a favorable outcome.

More Tariffs May Be Coming

Meanwhile, hopes and predictions that the various unconventional tariff increases implemented under the Trump administration would cease and even be rolled back under President Biden have failed to materialize. So far, the Biden administration has left the additional Section 301 tariffs on many products from China untouched. And now, as a result of its ongoing months-long review of the United States’ policy regarding trade with China, the Biden administration is reportedly contemplating further action under Section 301 aimed at leveling the playing field with China.

Specifically, the Biden administration may launch a fresh Section 301 investigation into government subsidies the Chinese central government provides to the county’s manufacturers, thereby giving its manufacturers an advantage over their American counterparts. Understanding the extent of these subsidies and holding China to account for practices that violate US or World Trade Organization laws has been a longstanding US goal. However, the fact that the Biden administration is contemplating initiating its own investigation under Section 301 to address the concern suggests the use of tariffs as a tool to sway America’s trading partners is no longer considered out of bounds by either Republican or Democratic leaders.

For US companies that import goods from Chinaand are therefore legally liable for paying all duties owed to US Customs and Border Protection (‘CBP’) on those products this new normal suggests that existing Section 301 duties will not be revoked by the Biden administration anytime soon. Quite the opposite in fact: it looks like more Section 301 tariffs on more China-origin goods could be on the horizon.

Navigating this new normal in a way that keeps companies’ tariff costs down while ensuring compliance with these ever-changing CBP requirements has prompted business leaders to take a more active approach to Customs law issues including classification and country of origin determinationsboth of which have the potential to affect how much duty an importer pays to US Customs.

Other Ways to Mitigate Tariff Liability

Beyond joining the CIT litigation challenging List 3 and 4A Section 301 duties companies can identify opportunities to save on both general tariffs and additional Section 301 duties by reviewing and confirming the accuracy of the information they submit to CBP. One example of this is conducting a product-specific classification analysis to determine the correct Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Code (or HTSUS code) applicable to a given product based on the product’s characteristics and the (often gray) body of rules and guidance governing classification. Each 10-digit HTSUS code has a corresponding general duty rate, so if a review of a product’s classification results in an HTSUS code correction, it could also result in a lower general duty rate for that product.

Similarly, conducting a supply chain-specific country of origin analysis to determine the correct country of origin of a given product based on where each manufacturing step is conducted and the applicable (and often gray) rules and guidance governing country of origin can result in duty savings. If a company can establish and document that its product’s country of origin is a country other than China, then Section 301 duties will no longer apply to that product.

While both classification and country of origin reviews present an opportunity to mitigate tariff costs, they also help ensure companies are not inadvertently providing incorrect information to US Customs and exposing themselves to potential penalties for such violationsanother must for US importers in light of the fact that tariff issues remain front and center in the minds of regulators and requirements continue to evolve in response to the ever-changing geopolitical landscape.

 ___________________________________________________________________

Andrew Bisbas is Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler. His practice centers on US Customs and Border Protection import requirements and tariffs. He helps clients navigate CBP requirements including classification and country of origin determinations as well as USMCA and other trade agreement implications. Andrew also assists clients in setting up and maintaining corporate import compliance programs, conducting import audits and supply chain due diligence, preparing and submitting prior disclosures to US Customs, and advising on tariff engineering and supply chain structuring efforts geared towards mitigating tariff costs.

fructose imports

Global Fructose Imports Spike with Exploding Demand from China

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Fructose And Fructose Syrup – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Global imports of fructose and fructose syrup rose by +8.6% y-o-y to 4M tonnes in 2020. China has extraordinarily increased fructose purchases sixfold, driving out the leading importer, Mexico, from the first to the second place in the global import ranking. Thailand, Viet Nam and Myanmar remain the key suppliers of fructose to China. Outside these countries, Indonesia saw the highest growth rate in terms of supplies to China. 

Global Imports of Fructose and Fructose Syrup

In 2020, global imports of fructose and fructose syrup amounted to 4M tonnes, growing by +8.6% against 2019. In value terms, fructose imports amounted to $2.8B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

China (1,096K tonnes) and Mexico (825K tonnes) represented the major importers of fructose and fructose syrup in 2020, amounting to approx. 27% and 21% of total imports, respectively. Germany (203K tonnes) held the next position in the ranking, followed by the U.S. (202K tonnes). All these countries together held approx. 10% share of total imports. Indonesia (163K tonnes), the Netherlands (127K tonnes), Canada (107K tonnes), France (92K tonnes), South Korea (87K tonnes), the UK (77K tonnes), Thailand (73K tonnes) and Malaysia (70K tonnes) held a relatively small share of total imports.

In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of purchases, amongst the leading importing countries, was attained by China, while imports for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest fructose importing markets worldwide were China ($422M), Mexico ($333M) and the U.S. ($230M), with a combined 36% share of global imports.

In 2020, the average fructose import price amounted to $693 per tonne, dropping by -7.9% against the previous year. Last year, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Canada, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports of Fructose and Fructose Syrup into China

The volume of fructose and fructose syrup imported into China surged from 173K tonnes in 2019 to 1.1M tonnes in 2020. In value terms, fructose imports skyrocketed from $89M in 2019 to $422M in 2020.

Thailand (507K tonnes), Viet Nam (272K tonnes) and Myanmar (112K tonnes) were the main suppliers of fructose imports to China, with a combined 81% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Malaysia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Indonesia, which together accounted for a further 16%.

In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of purchases, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Indonesia and Thailand, while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Thailand ($191M), Viet Nam ($101M) and Malaysia ($39M) constituted the largest fructose suppliers to China, together accounting for 78% of total imports.

Source: IndexBox Platform

resin

China Significantly Expands Epoxy Resin Imports

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘China – Epoxide Resins In Primary Forms – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2020, imports of epoxide resins in primary forms into China jumped by +40% y-o-y to 405K tonnes, reaching $1.3B in value terms. Taiwan, South Korea, and the U.S. remain the key epoxy resin suppliers to China, with a combined 76%-share of the total imports. Thailand, the Netherlands, South Korea, the U.S., Taiwan, and Germany saw the highest spikes in exports to China. The average epoxy resin import price in China dropped by -10% y-o-y last year. 

Epoxide Resin Imports into China

In 2020, imports of epoxide resins in primary forms into China soared to 405K tonnes, picking up by +40% on the previous year’s figure. In value terms, epoxide resin imports surged by +26.1% y-o-y to $1.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

Taiwan (Chinese) (147K tonnes), South Korea (116K tonnes) and the U.S. (44K tonnes) were the main suppliers of epoxide resins to China, with a combined 76% share of total Chinese imports. These countries were followed by Germany, Thailand, Japan and the Netherlands, which together accounted for a further 19%.

In 2020, the most notable growth rate in terms of purchases, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Thailand (+131% y-o-y), the Netherlands (+77% y-o-y), South Korea (+63% y-o-y), the U.S. (+41% y-o-y),Taiwan (+33% y-o-y) and Germany (+24% y-o-y). Imports from Japan reduced by -4% y-o-y during this period.

In value terms, Taiwan (Chinese) ($418M), South Korea ($283M) and the U.S. ($135M) appeared to be the largest epoxide resin suppliers to China, together comprising 67% of total imports. Japan, Germany, Thailand and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 27%.

In 2020, the average epoxy resin import price amounted to $3,100 per tonne, waning by -10% against the previous year. Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Japan ($8,473 per tonne), while the price for the Netherlands ($2,353 per tonne) was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Japan, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest pace of growth.

Source: IndexBox Platform

suppliers

Russian and Indian Suppliers Scale Up Packaging Paper Exports to China

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘China – Wrapping Papers – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

China’s imports of wrapping paper, packaging paper and paperboard reached the highest level ever, picking up by +54% to 892K tonnes in 2020. Russia, India and Viet Nam constitute the largest suppliers to China. Last year, Russia and India boosted their exports to China threefold, while Viet Nam saw a 58%-spike in terms of volume of exported products to China. In 2020, the average wrapping paper import price dropped by -24.1% y-o-y.

Imports into China

In 2020, the amount of wrapping paper, packaging paper and paperboard imported into China surged to 892K tonnes, jumping by +54% on the previous year. In value terms, wrapping papers imports skyrocketed by +17.1% y-o-y to $627M (IndexBox estimates) in 2020.

The total imports of wrapping paper, packaging paper and paperboard to China grew from 350K tonnes in 2010 to 892K tonnes in 2020. Over the last decade, India recorded the most prominent growth rate of exports to China. India broke into the Chinese market and became the second-largest supplier, ramping up the supplies to China from 16K tonnes in 2017 to 100K tonnes in 2020.

Russia (125K tonnes), India (100K tonnes) and Viet Nam (77K tonnes) were the main suppliers of wrapping papers imports to China, together accounting for 34% of total imports. Canada, Japan, the U.S., Sweden, South Korea, Taiwan (Chinese), Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 52%.

In 2020, Brazil featured the highest growth rate in terms of volume of supplies to China. Over the last year, Chinese purchases from Brazil increased from 7K tonnes to 42K tonnes.

Russia and India boosted their supplies to China threefold. Russia increased its exports to China from 41K tonnes in 2019 to 125K tonnes in 2020, while India ramped up its supplies to China from 34K tonnes to 100K tonnes over this period. Viet Nam increased its exports to China by half from 49K tonnes in 2019.

In value terms, Russia ($75M), Japan ($68M) and the U.S. ($58M) appeared to be the largest wrapping papers suppliers to China, together comprising 32% of total imports. Sweden, Taiwan (Chinese), Canada, South Korea, India, Viet Nam, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 47%.

In 2020, the average wrapping papers import price amounted to $703 per tonne, dropping by -24.1% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was Japan ($981 per tonne), while the price for India ($323 per tonne) was amongst the lowest. In 2020, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Taiwan (Chinese), while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced a decline.

Source: IndexBox Platform

Xinjiang

U.S. Adds Chinese Entities to BIS Entity List and Updates Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory

Earlier this month, the US Government updated its ongoing response to what the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) described as “Beijing’s campaign of repression, mass detention, and high-technology surveillance against Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and members of other Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Regions of China (“XUAR”), where the [People’s Republic of China] continues to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.”

Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) added twenty-four (24) China-based entities to the Entity List on July 12th, thereby prohibiting the export, re-export, or in-country transfer of commodities, software, and technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) to those entities without a license. Then, on July 13th, a group of agencies including Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”), and the Departments of Homeland Security, Labor, State, and Treasury updated its Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory (the “Advisory”) to highlight the increasing legal and reputational risks to companies who maintain supply chains with links to Xinjiang.

BIS specifically linked fourteen (14) of the twenty-four (24) total China-based entity designations to their connection to the ongoing repression of Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang. In addition to companies within China, foreign affiliates of Suzhou Keda Technology Co., Ltd. in the Netherlands, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, and Turkey, as well as the foreign affiliate of China Academy of Electronics and Information Technology in the United Kingdom, were also targeted.

These worldwide additions confirm the importance of screening both customers and supply chain participants wherever they are located. The July 12 BIS Entity List additions also included thirteen (13)  Entity List designations of companies and persons located in China and Russia as a result of their use of items for military programs or transfer to sanctioned Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) Specially Designated Nationals (“SDNs”). BIS also added one (1) Russian company to the Military End User (“MEU”) list, which restricts the export or reexports of certain items to companies meeting the definition of an MEU.

Besides direct services to prison camps and authorities in Xinjiang, the inter-agency Advisory highlights activities that carry a heightened risk of a nexus to the intrusive surveillance system implemented by China in Xinjiang, which include:

-Venture capital investment in Chinese companies contributing to surveillance in Xinjiang;

-Selling items such as cameras, tracking technology, and biometric devices into China;

-Certain research joint ventures and research partnerships in surveillance-related areas with Chinese firms;

-Exporting, reexporting, or transferring (in-country) EAR-regulated items to companies on the Entity List;

-Trading in the securities of certain Chinese firms listed on the Non-Specially Designated Nationals Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List (“NS-CMIC List”).

The Advisory puts the industry on notice that rigorous due diligence is necessary to mitigate risks in the areas of anti-money laundering (“AML”), potential surveillance assistance, forced labor use by customers or supply chain participants, and the provision of construction materials to Xinjiang authorities, and that the US government will use all agencies, laws, and federal contract clauses available to it to hold companies accountable. The European Union also released its own “Guidance on Due Diligence for EU Businesses to Address the Risk of Forced Labour in Their Operations and Supply Chains” on July 12th.

________________________________________________________________

Cortney O’Toole Morgan is a Washington D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. She leads the firm’s International Trade & Supply Chain group.

Grant Leach is an Omaha-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP focusing on international trade, export controls, trade sanctions and anti-corruption compliance.

Tony Busch is an attorney in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.