Are Quotas Worse Than Tariffs?

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

Are Quotas Worse Than Tariffs?

October 17th, 2019 Holly Smith Leave a comment

Quotas Return

With all the focus on tariffs these days, it is easy to overlook the return of another tool used to limit imports: quotas.

Over a year ago, the Trump Administration used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose 25 percent tariffs on specified steel imports and 10 percent tariffs on specified aluminum imports. Three countries – South Korea, Brazil and Argentina – made agreements with the United States to apply quotas to their steel exports in lieu of the Section 232 tariffs. Argentina also agreed to quotas on its aluminum exports.

According to numerous reports, U.S. negotiators were seeking similar agreements with Canada, Mexico, Japan and the European Union (EU). In May 2019, however, the governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico announced that they had reached a deal to lift steel and aluminum tariffs without imposing quotas, choosing instead to adopt a monitoring system with the right to re-impose tariffs on these products if surges are detected in the future. This deal could be a template for agreements with Japan and the EU to address their steel and aluminum tariffs.

In ongoing Section 232 investigations, the administration is keeping quotas on the table in other sectors including autos and auto parts, uranium ore and titanium sponges.

The Difference between Quotas and Tariffs

Quotas and tariffs are both used to protect domestic industries by artificially raising prices in the domestic market. Their administration and effects, however, differ in specific ways. Quotas restrict the quantity of a good imported from another country. Tariffs are a charge levied on the value of goods imported from another country.

While tariffs generate revenue that is paid to the importing country’s treasury, the value of a quota, also called “quota rents,” generally goes to the foreign exporters who are able to sell goods subject to the quota at higher prices and collect higher per unit revenue. In both cases, domestic consumers in the importing country pay the costs of tariffs and quota rents. But with quotas, the government of the importing country receives no revenue.

Quotas can be much more complicated to administer than tariffs. Tariffs are collected by a customs authority as goods enter a country. With quotas, customs authorities must either monitor imports directly to ensure that no goods above the quota amount are imported, or can award licenses to specific companies, giving them the right to import the amount allowed under the quota. Quotas can also take the form of a voluntary export restraint (VER), where the exporting country administers the quota.

The Cost of Quotas

Costs and pricing under a tariff regime are more transparent and predictable compared to quotas. For example, if a good is subject to a 10 percent tariff, then the good should cost about 10 percent more than it did before the tariff was imposed. With a quota, the price of that same good can increase as long as demand for the good continues and the supply remains constrained. This can mean that quota rents are ultimately more costly to domestic consumers than a tariff. In this way, quota regimes may incentivize foreign producers to upgrade the quality of their exports, leading to more direct competition with domestic producers and a higher-price product mix for consumers.

On the other hand, if foreign producers export low-quality goods under a quota regime, prices and profits for both foreign and domestic producers of low-quality goods will rise because of quotas, while domestic consumers were forced to pay more for lower quality goods.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) prohibits quotas and other quantitative restrictions under Article XI (with specific exceptions including for “security reasons”) as the GATT parties agreed that quantitative restrictions were overly restrictive and distortive compared to duties or taxes, where are permitted.

Tricky to Administer

In the case of South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina and Section 232 quotas, each country agreed to product-specific absolute quotas on 54 separate steel articles based on each country’s average annual import volumes of steel from 2015 through 2017. Argentina also accepted product specific absolute quotas on two aluminum product categories.

These quotas are administered by the United States to give exporters the least possible flexibility and demonstrate how complicated quota regimes can be. Some of the quotas are absolute – once the quota is reached, no additional amount can enter the United States for any price, unless an exclusion is granted. Some quotas apply to the full calendar year (but in practice may fill the minute the quota takes effect), and others are subject to quarterly limitations. Once a quota is filled in a given quarter, importers must wait until the next quarter until they can bring the product into the United States.

The True Cost in Practice

For South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina, quotas have reduced export volumes and revenue. According to U.S. Department of Commerce data, the overall quantity of steel South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina exported to the United States in 2018 dropped significantly compared to 2017, by 26.2 percent, 14.6 percent, and 20.1 percent, respectively.

In terms of value, South Korea and Argentina’s steel exports subject to quotas dropped by $430 million and $1 million, respectively, from 2017 to 2018, while the value of Brazil’s steel exports under the quota increased by nearly $145 million in 2018. Argentina’s aluminum exports subject to the quota dropped by approximately 86.8 million kilograms from 2017 to 2018, by 32.8 percent, with a decrease in value of approximately $101 million, according to data from the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Although South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina have benefitted from generally higher prices in the United States for steel and aluminum, so far, the quotas are effectively reducing U.S. imports from these countries.

Upsides for U.S. Steel Producers

For U.S. steel and primary aluminum producers, Section 232 tariffs, and to a limited extent, quotas, are accomplishing their goal of bolstering U.S. manufacturing capacity and allowing their firms to become profitable again — at least in the short run.

Though some proponents of the Section 232 protections do not advocate for quotas specifically, and recognize their downsides, others argue that quotas are a necessary component of the Section 232 program. Here’s why.

First, for industries seeking protection, quotas arguably provide greater certainty than tariffs that imports will be limited. Under tariffs, if importers can bear the costs, or exporters can reduce their prices, imports will continue to flow in and competition will remain high. For example, Vietnam’s 2018 exports of flat steel products, which are covered by Section 232 tariffs, increased by 79 percent compared to 2017. If strict quotas were applied instead of tariffs, Vietnam’s 2018 exports likely would have decreased.

Second, steel and aluminum manufacturers argue that without quotas, “countries that have exemptions [to the Section 232 tariffs] would likely redirect their metals exports to the United States to take advantage of higher prices there, undermining the purpose of the tariffs.”

Finally, the Trump Administration perceives that Section 232 quota agreements with U.S. trading partners and security allies, in combination with tariffs, are helping to pressure and incentivize allies to take seriously the problem of global excess capacity. U.S. unilateral tariffs may also have the opposite effect, though, – making allies less willing to work cooperatively with the United States to address fundamental global problems.

Downsides for Downstream Industries

It’s a different story for U.S. downstream manufacturers, who say quotas have entailed “severe supply constraints” and “created even more business uncertainty than tariffs”.

Importers may no longer be able to guarantee that their goods can enter under the quota, or at all. They may encounter unanticipated costs in the form of storage charges and shipping fees if the quota is filled while goods are in transit. They may face unpredictably higher prices for goods subject to a quota. They may have to find new suppliers and bear all the costs of negotiating new contracts, building new relationships, and shipping from a new location. The exclusion process implemented in August 2018 may provide some relief for importers under supply pressure, though its application may also introduce more uncertainty.

More generally, downstream manufacturers argue that Section 232 quotas and tariffs raise prices inhibiting their competitiveness, and have a chilling effect on growth, employment and investment. Although many businesses have been buoyed by the strong U.S. economy, they say that employment and sales in their industries would have increased even more were it not for tariffs and quotas raising prices. Moreover, downstream industries using steel and aluminum products employ more Americans than steel and primary aluminum manufacturers, so many jobs are vulnerable if supply contracts too much.

North America Alternative to Metal Quotas

In order to move forward with passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the United States, Canada and Mexico first had to address the steel, aluminum and retaliatory tariffs in place since 2018. Although all parties considered quotas as a possible way forward, in the end, they agreed to lift all steel, aluminum, and related retaliatory tariffs, as well as withdraw pending WTO litigation, without imposing quotas.

The three countries agreed to prevent the importation of aluminum and steel that is unfairly subsidized and/or sold at dumped prices; prevent the transshipment of aluminum and steel made outside of Canada, Mexico, or the United States to the other country; and establish a monitoring process to detect surges of aluminum and steel imports among them.

This agreement is a positive development for two key reasons: the parties removed tariffs while avoiding quotas, and agreed to address the underlying cause of U.S. industry distress – global excess capacity.

Addressing Global Excess Capacity is Key

Though tariffs and quotas may provide short-term relief, solving underlying global excess capacity problems is critical to addressing U.S. industries’ long-term challenges, and any long-term solution will require more than the mere application of protectionist measures. The United States will have to work closely and creatively with its trading partners to address this challenge directly and to persuade the world’s largest producers — including China — to reduce global excess capacity.

__________________________________________________________

This article is a shortened version of an original report published by the Hinrich Foundation.

Feature Image Credit: Jason Welker, from “Protectionist Quotas” video on Youtube.

Holly Smith is a lawyer and consultant based in Hong Kong. From 2009 to 2015, she served in the Office of the United States Trade Representative as a Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation, a Director for China Affairs, and a senior policy advisor to the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Lard Market to Grow 1.6% a Year through 2025, Fuelled by Rising Demand in China

October 16th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The global lard market revenue amounted to $15.7B in 2018, jumping by 2.9% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.1% from 2012 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when the market value increased by 6.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the global lard market attained its peak figure level in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Consumption By Country

The country with the largest volume of lard consumption was China (2.6M tonnes), accounting for 40% of total consumption. Moreover, lard consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the world’s second-largest consumer, Germany (615K tonnes), fourfold. Brazil (478K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 7.3% share.

From 2012 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume in China totaled +2.2%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Germany (+0.7% per year) and Brazil (+1.3% per year).

In value terms, China ($11.1B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Russia ($1B). It was followed by Brazil.

The countries with the highest levels of lard per capita consumption in 2018 were Belgium (12,397 kg per 1000 persons), Germany (7,481 kg per 1000 persons) and Canada (4,662 kg per 1000 persons).

From 2012 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of lard per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Russia, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for lard in China, the world market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven-year period. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.6% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 7.3M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production 2007-2018

Global lard production totaled 6.5M tonnes in 2018, increasing by 2% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.6% over the period from 2012 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 2.5% against the previous year. The global lard production peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, lard production stood at $15.6B in 2018 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +2.0% over the period from 2012 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 11% against the previous year. The global lard production peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Production By Country

The country with the largest volume of lard production was China (2.6M tonnes), accounting for 39% of total production. Moreover, lard production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the world’s second-largest producer, Germany (653K tonnes), fourfold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Brazil (481K tonnes), with a 7.4% share.

In China, lard production expanded at an average annual rate of +2.3% over the period from 2012-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Germany (+0.6% per year) and Brazil (+1.3% per year).

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 243K tonnes of lard were exported worldwide; jumping by 9.2% against the previous year. Over the period under review, lard exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 with an increase of 11% y-o-y. The global exports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the near future.

In value terms, lard exports amounted to $220M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, lard exports continue to indicate a slight setback. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when exports increased by 26% y-o-y. The global exports peaked at $241M in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

Exports by Country

Germany (46K tonnes), Spain (45K tonnes) and Belgium (35K tonnes) represented roughly 52% of total exports of lard in 2018. The U.S. (17K tonnes) ranks next in terms of the total exports with a 6.9% share, followed by the Netherlands (5.7%), Italy (5.3%) and Austria (5%). France (10,645 tonnes), Canada (9,206 tonnes), Denmark (7,849 tonnes), Poland (7,002 tonnes) and Portugal (4,028 tonnes) took a minor share of total exports.

From 2012 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by Portugal, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Spain ($57M), Germany ($31M) and Belgium ($23M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, together comprising 50% of global exports. The U.S., Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Poland, France, Austria, Denmark and Portugal lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 41%.

In terms of the main exporting countries, Portugal experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to exports, over the last six years, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average lard export price amounted to $902 per tonne, falling by -4.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the lard export price continues to indicate a temperate slump. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when the average export price increased by 15% against the previous year. The global export price peaked at $1,027 per tonne in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, export prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Poland ($1,359 per tonne), while Austria ($452 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2012 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the U.S., while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the export price figures.

Imports 2007-2018

Global imports stood at 223K tonnes in 2018, increasing by 8.2% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% from 2012 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2015 with an increase of 11% y-o-y. In that year, global lard imports attained their peak of 236K tonnes. From 2016 to 2018, the growth of global lard imports remained at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, lard imports totaled $194M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, lard imports continue to indicate a moderate drop. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 11% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global lard imports attained their peak figure at $227M in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Spain (50K tonnes), distantly followed by the Netherlands (26K tonnes), Mexico (20K tonnes), Slovakia (18K tonnes), Denmark (16K tonnes) and France (11K tonnes) were the key importers of lard, together achieving 63% of total imports. Belgium (9,105 tonnes), the UK (7,294 tonnes), Germany (7,042 tonnes), the U.S. (6,910 tonnes), Portugal (6,763 tonnes) and the Philippines (5,311 tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2012 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by the Philippines, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Spain ($41M), Mexico ($22M) and the Netherlands ($18M) were the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 42% share of global imports. Denmark, Belgium, France, the U.S., the UK, Germany, Slovakia, Portugal and the Philippines lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 35%.

Slovakia experienced the highest growth rate of imports, in terms of the main importing countries over the last six-year period, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average lard import price amounted to $870 per tonne, standing approx. at the previous year. In general, the lard import price continues to indicate a perceptible reduction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2017 when the average import price increased by 13% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average import prices for lard attained their peak figure at $1,100 per tonne in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($1,157 per tonne), while the Philippines ($131 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2012 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Denmark, while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the import price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

U.S. – Fruits, Nuts And Peel (Sugar Preserved) – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights

October 11th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Fruits, Nuts And Peel (Sugar Preserved) – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) exported from the U.S. stood at 5.2K tonnes, shrinking by -7.3% against the previous year. Overall, exports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) continue to indicate a slight reduction. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2009 with an increase of 42% y-o-y. Exports peaked at 9.3K tonnes in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, exports failed to regain their momentum.

In value terms, exports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) totaled $11M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, exports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) continue to indicate a slight contraction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2009 with an increase of 76% against the previous year. In that year, exports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) reached their peak of $21M. From 2010 to 2018, the growth of exports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) failed to regain its momentum.

Exports by Country

Canada (1.8K tonnes) was the main destination for exports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) from the U.S., with a 35% share of total exports. Moreover, exports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) to Canada exceeded the volume sent to the second major destination, Saudi Arabia (385 tonnes), fivefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by China (352 tonnes), with a 6.8% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume to Canada stood at +16.1%. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: Saudi Arabia (+11.9% per year) and China (+9.2% per year).

In value terms, Canada ($2.7M), China ($1.6M) and Turkey ($888K) constituted the largest markets for sweetened dried fruit and nut exported from the U.S. worldwide, together accounting for 46% of total exports.

Turkey recorded the highest growth rate of exports, among the main countries of destination over the last eleven-year period, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The average export price for fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) stood at $2,198 per tonne in 2018, coming down by -1.5% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export price for fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved), however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2009 an increase of 25% year-to-year. In that year, the average export prices for fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) attained their peak level of $2,776 per tonne. From 2010 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average export prices for fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) failed to regain its momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Turkey ($4,656 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Australia ($983 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Taiwan, Chinese, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, the imports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) into the U.S. totaled 9.4K tonnes, picking up by 22% against the previous year. In general, imports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved), however, continue to indicate a slight downturn. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2018 with an increase of 22% y-o-y. Imports peaked at 12K tonnes in 2010; however, from 2011 to 2018, imports failed to regain their momentum.

In value terms, imports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) stood at $32M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +2.3% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 with an increase of 18% year-to-year. Over the period under review, imports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) reached their peak figure in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Thailand (4.5K tonnes) constituted the largest supplier of sweetened dried fruit and nut to the U.S., with a 48% share of total imports. Moreover, imports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) from Thailand exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, China (827 tonnes), fivefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Fiji (722 tonnes), with a 7.7% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume from Thailand totaled -1.1%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: China (-1.9% per year) and Fiji (+20.1% per year).

In value terms, Thailand ($14.2M) constituted the largest supplier of sweetened dried fruit and nut to the U.S., comprising 45% of total imports of fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved). The second position in the ranking was occupied by Fiji ($3.5M), with a 11% share of total imports. It was followed by China, with a 11% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from Thailand totaled +3.4%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Fiji (+23.8% per year) and China (+0.5% per year).

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average import price for fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) amounted to $3,379 per tonne, falling by -9.4% against the previous year. Overall, the import price indicated a noticeable increase from 2007 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +3.5% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, import price for fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) increased by +54.7% against 2009 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2013 an increase of 27% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for fruits, nuts and peel (sugar preserved) reached their peak figure at $3,729 per tonne in 2017, and then declined slightly in the following year.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Fiji ($4,917 per tonne), while the price for India ($1,887 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Mexico, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Features, Global Trade Daily

Why Washington Shouldn’t see Vietnam as the Next China

October 8th, 2019 Cora Di Pietro Leave a comment

In a recent Senate Finance Committee report, U.S. Trade Czar Robert Lighthizer opined that Vietnam must take action to curb its growing trade surplus with the U.S., including removing barriers to market access for U.S. companies.

While it is true that Vietnam’s trade surplus has grown significantly in 2019, much of it is the result of the trade war between the U.S. and China that has prompted importers to source from Vietnam as an alternative to China.

Rather than attempt to stunt Vietnam’s trade surplus through tariffs or other trade actions, Washington should be establishing alliances with countries in Southeast Asia as part of its quest to ensure balanced trade and market stability.

Lighthizer’scomments were in response to queries from the Committee and echoed previous statements made by White House administration officials who have identified Vietnam as one of several countries to watch with respect to trade activity. And while there hasn’t been a direct threat of imposing tariffs on Vietnamese imports, the recent implementation of a 400% duty on Vietnamese steel imports and the recent rhetoric in Washington regarding transshipment has many businesses nervous that their new safe haven may be the President’s next target for trade action.

Troublesome to United State Trade Representative (USTR) is that the surplus thus far in 2019 is already more than 30% higher than it was at this time last year, making Vietnam the leading nation in terms of percentage increase of import value in 2019.

Hastening trade imbalance

Washington has been at least somewhat complicit in hastening Vietnam’s growing trade surplus. Since the U.S. began imposing tariffs on China-origin goods, many U.S. companies (and some Chinese companies) have been looking to shift production to neighboring markets in Asia. A recent poll of U.S. companies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in China showed that more than 40% of American companies with production in China were looking to move to a neighboring country if they hadn’t already done so. These include the likes of Dell, HP, Steve Madden, Brooks and others. Even non-U.S. companies, like Japan’s Nintendo and China’s own electronics giant TCL are looking to shift production out of China and into Vietnam.

Vietnam was an obvious choice for many of these manufacturers looking to circumvent Washington’s onerous tariffs. For years, Vietnam has been investing heavily in improving its roadway and port infrastructure, as well as augmenting its pool of high-skilled laborers so that it can attract large hi-tech giants. The advancements were well-timed to coincide with increasing wages and regulatory restrictions in China that were driving up costs and forcing foreign producers to look elsewhere for low-cost manufacturing alternatives. This was taking place well before the current administration in Washington began cracking down on China’s questionable trade practices.

To be fair, Washington does have some cause for complaint. It’s one of Asia’s worst kept secrets that Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand have become convenient transshipment hubs for Chinese companies looking to circumvent quotas and, more recently, tariffs by making minor tweaks in neighboring countries to products almost wholly manufactured in China and sending them along to the U.S. as “Vietnamese” or “Malaysian” exports. In the end, there is little monetary gain for Vietnam and much opportunity for reputational damage. Hanoi’s incentive for playing along is purely political; it wants to placate China, its much larger neighbor and regional hegemon.

Hanoi has already said it will crackdown on Chinese transshipments labeled as being of Vietnamese origin. Nikkei Asian Review is reporting the Vietnamese government is considering new rules that would require 30% of a good’s price to be comprised of Vietnamese manufacturing for it to be considered as being of Vietnamese origin. Whether or not this will pacify the USTR remains to be seen.

Yet while Chinese transshipments may have been a catalyst to Vietnam’s soaring trade surplus, the ongoing U.S-China trade war has unquestionably accelerated the development of a trend that was only in its infancy a few short years ago.

If Washington is looking to penalize Vietnam for a trade surplus born out of Washington’s trade war with Beijing, where will the cycle of tariffs end?

Options for low-cost sourcing plentiful

Let’s assume Washington succeeds in quelling the growth of Vietnam’s trade surplus by imposing tariffs in the same manner it has with China, the EU and other entities. The likely outcome will be that U.S. companies then look to Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh or Cambodia (as many have already) to replace or supplement their production in China.

Let’s assume that Washington then imposes similar tariffs on imports from those countries. The likely outcome will be that U.S. companies then shift their attention to India, Mexico or any other country that offer lower cost labor and limited regulatory burden. And on and on it goes.

Washington wants to see production repatriated back to the United States, but only six percent of American companies moving production out of China are looking at reshoring their manufacturing facilities. One of the key reasons is that the facilities currently in China are intended to support regional exports and reshoring production to the U.S. would result in unnecessary transport costs and time in transit. In other cases, the cost of moving production to the U.S. could be too onerous to allow companies to compete globally.

A battle worth waging – along with friends and allies

This is not to suggest Washington’s war on China’s unsavory trade practices is unjust or futile. On the contrary, China’s history of misappropriating intellectual property through technology transfer, cybersecurity incidents and other trade violations requires America to act. But tariffs only punish American companies that will continue to shift their production as necessary to reduce their landed costs.

Instead of reprimanding and punishing countries like Vietnam with tariffs in response to growing trade surpluses, Washington should be working with them to forge alliances that will ensure China is forced to play by the rules.

If the U.S. truly wants to stave off bad actors such as China from continuing to abuse the global trade’s rule-based system, it will need the support of friends and allies in the eastern and western hemispheres. Acting alone and imposing unilateral restrictions only throws Washington into a battle of wills for which collateral damage is certain, but the outcome remains unknown.

_________________________________________________________________

Cora Di Pietro is vice president of Global Trade Consulting at trade-services firm Livingston International. She is a frequent speaker and lecturer at industry and academic events and is an active member of numerous industry groups and associations. She can be reached at cdipietro@livingstonintl.com.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Grapefruit Market in Asia – Japan Halved Grapefruit Imports Over the Last Decade

October 4th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Asia – Grapefruits (Inc. Pomelos) – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the grapefruit market in Asia amounted to $6.4B in 2018, picking up by 6.1% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). In general, grapefruit consumption continues to indicate strong growth. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2015 when the market value increased by 18% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the grapefruit market reached its maximum level in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Consumption By Country in Asia

China (4.8M tonnes) remains the largest grapefruit consuming country in Asia, comprising approx. 72% of total consumption. Moreover, grapefruit consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest consumer, Viet Nam (611K tonnes), eightfold. India (377K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 5.6% share.

In China, grapefruit consumption increased at an average annual rate of +7.5% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Viet Nam (+5.5% per year) and India (+7.1% per year).

In value terms, China ($4.5B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Viet Nam ($707M). It was followed by Thailand.

The countries with the highest levels of grapefruit per capita consumption in 2018 were Viet Nam (6,331 kg per 1000 persons), China (3,340 kg per 1000 persons) and Thailand (3,267 kg per 1000 persons).

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of grapefruit per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by China, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia

Driven by increasing demand for grapefruit in Asia, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven years. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +3.7% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 8.7M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production in Asia

The grapefruit production stood at 7M tonnes in 2018, growing by 6.4% against the previous year. The total output indicated a remarkable increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +5.6% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, grapefruit production increased by +81.9% against 2007 indices. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2015 when production volume increased by 12% y-o-y. Over the period under review, grapefruit production reached its maximum volume in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term. The general positive trend in terms of grapefruit output was largely conditioned by a resilient increase of the harvested area and temperate growth in yield figures.

In value terms, grapefruit production stood at $6.9B in 2018 estimated in export prices. Overall, grapefruit production continues to indicate a strong increase. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2015 when production volume increased by 18% against the previous year. The level of grapefruit production peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Production By Country in Asia

The country with the largest volume of grapefruit production was China (5M tonnes), accounting for 71% of total production. Moreover, grapefruit production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest producer, Viet Nam (598K tonnes), eightfold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by India (377K tonnes), with a 5.4% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in China amounted to +7.5%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Viet Nam (+5.3% per year) and India (+7.1% per year).

Harvested Area in Asia

In 2018, the total area harvested in terms of grapefruits production in Asia stood at 220K ha, going up by 3.7% against the previous year. The harvested area increased at an average annual rate of +2.8% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 with an increase of 18% year-to-year. The level of grapefruit harvested area peaked at 226K ha in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, harvested area stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Yield in Asia

The average grapefruit yield amounted to 32 tonne per ha in 2018, jumping by 2.6% against the previous year. The yield figure increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when yield increased by 9.6% against the previous year. The level of grapefruit yield peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports in Asia

In 2018, the amount of grapefruits exported in Asia amounted to 525K tonnes, jumping by 21% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +5.6% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when exports increased by 23% year-to-year. Over the period under review, grapefruit exports reached their maximum in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the near future.

In value terms, grapefruit exports totaled $449M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total exports indicated a strong expansion from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +5.6% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, grapefruit exports increased by +15.7% against 2014 indices. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 21% y-o-y. Over the period under review, grapefruit exports reached their maximum in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

In 2018, China (211K tonnes) and Turkey (182K tonnes) were the major exporters of grapefruits in Asia, together recording near 75% of total exports. It was distantly followed by Israel (88K tonnes), achieving a 17% share of total exports. China, Hong Kong SAR (16K tonnes) and Cyprus (8.3K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main exporting countries, was attained by China, Hong Kong SAR, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest grapefruit markets in Asia were China ($200M), Turkey ($119M) and Israel ($87M), with a combined 91% share of total exports. These countries were followed by China, Hong Kong SAR and Cyprus, which together accounted for a further 4%.

Among the main exporting countries, China, Hong Kong SAR recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to exports, over the last eleven years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The grapefruit export price in Asia stood at $855 per tonne in 2018, waning by -3.7% against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.2%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when the export price increased by 10% y-o-y. In that year, the export prices for grapefruits attained their peak level of $888 per tonne, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Israel ($995 per tonne), while Cyprus ($585 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, Hong Kong SAR, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports in Asia

In 2018, the amount of grapefruits imported in Asia totaled 272K tonnes, surging by 24% against the previous year. In general, grapefruit imports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when imports increased by 24% y-o-y. Over the period under review, grapefruit imports reached their maximum at 280K tonnes in 2010; however, from 2011 to 2018, imports failed to regain their momentum.

In value terms, grapefruit imports amounted to $232M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, grapefruit imports, however, continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2014 when imports increased by 15% y-o-y. The level of imports peaked at $236M in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Japan (85K tonnes), distantly followed by China (45K tonnes), Saudi Arabia (34K tonnes), South Korea (23K tonnes), China, Hong Kong SAR (23K tonnes) and Viet Nam (15K tonnes) were the largest importers of grapefruits, together comprising 83% of total imports. Iraq (11K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Viet Nam (+115.4% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Japan ($64M), China ($60M) and South Korea ($32M) were the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 67% share of total imports. China, Hong Kong SAR, Saudi Arabia, Viet Nam and Iraq lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 21%.

Viet Nam (+99.6% per year) experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to imports, in terms of the main importing countries over the last eleven-year period, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The grapefruit import price in Asia stood at $853 per tonne in 2018, dropping by -8.6% against the previous year. Overall, the grapefruit import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 when the import price increased by 12% against the previous year. In that year, the import prices for grapefruits reached their peak level of $933 per tonne, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was South Korea ($1,420 per tonne), while Iraq ($323 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Ocean Carriers

A Tough Year on the Water Hasn’t Dampened Innovation for these Ocean Carriers

October 1st, 2019 Matt Coker Leave a comment

To say that 2019 has been challenging for ocean carriers would be an understatement. The year began with the National Retail Federation forecasting a decline in year-over-year growth, echoing World Bank chatter of a slowing global economy.

And don’t forget the tariff wars between the U.S. and China (heck, the U.S. and just about anyone). Managing capacity on ships has also been an issue, and then there is the potential biggest bogeyman of all: the International Maritime Organization’s low-sulfur fuel mandate taking effect Jan. 1, 2020.

Sure, we could dwell on the gloom and doom, but that would not be very Global Trade magazine of us, now would it? We here in our silky ivory tower like to spotlight the positive, which we reveal with these ocean shippers we love.

MSC

Mediterranean Shipping Co. this year watched the world’s largest container ship, the MSC Gülsün, complete its maiden voyage from northern China to Europe. With a width of 197 feet and a length of 1,312 feet (!), the Gülsün was built by Samsung Heavy Industries at the Geoje shipyard in South Korea. It can carry up to 23,756 TEUs shipping containers on one haul. That capacity can include 2,000 refrigerated containers for shipping food, beverages, pharmaceuticals or any other chilled and frozen cargoes. That’s a lot of snow cones!

MOL

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines sees MSC Gülsün and raises you the MOL Triumph, which achieved a new world load record this year. Departing Singapore for Northern Europe on THE Alliance’s FE2 service with a cargo of 19,190 TEU. That surpassed the previous load record achieved in August 2018, when Mumbai Maersk sailed from Tanjung Pelepas to Rotterdam with 19,038 TEU onboard. Yes, you are correct, that’s a pretty slim margin of victory, and analysts suspect the MOL Triumph record won’t last long given the 23,000 TEU ships being introduced.

HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE

Speaking of THE Alliance, current members Hapag-Lloyd, ONE and Yang Ming will be joined in April 2020 by Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM). The South Korean carrier recently signed an agreement to join THE Alliance and then passed the pen to the founding members, who extended the duration of their collaboration until 2030. “HMM is a great fit for THE Alliance as it will provide a number of new and modern vessels, which will help us to deliver better quality and be more efficient,” said Rolf Habben Jansen, Hapag-Lloyd’s chief executive.

HAPAG-LLOYD

Oh, speaking of the fifth-largest container shipping company in the world, Hapag-Lloyd is piloting an online insurance product as part of a digital offering to try to overcome the widespread practice of shippers relying on the limited cover provided under the terms of carriers’ bills of lading. While Hapag-Lloyd says it takes the utmost care in transporting cargo, company officials acknowledge things can and have gone wrong. Thus, the introduction of Quick Cargo Insurance, which is underwritten by industrial insurer Chubb in Germany and is limited to containerized exports from that country, France and the Netherlands. However, the carrier says it plans to expand the offer.

MAERSK

To navigate new environmental regulations, A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S is considering going old school. We mean really old school by using a modern version of the old-fashioned sail to help power its ships. Currently being tested on one of Maersk’s giant tankers, the sails look less like the flapping silk you know from Johnny Depp movies and Jerry Seinfeld’s puffy shirt and more like huge marble columns. But they are nothing to laugh at as two 10-story-tall cylinders can harness enough wind to replace 20 percent of the ship’s fossil fuels, according to their maker, Norsepower Oy Ltd.

MOL, THE SEQUEL

While we’re getting all green up in here, it’s worth also pointing out that Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. This year joined three other Japanese companies— Asahi Tanker Co., Exeno Yamamizu Corp., and Mitsubishi Corp.—in teaming up to build the world’s first zero-emission tanker by mid-2021. Their joint venture e5 Lab Inc. will power the vessel with large-capacity batteries and operate in Tokyo Bay, according to a statement the foursome released on Aug. 6. Thanks to the onslaught of legislation to improve environmental performance, other companies are also looking to battery power. Norway’s Kongsberg Gruppen is developing an electric container vessel, and Rolls-Royce Holdings last year that started offering battery-powered ship engines.

AMAZON

No, this is not a leftover strand from a different story in this magazine about moving packages on the ground. “Quietly and below the radar,” USA Today recently reported, “Amazon has been ramping up its ocean shipping service, sending close to 4.7 million cartons of consumers goods from China to the United States over the past year, records show.” While other ocean carrier leaders prepare for the bald head of Jeff Bezos, his move really should be no surprise given Amazon’s attempt to control as much of its transportation network as possible. (See my September-October issue story “Air War: Fast, Free Shipping has UPS, FedEx and Amazon Scrambling in the Air”). Of Amazon now floating into the sea, Steve Ferreira, CEO of Ocean Audit, a company that utilizes data and machine learning to find ocean freight refunds for the Fortune 500, told USA Today: “This makes them the only e-commerce company that is able to do the whole transaction from end-to-end. Amazon now has a closed ecosystem.”

Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily

Is Your Supply Chain Prepared for Potential U.S. Tariffs on EU Goods?

September 26th, 2019 Ben Bidwell Leave a comment

Transatlantic tariffs came closer to reality in recent months after the United States Trade Representative (USTR) proposed tariffs on a list of products from the European Union (EU).

Unfortunately, even if you’ve already gone through something similar with goods imported from China, the same strategy may not be effective for the tariffs on EU goods. This is due in large part to the types of proposed commodities from the EU.

The good news is there are things you can do today to adjust your import strategy to maintain compliance while insulating your company from the proposed tariffs.

Up to $25 billion worth of EU goods at stake

The USTR announcements in April and July proposed tariffs targeting up to $25 billion worth of goods. This includes items such as new aircraft and aircraft parts, foods ranging from seafood and meat to cheese and pasta, wine and whiskey, and even ceramics and cleaning chemicals.

To date, the USTR has only provided a preliminary commodity list for the proposed U.S. tariffs on EU goods. No percentages have been announced, leaving many to wonder if the tariffs will be manageable—in the 5-10% range—or more substantial, like the 25% tariffs applied to China imports.

On top of the tariffs, when the French Senate announced a 3% tax on revenue from digital services earned in France, President Trump threatened a counter-tax on French wine. But it’s unclear if this tax will come to fruition or fizzle out—especially since the USTR’s tariff list already includes many types of wine.

5 key questions to insulate your supply chain

Looking for the best way to prepare your business from the potential tariff increases? Answering these key questions may help you adapt and insulate your company.

-Do you have a plan to cover the costs?

You may not be able to avoid paying the tariffs, but there are various strategies you may consider to help cover their costs.

While not ideal, you could increase prices to end consumers. It may not be feasible to recover the entire cost of an added tariff, but you can at least offset a small portion of the tariff this way.

You can also adjust the cost of the goods with suppliers and manufacturers to cover a portion of the tariff. Just remember: pricing changes still need to meet the valuation regulations with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

-Will you need to increase your customs bond?

The smallest customs bond an importer can hold is $50,000. That used to be enough for many importers to cover generally 10% of the duties and taxes you expect to pay CBP.

Unfortunately, as many importers from China are learning, a 25% tariff on products can quickly exceed your bond amount. And bond insufficiency can shut down all your imports while resulting in delays and added expenses.

To help avoid bond insufficiency, consider any increased duty amounts in advance of your next bond renewal period. And don’t wait to do this until the last minute, because raising your customs bond with your surety company can take up to four weeks.

-Do you re-export goods brought into the U.S.?

Duty drawback programs can’t be used by every importer. But if you can take advantage of them, they can result in big savings for your company.

In fact, you can get back 99% of certain import duties, taxes, and fees on imported goods that you re-export out of the U.S. Just be aware that you still need to pay the duties up front. And you might need to wait up to two years to get your refund.

-Are your product classifications current and accurate?

With potential tariffs looming, consider reviewing your product classifications and make sure they’re accurate. If you find an issue, discuss it with your broker or customs counsel to discuss how you can properly rectify the issue, and avoid penalties from doing it incorrectly.

And while we’re on the topic of product classifications, never change them to evade tariffs. CBP will be on the lookout for this kind of activity, and the penalties for noncompliance can be steep.

-Do you have the support you need?

Changing your customs brokers may not sound appealing, but ensuring they provide all the services you need to stay compliant should be your top priority when working with them.

Your provider should help make sure you pay the appropriate duty rates for your products. And they should have people and services available globally to support your freight wherever it is located throughout the world.

Also, consider simplifying your support by working with one provider that offers not only customs brokerage and trade compliance services but also global ocean and air freight logistics services.

If you only employ one strategy…

Discuss your import strategy with your customs attorney or customs compliance expert. Bringing in specialized expertise is the most effective way to analyze how these tariffs could affect your products, your supply chain, and your business.

If you don’t yet have a customs broker who can meet all your needs in today’s changing environment, consider C.H. Robinson’s customs compliance services. With over 100 licensed customs brokers in North America, and a Trusted Advisor® approach, our experts are ready to help.

____________________________________________________________

Ben Bidwell serves as the Director of U.S. Customs at C.H. Robinson

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

What Every Business Should Know About Selling in China

September 26th, 2019 Ashley Halsey Leave a comment

Not only is China the most populous country on earth (1.3 billion people), it also has the second-biggest economy in the world by Nominal GDP (14.242 trillion dollars).

As the country has pursued ever more progressive policies to trade (and despite the current trade war between China and the United States) more and more opportunities to sell in the country have arisen to businesses across sectors. If you see China as a potential growth market, here are some of the most important considerations when selling in China.

Seek advice

When looking to enter a foreign market, it is always advisable to seek sage advice, and even look to local businesses who you can partner with. Although you may not wish to go down the partnership route, it is definitely advisable to seek the counsel of businesses who are already operating within the sphere, or groups such as the Global Innovation Forum who often provide free advice regarding penetrating new markets.

This is a smart strategy because selling in China will be totally unlike selling domestically, or in European markets, for example. Any insights that you can garner will be potentially critical to the success of your sales strategy and approach in China, because as is abundantly clear, you will be operating within a totally different market, both literally and culturally.

“The cultural considerations when accessing new markets should never be overlooked. From the way that you brand and market your products to the way that you negotiate with local businesses and retailers, everything you do will be influenced by different rules: rules to which you are unfamiliar. Get the help you need to pass through this difficult phase,” advises Grant Tarrant, a business writer at Writinity.com and Lastminutewriting.com.

Understand Chinese governmental practices and rules

Although the Chinese Government has grown increasingly receptive to foreign businesses working and partnering in China, rules will still be a little conservative in comparison to the Western approach. Make sure you totally familiarize yourself with what you are expected to adhere too, especially when visiting the country and seeking to operate a sales operation from within China.

For example, you will need to understand the levels of bureaucracy that exist to set up a business entity that operates within China. For example, you may need to set up as a Wholly Foreign-Owned Enterprise (WFOE) to operate, and this can be a costly and timely exercise that may delay you implementing your sales strategy. Forming a business plan which pays close attention to all the requirements (and timeframes) of the Chinese state is essential.

Understand your customer

This piece of advice holds for whoever you are selling too, but obviously your Chinese customer base will be different from your US customer base and will have different expectations. For example, haggling is a standard cultural procedure, and Chinese customers demand to know a product impeccably before they buy, so ensure that your eCommerce operation includes high numbers of images and product reviews: this will be expected.

“If you study Chinese eCommerce sites such as Taobao you will see that it facilitates the Chinese custom of haggling down prices. In the West we are totally unfamiliar with this practice as we are satisfied that the price is the price, Be prepared to change your approach accordingly,” says Rachel Walliston, a marketer at Draftbeyond.com and Researchpapersuk.com.

Provide impeccable customer support

Chinese customers have come to expect an extremely high level of customer support from their retailers and will demand this from any new business operating within their sphere. Knowing this, make sure you ramp up support efforts, and that, of course, raises questions regarding how you will do this in a new language and culture. Seeking advice from established entities is again the recommended route, and establishing support centers in the country is also best practice.

Understand the marketing and communication channels

If you go in with a Facebook-based marketing strategy, be prepared to be disappointed. In China the social media platforms are different, for example, WeChat is one of China’s most popular platforms, but barely exists outside of the country. It has been dubbed a ‘super-app’ because it can be used for a multitude of actions, so utilizing such platforms is an absolute must if you wish to successfully penetrate the Chinese market.

_________________________________________________________________

Ashley Halsey is a writer, editor and international business expert who can be found at both Luckyassignments.com and Gumessays.com. She has been involved in many projects in Asia, and enjoys traveling, reading and cultural exchanges.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

U.S. Wood Container and Pallet Market – the U.K. Strengthened Its Position As the Largest Market for U.S. Exports

September 24th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. Wood Container and Pallet Market. Analysis And Forecast to 2025’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The revenue of the wood container and pallet market in the U.S. amounted to $10.7B in 2018, rising by 8.9% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +10.2% from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 20% y-o-y. Wood container and pallet consumption peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future.

Production of Wood Container and Pallet in the U.S.

In value terms, wood container and pallet production stood at $10.5B in 2018. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +9.2% from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2014 when production volume increased by 16% against the previous year. Over the period under review, wood container and pallet production attained its maximum level in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, approx. 106K tonnes of wood container and pallet were exported from the U.S.; increasing by 7.7% against the previous year. In general, wood container and pallet exports continue to indicate a temperate expansion. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 134% year-to-year. Exports peaked at 334K tonnes in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, wood container and pallet exports totaled $200M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +9.7% over the period from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when exports increased by 32% against the previous year. Over the period under review, wood container and pallet exports reached their maximum at $200M in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

Exports by Country

The UK (48K tonnes) was the main destination for wood container and pallet exports from the U.S., accounting for a 45% share of total exports. Moreover, wood container and pallet exports to the UK exceeded the volume sent to the second major destination, Ireland (17K tonnes), threefold. Japan (14K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total exports with a 14% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume to the UK amounted to -4.3%. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: Ireland (+28.6% per year) and Japan (+25.9% per year).

In value terms, the UK ($77M) remains the key foreign market for wood container and pallet exports from the U.S., comprising 38% of total wood container and pallet exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Ireland ($31M), with a 16% share of total exports. It was followed by Japan, with a 13% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of value to the UK was relatively modest. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: Ireland (+33.5% per year) and Japan (+31.2% per year).

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average wood container and pallet export price amounted to $1,886 per tonne, rising by 1.7% against the previous year. In general, the wood container and pallet export price continues to indicate strong growth. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 an increase of 93% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average export prices for wood container and pallet attained their maximum in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

There were significant differences in the average prices for the major foreign markets. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Spain ($2,620 per tonne), while the average price for exports to the UK ($1,617 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to the Philippines, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into the U.S.

Wood container and pallet imports into the U.S. totaled 227K tonnes in 2018, picking up by 5.4% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.6% from 2013 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2016 when imports increased by 14% y-o-y. Imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, wood container and pallet imports amounted to $376M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, wood container and pallet imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 when imports increased by 11% year-to-year. In that year, wood container and pallet imports reached their peak of $389M, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Imports by Country

In 2018, France (159K tonnes) constituted the largest wood container and pallet supplier to the U.S., accounting for a 70% share of total imports. Moreover, wood container and pallet imports from France exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, China (32K tonnes), fivefold. Spain (6.2K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total imports with a 2.7% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of volume from France was relatively modest. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: China (+5.7% per year) and Spain (+57.9% per year).

In value terms, France ($218M) constituted the largest supplier of wood container and pallet to the U.S., comprising 58% of total wood container and pallet imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by China ($105M), with a 28% share of total imports. It was followed by Brazil, with a 1% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from France was relatively modest. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: China (-1.7% per year) and Brazil (+15.9% per year).

Import Prices by Country

The average wood container and pallet import price stood at $1,659 per tonne in 2018, going down by -8.2% against the previous year. In general, the wood container and pallet import price continues to indicate a measured decline. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2015 an increase of 18% against the previous year. In that year, the average import prices for wood container and pallet reached their peak level of $2,097 per tonne. From 2016 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for wood container and pallet remained at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was China ($3,254 per tonne), while the price for Spain ($388 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by France, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced a decline.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Ifco Systems North America, Peco Pallet, Timber Creek Resource, Index Packaging, Palletone, Northwest Pallet Supply Co., Kamps, The Pallet Factory Inc, Atlas Global Solutions, Buckeye Diamond Logistics, Southwest Forest Products, Independent Stave Company, Elberta Crate & Box Co., Edwards Wood Products, American Fibertech Corporation, Hinton Lumber Products, Wisconsin Box Company, Nefab Packaging, Madison County Wood Products, Supply Chain Solutions, Satco, Commercial Lumber & Pallet Co., Crimstone AAA Operating Company, Wooden Pallets, Missouri Cooperage Company

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

GLOBAL ARMS TRADE HIGHEST SINCE END OF COLD WAR

September 22nd, 2019 Andrea Durkin Leave a comment

Hotter Since the Cold War

For obvious reasons, trade in arms is not governed by the same global trade rules as selling a doggy snood on Etsy. The rules of engagement are different and global flows of arms tell stories not of lighthearted fashion trends but of the enduring reality of global conflicts, the escalating and diffusing of tensions – the arming and disarming that reflects the current and projected state of international security.

Governments, formal military alliances and international organizations procure and sell arms for defense, for peacekeeping operations, and to engage in conflict. Conflicts today routinely intertwine regular military forces, militias and armed civilians. After a decade of steady increase, the volume of arms trade by 2012 had reached levels not seen since the end of the Cold War.

Up in Arms

2018 saw the continuation of armed conflicts throughout the Middle East and North Africa in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In sub-Saharan Africa, armed conflict raged in eleven countries including Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Afghanistan remains among the world’s most lethal states after decades of fighting.

India and Pakistan, Myanmar and other countries in Southeast Asia experienced armed conflict throughout the year and Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine remains unresolved. Colombia’s peace process hit rough patches, armed gangs threaten security in Central America, and Venezuela remains turbulent. This list is long, incomplete, and in flux, fueling demand for arms in conflict areas. At the same time, some sixty multilateral peace operations were active in 2018.

For fifty years, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has gathered original data on world military expenditure and international arms transfers, analyzing trends in conflict, arms production and arms controls. In all, SIPRI estimates global military expenditure at $1.8 trillion and puts the total value of the global arms trade in 2017 at some $95 billion with weapons exports valued around $27.6 billion.

Arms transfers between 2009 and 2013 were 23 percent higher than in the period between 2004 and 2008. In the period 2014-2018, arms transfers reached the highest level since the end of the Cold War.

Who Sells and Who Buys in the War Economy

Official reporting is scant. Government to government transfers occur through varying types of complex and opaque arrangements. Pinning down numbers is also complicated by the existence of covert trade in arms. Within the realm of what SIPRI can track, the market is dominated jointly by the United States and Russia. According to SIPRI’s numbers, 202 states, 48 non-state armed groups, and five international organizations received arms shipments sometime in the last five years.

The United States, Russia, France, Germany and China are the five largest exporters of major arms, accounting for 75 percent of all arms exports, but SIPRI has identified as many as 67 countries that exported major arms in the last five years. The United States and Russia together comprise 57 percent of the total. The five largest importers were Saudi Arabia, India, Egypt, Australia and Algeria, together accounting for 35 percent of total arms imports between 2014 and 2018. The political alignments can be seen by matching the buyers and sellers.

Notably, advanced combat aircraft accounted for more than half of all U.S. major arms exports over the last five years and will remain the main driver with nearly 900 orders in the pipeline. Guided missiles accounted for 19 percent of U.S. major arms exports and the United States is the primary exporter of ballistic missile defense systems.

Russia’s exports declined over the last five years as sales to India and Venezuela dropped by 42 percent and 96 percent respectively. Over the same period, Russia’s sales to the Middle East increased 19 percent, mainly to Egypt and Iraq. SIPRI reports that China supplies relatively small volumes of major arms spread across 53 countries, up from 41 five years ago. At the same time, China is the world’s sixth largest importer of arms. Russia supplied 70 percent of China’s arms imports over the last five years.

Under Control

Seven of the world’s largest defense companies by arms sales are American. They include Lockheed Martin with international arms sales worth $40.8 billion in 2016, and Boeing at a distant second with $29.5 billion in sales. Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics come in the next tier with sales between $19 and $23 billion. Among the top 100 firms, U.S. companies accounted for 58 percent of total global arms sales in 2016.

When it comes to production and trade in military supplies, the WTO steps out of the way. Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides a national security exemption:

“…nothing in this Agreement shall be construed…to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of essential national security interests…relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.”

Trade in conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies (those with both military and commercial applications) is regulated through other policies that include government defense procurement regulations, national export control licensing regimes and embargoes. In the United States, under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, exports of defense materials and services by U.S. firms are tightly controlled through licensing approvals.

Wassenaar Arrangement

Forty-two member countries maintain national export controls in conformance with items included on the 1996 Wassenaar Arrangement’s two control lists. As part of the Arrangement, members also agree to voluntarily and confidentially exchange information about transfers to non-Wassenaar countries of conventional weapons and dual-use goods and technologies on these lists. Weapon categories to be reported include armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery, military aircraft, missile systems, small arms and light weapons.

Wassenaar members are encouraged to use non-binding criteria to help determine whether potential arms exports could lead to “destabilizing accumulations,” and to guide their disposal of surplus military equipment. Wassenaar and other efforts to restrain arms transfers through international treaties and multilateral embargoes suffer, however, from low levels of national government engagement by important producers and importers of weapons.

Military-Industrial Complex-ity

Governments seek to procure technologically advanced weaponry for their own national security. At the same time, they must prevent the sale of such weapons to others who would use them against the state or who would deploy them to fuel conflicts that run counter to national security interests.

In balancing these objectives, national export control regimes have struggled against the pace of technological innovation and the proliferation of technologies that have dual commercial and military applications. The defense industry itself is defined by this paradox – it is propelled forward by government protected from competition but also shaped by market forces that induce innovation, specialization and consolidation.

As the costs and complexity of developing and manufacturing advanced weapons increase, firms specialize in facets of production. Interdependence among firms has deepened as global supply chains tend to be anchored by a handful of large tier-one firms. The industry has consolidated, including by merging across borders. In circular fashion, these developments make it harder for governments to regulate foreign investment and maintain appropriate controls on arms transfers.

Adding the complexity of this unique industry, firms that enjoy a special status under trade rules for military production also have commercial products and sales for which the normal rules apply. It’s a heavy invisible hand in the market for arms. Global trade rules need not apply.

____________________________________________________________

Andrea Durkin is the Editor-in-Chief of TradeVistas and Founder of Sparkplug, LLC. Ms. Durkin previously served as a U.S. Government trade negotiator and has proudly taught international trade policy and negotiations for the last fourteen years as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service program.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

Are Quotas Worse Than Tariffs?

Quotas Return

The Difference between Quotas and Tariffs

The Cost of Quotas

Tricky to Administer

The True Cost in Practice

Upsides for U.S. Steel Producers

Downsides for Downstream Industries

North America Alternative to Metal Quotas

Addressing Global Excess Capacity is Key

Consumption By Country

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Production 2007-2018

Production By Country

Exports 2007-2018

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports 2007-2018

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Exports from the U.S.

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports into the U.S.

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Hastening trade imbalance

Options for low-cost sourcing plentiful

A battle worth waging – along with friends and allies

Consumption By Country in Asia

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia

Production in Asia

Production By Country in Asia

Harvested Area in Asia

Yield in Asia

Exports in Asia

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports in Asia

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

MSC

MOL

HYUNDAI MERCHANT MARINE

HAPAG-LLOYD

MAERSK

MOL, THE SEQUEL

AMAZON

Up to $25 billion worth of EU goods at stake

5 key questions to insulate your supply chain

-Do you have a plan to cover the costs?

-Will you need to increase your customs bond?

-Do you re-export goods brought into the U.S.?

-Are your product classifications current and accurate?

-Do you have the support you need?

If you only employ one strategy…

Seek advice

Understand Chinese governmental practices and rules

Understand your customer

Provide impeccable customer support

Understand the marketing and communication channels

Production of Wood Container and Pallet in the U.S.

Exports from the U.S.

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports into the U.S.

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Hotter Since the Cold War

Up in Arms

Who Sells and Who Buys in the War Economy

Under Control

Wassenaar Arrangement

Military-Industrial Complex-ity

most viewed today