Germany’s Production of Potato Starch Is Continuously Decreasing Due to Exports Contraction

October 22nd, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

Production in Germany

Potato starch production in Germany stood at 345K tonnes in 2018, coming down by -6.7% against the previous year. Overall, potato starch production continues to indicate a significant contraction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when production volume increased by 7.2% year-to-year. Potato starch production peaked at 464K tonnes in 2009; however, from 2010 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

In value terms, potato starch production totaled $229M in 2018 estimated in export prices. In general, potato starch production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 39% against the previous year. In that year, potato starch production reached its peak level of $302M. From 2012 to 2018, potato starch production growth remained at a lower figure.

Exports from Germany

In 2018, the amount of potato starch exported from Germany amounted to 263K tonnes, declining by -6.5% against the previous year. Over the period under review, potato starch exports continue to indicate a deep contraction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2012 with an increase of 39% y-o-y. Exports peaked at 406K tonnes in 2009; however, from 2010 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, potato starch exports totaled $206M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, potato starch exports continue to indicate a slight curtailment. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 17% against the previous year. Over the period under review, potato starch exports reached their maximum at $288M in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports by Country

The Netherlands (48K tonnes), South Korea (41K tonnes) and the U.S. (19K tonnes) were the main destinations of potato starch exports from Germany, with a combined 41% share of total exports. Malaysia, China, Italy, Japan, the UK, Thailand, China, Hong Kong SAR, the Philippines and Spain lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 33%.

From 2009 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by Malaysia, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the Netherlands ($36M), South Korea ($34M) and the U.S. ($19M) were the largest markets for potato starch exported from Germany worldwide, together comprising 44% of total exports. These countries were followed by the UK, Japan, Italy, Malaysia, China, Thailand, the Philippines, Spain and China, Hong Kong SAR, which together accounted for a further 30%.

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

Export Prices by Country

The average potato starch export price stood at $782 per tonne in 2018, increasing by 8.4% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export price indicated noticeable growth from 2009 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% over the last nine years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, potato starch export price increased by +20.3% against 2015 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 an increase of 78% year-to-year. In that year, the average export prices for potato starch attained their peak level of $968 per tonne. From 2012 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average export prices for potato starch failed to regain its momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($996 per tonne), while the average price for exports to China ($520 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2009 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to Spain, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports into Germany

In 2018, the amount of potato starch imported into Germany amounted to 70K tonnes, growing by 40% against the previous year. In general, potato starch imports continue to indicate a remarkable expansion. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when imports increased by 40% y-o-y. In that year, potato starch imports attained their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, potato starch imports stood at $49M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, potato starch imports continue to indicate a remarkable increase. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 when imports increased by 95% year-to-year. Imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

France (25K tonnes), Denmark (15K tonnes) and the Netherlands (12K tonnes) were the main suppliers of potato starch imports to Germany, together accounting for 74% of total imports. Poland, Austria, Finland and Belgium lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 24%.

From 2009 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Poland (+57.6% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, France ($15M), Denmark ($11M) and the Netherlands ($9.4M) were the largest potato starch suppliers to Germany, together comprising 72% of total imports. Poland, Austria, Finland and Belgium lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 26%.

Among the main suppliers, Poland (+53.4% per year) recorded the highest growth rate of imports, over the last nine-year period, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average potato starch import price amounted to $704 per tonne, surging by 2.9% against the previous year. In general, the potato starch import price, however, continues to indicate a slight shrinkage. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 when the average import price increased by 84% against the previous year. In that year, the average import prices for potato starch attained their peak level of $940 per tonne. From 2012 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for potato starch failed to regain its momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Poland ($863 per tonne), while the price for Belgium ($563 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2009 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.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Asia’s Beeswax Market Is Estimated at $206M in 2018, an Increase of 3.4%

October 18th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the beeswax market in Asia amounted to $206M in 2018, increasing by 3.4% 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 total market indicated a moderate increase from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +0.7% over the last eleven years.

Consumption By Country in Asia

The country with the largest volume of beeswax consumption was India (26K tonnes), accounting for 64% of total consumption. Moreover, beeswax consumption in India exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest consumer, Turkey (4.9K tonnes), fivefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by South Korea (3.7K tonnes), with a 9.1% share.

In India, beeswax consumption expanded at an average annual rate of +2.6% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Turkey (+1.9% per year) and South Korea (-1.1% per year).

In value terms, India ($127M) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Turkey ($42M). It was followed by South Korea.

The countries with the highest levels of beeswax per capita consumption in 2018 were South Korea (73 kg per 1000 persons), Turkey (59 kg per 1000 persons) and Malaysia (39 kg per 1000 persons).

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

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia

Driven by increasing demand for beeswax in Asia, the 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 +0.2% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 42K tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production in Asia

In 2018, approx. 50K tonnes of beeswax were produced in Asia; remaining stable against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when production volume increased by 5.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, beeswax production reached its peak figure volume in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, beeswax production stood at $292M in 2018 estimated in export prices. Over the period under review, beeswax production continues to indicate prominent growth. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 25% against the previous year. Over the period under review, beeswax production attained its peak figure level at $392M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

Production By Country in Asia

India (24K tonnes) remains the largest beeswax producing country in Asia, comprising approx. 49% of total production. Moreover, beeswax production in India exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest producer, China (11K tonnes), twofold. Turkey (4.5K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total production with a 9% share.

In India, beeswax production increased at an average annual rate of +2.0% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: China (+0.5% per year) and Turkey (+1.4% per year).

Exports in Asia

The exports totaled 14K tonnes in 2018, surging by 8.1% against the previous year. The total exports indicated a strong increase from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +6.7% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, beeswax exports increased by +9.1% against 2016 indices. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2010 when exports increased by 26% year-to-year. The volume of exports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future.

In value terms, beeswax exports amounted to $79M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, beeswax exports continue to indicate a resilient expansion. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2010 with an increase of 34% y-o-y. The level of exports peaked at $80M in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports by Country

In 2018, China (9.7K tonnes) represented the major exporter of beeswax, committing 69% of total exports. It was distantly followed by Malaysia (1,970 tonnes) and Viet Nam (1,494 tonnes), together committing a 25% share of total exports. India (339 tonnes) held a little share of total exports.

Exports from China increased at an average annual rate of +5.3% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Viet Nam (+19.6%), India (+15.2%) and Malaysia (+8.8%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Viet Nam emerged as the fastest-growing exporter in Asia, with a CAGR of +19.6% from 2007-2018. China (+30 p.p.), Viet Nam (+9.2 p.p.), Malaysia (+8.5 p.p.) and India (+1.9 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the total exports, while the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, China ($61M) remains the largest beeswax supplier in Asia, comprising 77% of total beeswax exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Viet Nam ($12M), with a 15% share of total exports. It was followed by India, with a 2% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of value in China stood at +10.9%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Viet Nam (+24.8% per year) and India (+15.5% per year).

Export Prices by Country

The beeswax export price in Asia stood at $5,595 per tonne in 2018, going up by 1.8% against the previous year. The export price indicated a buoyant increase from 2007 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +4.4% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, beeswax export price decreased by -5.3% against 2015 indices. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2012 when the export price increased by 20% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the export prices for beeswax reached their maximum at $5,910 per tonne in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, export prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Viet Nam ($7,731 per tonne), while Malaysia ($670 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.

Imports in Asia

In 2018, approx. 5.5K tonnes of beeswax were imported in Asia; stabilizing at the previous year. Overall, beeswax imports continue to indicate remarkable growth. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when imports increased by 40% against the previous year. The volume of imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the near future.

In value terms, beeswax imports totaled $28M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, beeswax imports continue to indicate a prominent increase. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when imports increased by 47% year-to-year. Over the period under review, beeswax imports reached their maximum in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

India represented the major importing country with an import of around 2.2K tonnes, which resulted at 40% of total imports. Japan (889 tonnes) took the second position in the ranking, followed by China (557 tonnes), Turkey (405 tonnes) and South Korea (357 tonnes). All these countries together took approx. 40% share of total imports. Pakistan (186 tonnes), Thailand (181 tonnes) and Taiwan, Chinese (93 tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

India was also the fastest-growing in terms of the beeswax imports, with a CAGR of +23.1% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, China (+20.6%), Pakistan (+14.2%), Turkey (+9.8%), Thailand (+5.9%) and Taiwan, Chinese (+1.8%) displayed positive paces of growth. Japan experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. By contrast, South Korea (-2.4%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. India (+36 p.p.), China (+8.9 p.p.), Turkey (+4.7 p.p.), Pakistan (+2.6 p.p.), Japan (+1.6 p.p.) and Thailand (+1.5 p.p.) significantly strengthened its position in terms of the total imports, while South Korea saw its share reduced by -2% from 2007 to 2018, respectively. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, the largest beeswax importing markets in Asia were Japan ($8.2M), China ($5.5M) and South Korea ($2.9M), with a combined 60% share of total imports.

China recorded the highest growth rate of imports, among the main importing countries over the last eleven years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The beeswax import price in Asia stood at $5,033 per tonne in 2018, remaining stable against the previous year. Over the last eleven years, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.5%. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 when the import price increased by 35% y-o-y. In that year, the import prices for beeswax attained their peak level of $5,431 per tonne. From 2015 to 2018, the growth in terms of the import prices for beeswax remained at a lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was China ($9,919 per tonne), while India ($1,098 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

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 Vegetable Waxes Market – Brazil Emerged As the World’s Largest Supplier, With a 45% Share of Total Exports

October 17th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The global vegetable waxes market revenue amounted to $536M in 2018, increasing by 3.7% 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).

Consumption By Country

China (18K tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of vegetable waxes consumption, comprising approx. 17% of total consumption. Moreover, vegetable waxes consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the world’s second-largest consumer, India (7.2K tonnes), twofold. Russia (3.2K tonnes) ranked third in terms of total consumption with a 3.2% share.

In China, vegetable waxes consumption expanded at an average annual rate of +1.8% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: India (+0.5% per year) and Russia (-4.0% per year).

In value terms, China ($94M) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($38M). It was followed by the U.S..

In 2018, the highest levels of vegetable waxes per capita consumption was registered in Australia (78 kg per 1000 persons), followed by Russia (22 kg per 1000 persons), Pakistan (16 kg per 1000 persons) and Japan (16 kg per 1000 persons), while the world average per capita consumption of vegetable waxes was estimated at 13 kg per 1000 persons.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of the vegetable waxes per capita consumption in Australia stood at +8.8%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Russia (-4.4% per year) and Pakistan (-5.3% per year).

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, the global production of vegetable waxes totaled 98K tonnes, growing by 3.8% against the previous year. Over the period under review, vegetable waxes production, however, continues to indicate a moderate slump. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2010 with an increase of 8.2% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global vegetable waxes production attained its peak figure volume at 132K tonnes in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, production stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, vegetable waxes production totaled $466M in 2018 estimated in export prices. In general, vegetable waxes production, however, continues to indicate a measured contraction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when production volume increased by 9.2% against the previous year. The global vegetable waxes production peaked at $612M in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, production remained at a lower figure.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of vegetable waxes production in 2018 were Brazil (17K tonnes), China (15K tonnes) and India (7.2K tonnes), with a combined 40% share of global production.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of vegetable waxes production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by China, while the other global leaders experienced mixed trends in the production figures.

Exports 2007-2018

Global exports stood at 31K tonnes in 2018, going down by -1.8% against the previous year. Over the period under review, vegetable waxes exports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 36% year-to-year. The global exports peaked at 61K tonnes in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, vegetable waxes exports amounted to $171M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, the total exports indicated a moderate expansion from 2007 to 2018: its value decreased at an average annual rate of -0.5% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, vegetable waxes exports decreased by +0.4% against 2016 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when exports increased by 44% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global vegetable waxes exports attained their peak figure at $261M in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports by Country

Brazil was the largest exporter of vegetable waxes in the world, with the volume of exports accounting for 14K tonnes, which was near 45% of total exports in 2018. Indonesia (4,327 tonnes) ranks second in terms of the total exports with a 14% share, followed by the U.S. (11%), Mexico (5.8%) and Germany (5.6%). China (1,172 tonnes) and Japan (756 tonnes) occupied a relatively small share of total exports.

Brazil experienced a relatively flat trend pattern of vegetable waxes exports. At the same time, China (+8.4%), Germany (+6.3%), the U.S. (+4.9%), Mexico (+3.0%) and Japan (+1.0%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, China emerged as the fastest-growing exporter in the world, with a CAGR of +8.4% from 2007-2018. By contrast, Indonesia (-5.8%) illustrated a downward trend over the same period. From 2007 to 2018, the share of the U.S., Germany, China and Mexico increased by +4.6%, +2.7%, +2.2% and +1.6% percentage points, while Brazil (-4.2 p.p.) and Indonesia (-12.8 p.p.) saw their share reduced. The shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Brazil ($93M) remains the largest vegetable waxes supplier worldwide, comprising 54% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Mexico ($18M), with a 10% share of global exports. It was followed by the U.S., with a 8.4% share.

In Brazil, vegetable waxes exports expanded at an average annual rate of +2.8% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Mexico (+11.9% per year) and the U.S. (+5.6% per year).

Export Prices by Country

The average vegetable waxes export price stood at $5,458 per tonne in 2018, declining by -3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export price indicated a notable expansion from 2007 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +3.2% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, vegetable waxes export price decreased by -7.9% against 2015 indices. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 an increase of 27% year-to-year. The global export price peaked at $5,926 per tonne in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Mexico ($9,814 per tonne), while Indonesia ($1,318 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 other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 35K tonnes of vegetable waxes were imported worldwide; picking up by 6.4% against the previous year. In general, vegetable waxes imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2012 with an increase of 42% y-o-y. In that year, global vegetable waxes imports attained their peak of 72K tonnes. From 2013 to 2018, the growth of global vegetable waxes imports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, vegetable waxes imports totaled $208M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, the total imports indicated strong growth from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +0.8% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, vegetable waxes imports increased by +12.5% against 2016 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 with an increase of 37% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global vegetable waxes imports reached their maximum at $263M in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

In 2018, the U.S. (6.2K tonnes), distantly followed by Germany (3,635 tonnes), China (3,444 tonnes), Japan (2,816 tonnes), Australia (1,967 tonnes) and the UK (1,660 tonnes) were the largest importers of vegetable waxes, together achieving 57% of total imports. France (1,412 tonnes), the Netherlands (1,338 tonnes), Estonia (1,328 tonnes), the Philippines (1,089 tonnes), Italy (994 tonnes) and South Korea (932 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 Australia, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest vegetable waxes importing markets worldwide were the U.S. ($40M), Germany ($25M) and China ($23M), with a combined 42% share of global imports. Japan, France, the Netherlands, the UK, South Korea, Italy, Estonia, Australia and the Philippines lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 36%.

Among the main importing countries, Australia experienced the highest growth rate of imports, over the last eleven years, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average vegetable waxes import price amounted to $5,964 per tonne, rising by 2.5% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the import price indicated a strong expansion from 2007 to 2018: its price increased at an average annual rate of +4.1% over the last eleven-year period. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, vegetable waxes import price increased by +64.5% against 2012 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 an increase of 34% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for vegetable waxes attained their peak figure in 2018 and is likely to see steady growth in the near future.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was France ($8,360 per tonne), while the Philippines ($1,405 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 global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

European Market for Citrus Fruit Jams and Purees – France Benefits from the Highest Export Price ($4,292 per tonne)

October 15th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘EU – Citrus Fruit Jams, Marmalades, Jellies, Purees Or Pastes – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

The market revenue for citrus fruit preserves (jams, marmalades, jellies, purees, and pastes) in the European Union amounted to $319M in 2018, growing by 8% 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, citrus fruit preserves consumption, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 22% against the previous year. The level of citrus fruit preserves consumption peaked at $331M in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, consumption failed to regain its momentum.

Consumption By Country in the EU

The countries with the highest volumes of citrus fruit preserves consumption in 2018 were the UK (26K tonnes), Italy (24K tonnes) and Spain (18K tonnes), with a combined 56% share of total consumption. France, the Netherlands, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Romania, Ireland, Poland and Hungary lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 33%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of citrus fruit preserves consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Poland, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the UK ($83M), Italy ($60M) and France ($42M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of market value in 2018, with a combined 58% share of the total market. These countries were followed by Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Romania, Germany, Hungary and Poland, which together accounted for a further 32%.

The countries with the highest levels of citrus fruit preserves per capita consumption in 2018 were Ireland (591 kg per 1000 persons), Italy (412 kg per 1000 persons) and Belgium (410 kg per 1000 persons).

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

Production in the EU

In 2018, approx. 125K tonnes of citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes were produced in the European Union; rising by 13% against the previous year. Overall, citrus fruit preserves production, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 when production volume increased by 29% y-o-y. The volume of citrus fruit preserves production peaked at 138K tonnes in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, production stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, citrus fruit preserves production amounted to $313M in 2018 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +1.1% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2008 when production volume increased by 22% against the previous year. In that year, citrus fruit preserves production attained its peak level of $338M. From 2009 to 2018, citrus fruit preserves production growth remained at a lower figure.

Production By Country in the EU

The countries with the highest volumes of citrus fruit preserves production in 2018 were the UK (26K tonnes), Spain (24K tonnes) and Italy (24K tonnes), with a combined 59% share of total production. France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, the Czech Republic, Romania, Denmark, Hungary and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 32%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of citrus fruit preserves production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Belgium, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports in the EU

In 2018, approx. 36K tonnes of citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes were exported in the European Union; surging by 7.5% against the previous year. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2017 with an increase of 14% y-o-y. Over the period under review, citrus fruit preserves exports attained their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the near future.

In value terms, citrus fruit preserves exports stood at $87M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +1.9% from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when exports increased by 15% y-o-y. Over the period under review, citrus fruit preserves exports reached their peak figure in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

The exports of the eight major exporters of citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes, namely Spain, the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, Belgium and Ireland, represented more than two-thirds of total export.

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

In value terms, France ($19M), the UK ($15M) and Spain ($15M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2018, with a combined 55% share of total exports.

In terms of the main exporting countries, Spain recorded the highest growth rate of exports, over the last eleven years, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

The citrus fruit preserves export price in the European Union stood at $2,436 per tonne in 2018, increasing by 2.5% against the previous year. Overall, the citrus fruit preserves export price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 when the export price increased by 15% y-o-y. In that year, the export prices for citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes reached their peak level of $3,042 per tonne. From 2014 to 2018, the growth in terms of the export prices for citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was France ($4,292 per tonne), while Denmark ($1,750 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports in the EU

In 2018, the amount of citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes imported in the European Union amounted to 32K tonnes, going up by 11% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.9% from 2007 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 2017 with an increase of 36% against the previous year. The volume of imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, citrus fruit preserves imports stood at $69M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +1.3% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with only minor fluctuations being observed throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 when imports increased by 28% year-to-year. Over the period under review, citrus fruit preserves imports reached their maximum in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

France (7,472 tonnes) and the UK (6,570 tonnes) represented roughly 43% of total imports of citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes in 2018. Germany (3,454 tonnes) ranks next in terms of the total imports with a 11% share, followed by Italy (9.5%), Ireland (9.1%) and Portugal (6%). Poland (1,196 tonnes), Sweden (1,188 tonnes), Spain (1,175 tonnes), the Netherlands (759 tonnes) and Belgium (565 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 Portugal, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the UK ($14M), France ($13M) and Germany ($10M) were the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 54% share of total imports. Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Belgium, Poland and the Netherlands lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 37%.

Portugal recorded 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 citrus fruit preserves import price in the European Union stood at $2,121 per tonne in 2018, approximately mirroring the previous year. Overall, the citrus fruit preserves import price continues to indicate a mild slump. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 an increase of 7% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the import prices for citrus fruit jams, marmalades, jellies, purees or pastes attained their maximum at $2,824 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Belgium ($4,655 per tonne), while Ireland ($1,386 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Belgium, while the other leaders experienced mixed trends in the import price figures.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

CAROUSEL RETALIATION: TARIFF UNCERTAINTY ON ANOTHER RIDE

October 14th, 2019 Leslie Griffin Leave a comment

The Ride Music Starts

On October 2, a World Trade Organization (WTO) arbitrator rendered a decision that authorizes the United States to apply retaliatory tariffs on as much as $7.5 billion worth of European exports each year until WTO-illegal European subsidies to its aircraft industry are removed.

In a press release issued that day, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that beginning October 18, the United States would apply WTO-approved tariffs on a list of EU products. The list includes 10 percent duties on civil aircraft, but also 25 percent duties on goods we consume directly including butter, various cheeses, clementines, clams, green olives and single-malt Irish and Scotch Whiskies.

Before their next cocktail party, U.S. shoppers might stock up to beat the tariffs, but they may not want to go overboard buying Parmigiano Reggiano. That’s because the Administration is reportedly considering what is known as “carousel” retaliation – a regular rotation of goods targeted for tariffs, designed to impose maximum pain. The United States and Europe have been on this ride before.

Theme Park Rules

In a trade dispute, the parties first enter into consultations. If they are unable to come to an agreement, the complainant may request a WTO panel to review the dispute. Once the panel issues a report, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) will adopt it, unless a party appeals it or all DSB members vote against adoption.

If there is an appeal, the Appellate Body reviews the case and delivers its findings, together with the panel report as modified by the appeal, to the DSB. If the complaining party wins, the losing party is given a “reasonable” period of time to implement the decision. The original panel may be called upon to determine if the losing party implemented the ruling in the agreed timeframe. If not, there are two alternatives for the party bringing the case: seek compensation or retaliate. In the latter case, the complainant estimates its loss, the losing party can seek arbitration on the level, and the DSB authorizes the final amount.

Such countermeasures should be “equivalent” to the injury caused and “related to” the economic sector of the illegal measure, with the goal to induce the removal of the offending measure. Often the offending party will, in fact, withdraw the measure before the imposition of authorized retaliatory measures.

Beef and Bananas – How Carousel Started

In some cases, applying tariffs on imports isn’t enough to induce compliance. When the United States, Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico won their case in the WTO challenging the legality of Europe’s banana import policy, the European Union (EU) failed to comply with the ruling, even in the face of nearly $200 million in U.S. tariffs.

U.S. banana exporters, increasingly frustrated with the EU’s lack of compliance with the WTO ruling, looked to Congress to enact a new tool to increase the pressure. They found allies in U.S. livestock exporters, who had won a WTO case that a European ban on U.S. imports of meat produced with hormones was inconsistent with the EU’s WTO obligations. As with the banana case, the EU had employed delaying tactics to stall implementation of the panel decision against it.

Riding a New Horse

Two months after USTR imposed retaliatory tariffs in the beef hormone dispute, a group of Senators introduced S.1619, the Carousel Retaliation Act of 1999. Proposed as an amendment to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, its provisions would have required USTR to “carousel” or rotate its product retaliation list when an offending country does not implement a WTO decision. More specifically, USTR was to rotate items 120 days after the first retaliation list and every 180 days thereafter, with the ability to opt not to do so if compliance is imminent or rotation is deemed unnecessary. The bill language ultimately became part of the Trade and Development Act of 2000.

While banana and meat producers were supportive, other industries were not. Some argued that frequently rotating the products subjects to tariffs would be challenging for retailers. The EU contended the method was WTO inconsistent, though the WTO never ruled on the matter.

USTR ultimately did not pull the trigger to rotate its retaliatory tariff list in either the banana or beef cases as the matters got bound up in a separate dispute over U.S. tax benefits for foreign sales corporations (FSC). The EU had previously won a case against FSC and the U.S. amended its law in November 2000 in response. The EU challenged whether that revision brought the measure into WTO compliance. The United States and EU agreed informally that the EU would not pursue sanctions in the FSC case, but if the United States revised its product lists under the carousel provisions, all bets were off. Ultimately, the WTO ruled the revised U.S. law was not compliant, the United States lost its appeal, and the issue was not resolved until five years later.

Others Get on the Ride

The United States develops retaliation lists with an eye to maximizing pain on the trading partner that committed the foul, while trying to minimize the inevitable adverse impact on its own consumers and firms. Mexico has adeptly turned this practice against the United States in response to practices it viewed as inconsistent with WTO or NAFTA obligations.

NAFTA provisions governing retaliation state that an injured party should first “seek to suspend benefits in the same sector” as that covered by the restrictive measure. If it is not practical or effective to suspend benefits in the same sector, the injured party “may suspend benefits in other sectors.”

During the original NAFTA negotiations, the United States and Mexico agreed to phase out restrictions on cross-border passenger and cargo services. In 1995, however, the United States announced it would not lift restrictions on Mexican trucks and, in 2001, a NAFTA dispute panel found the U.S. to be in breach of its obligations. After years of negotiation and a false start with a U.S. pilot program, Mexico retaliated in 2009 on more than $2 billion worth of U.S. goods.

Mexico used a carousel approach, rotating different products on and off the retaliation list. The first list of 89 products went into effect in March 2009. The list was revised in August 2010, by removing 16 of the listed products and adding 26 more, bringing the total number of products on the updated list to 99. Through this method, Mexico was able to target key pain points, leading the U.S. to institute another pilot program in 2011, and Mexico to remove its tariffs.

More recently, when the Trump Administration moved forward with 25 percent tariffs on Mexican steel imports and 10 percent tariffs on Mexican aluminum imports in June 2018, Mexico responded with retaliatory tariffs on $2.7 billion of U.S. goods that included various steel products but also pork legs, apples, cheese and other agricultural products that had seen significant growth in export value and market share in Mexico.

In March 2019, Mexico’s Deputy Economy Minister Luz Maria de la Mora stated that if the United States did not repeal the tariffs, her government would have an updated list in its “carousel” of U.S. targets ready in about two months, noting that Mexico would bring in some new products and remove others. In early May, she announced the revised list was ready and under final review, but the United States agreed in mid-May to remove its tariffs, hoping to boost the chances of ratification of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) agreement.

Round and Round We Go

Perhaps symbolic of the differences that the United States and Europe are trying to bridge, in America carousels turn counterclockwise and in England and much of Europe, they rotate clockwise.

Some observers see the recently announced U.S. retaliation list against the EU as more restrained than expected. Tariff rates of 100 percent had been possible and some of the announced exemptions were not anticipated. We’ll soon know more about the Trump Administration’s thinking on a carousel approach and how the Europeans will respond. There are no height restrictions to get on this tariff retaliation ride, but riders may need to buckle up.

__________________________________________________________________

Leslie Griffin is Principal of Boston-based Allinea LLC. She was previously Senior Vice President for International Public Policy for UPS and is a past president of the Association of Women in International Trade in Washington, D.C.

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

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

INDIA TARIFFS COULD DENT GAINS FROM CALIFORNIA’S BUMPER ALMOND CROP

October 13th, 2019 Pragya Bhatnagar Leave a comment

Celebrating Diwali in India with California almonds

Fall festivals and the wedding season are already ramping up in India. There’s Janmashtami which celebrates the birth of Lord Krishna, the festival for Lord Ganesha, the elephant-headed God of the Hindus, and Diwali, the famously elegant festival of lights, and many more throughout the various regions of India. Almonds are a popular gift for such occasions.

The timing is perfect for California’s almond growers. Across California’s lush green valleys, almonds are being harvested from orchards, loaded on trucks and delivered to mills where the essential nut will be separated from its shell and hull. Almond traders in India await the arrival of the best quality shipments for the festival season demand beginning early September.

Almonds have deep roots in India

Almonds in India date as far back as prehistoric times. Ancient Indian Sanskrit texts on Ayurveda, the Indian traditional medicine, detail the role of almonds and other nuts in providing health benefits. Almonds were exclusive and prestigious health supplements for the rich and royal during the Mughal rule from the 15th to the 19th century.

To this day, consuming raw almonds on a daily basis as a standalone morning chew, added to milk shakes, as oils or as a garnish to dishes, is widely prevalent in India and elsewhere on the sub-continent.

Indian consumers choose from types of almonds available in Indian street markets and grocery stores – Mamra, Gurbandi and California almonds. California almonds command a majority market share due to its wide availability and lower price. Sweeter in taste, California almonds are favored in Indian cooking and garnishing.

Tariffs could dampen California’s bumper crop

California produces 80 percent of the world’s almonds. Americans consume just over a third of California’s harvest. The remaining 67 percent is exported to other countries. California almond growers are on track for a bumper crop this year, producing a record 2.5 billion pounds of almonds, which would be a nine percent increase of over last year’s crop.

California growers have reason to worry about access to one of their biggest export markets. The Indian government increased tariffs on U.S. shelled almonds by 20 percent and non-shelled almonds by 17 percent in June. The move came days after the Trump administration announced plans to remove India from eligibility for key trade privileges under the U.S. Generalized System of Preference (GSP) program. India was the biggest beneficiary under the GSP program, exporting $5.6 billion worth of Indian products to the United States duty-free in 2017.

The latest tariff increase by India comes on top of an increase in customs duties last year and in addition to a 12 percent tax the Indian Ministry of Finance imposes on both domestic and imported almonds. The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts the increased cost will cause a five percent drop in U.S. almond exports to India, impacting the 6,800 almond growers in California, who are mostly small to medium-size, family-run enterprises.

According to a study by the Almond Board of California, the almond industry generates more than 100,000 jobs in California, mostly in the Central Valley. Almond growers are California contribute about $11 billion annually to the state’s economy.

“Tomorrow Begins Today”

India has become such an important market for California almond growers that the state almond board has an office in New Delhi with a $5.5 million annual budget.

In July of 2015, the Almond Board of California launched a successful marketing campaign in India, promoting the lesser-known nutrition benefits of almonds such as heart health, weight management and diabetes management.

The campaign, called “Tomorrow Begins Today,” reached 4.05 billion broadcast impressions and is credited with helping grow the snack category by 100 percent.

Tariffs are a tough nut to crack

In the face of new tariffs and competition from Vietnam, Hong Kong, Australia and Chile, California growers need to crack open new markets.

Unfortunately, the tariff wars are being fought in another of California’s important export markets – China. In 2018, China imposed a 50-percent retaliatory tariff on almond imports from the United States. U.S. exports declined by 33 percent from August 2018 to April 2019 compared with the same period of the prior year, according to Almond Board of California.

Higher tariffs could ultimately cost major U.S. fruit and nut industries over $2.6 billion per year in exports, according to a report by Daniel A. Sumner, an economist with the University of California Davis’ Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. The economic blow could rise to as much as $3.3 billion because of lost market share overtaken by lower-priced alternatives from competing exporters.

Australia has taken advantage of their free trade agreement with China to expand exports. The free trade agreement between the two countries grants zero tariffs on almonds and other commodities starting January 1, 2019. Australian producers recorded a 20-fold increase in exports to China this year, according to the Australian Board of Almonds.

Nothing to celebrate

Retaliatory tariffs imposed by India will shortchange the gains hoped for by California almond growers who are expecting a bumper harvest this year, but who also face tariffs in another top export market: China.

Indian importers might look for other sources but no other global exporter can match the volume of production by California’s almond growers. As long as India’s appetite for sweet almonds continues to grow, Indian consumers will pay a higher price for U.S. almonds at their upcoming celebrations.

Pragya Bhatnagar is a Research Associate with the Hinrich Foundation where he focuses on International Trade Research. He is a Hinrich Foundation Global Trade Leader Scholar alumnus, earning his Master’s degree in International Journalism, specializing in Business and Financial Journalism, from Hong Kong Baptist University. He received his bachelor’s degree in Economics from Lucknow University, India.

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

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, Global Trade Daily, International Trade, Stories

THESE COMPANIES KEEP CROSS-BORDER CARGO MOVING, EVEN WITH USMCA UP IN THE AIR

October 10th, 2019 Matt Coker Leave a comment

Our trilateral trade bloc is in a sort of limbo, stuck between the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, and the floundering United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA), which the countries’ leaders signed on Nov. 30, 2018, but has only been ratified in Mexico.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has pushed for more ease of free trade among the three nations for years, about $1.7 billion worth of goods and services flow between the U.S. and Mexico borders every day. That’s about 2 percent of the GDP in America, where, according to the United Nations’ International Trade Center, Mexico and Canada are the two largest trading partners for U.S. manufacturers and shippers after China.

Despite these uncertain times, there are North American cross-border traders that continue to thrive. Consider the collection that follows.

AVERITT EXPRESS

One of the nation’s leading freight transportation and supply chain management providers, Averitt is celebrating 50 years of service. The company cites customized, cross-border transportation solutions among its many, many specialties. Five years ago, Averitt slashed less-than-truckload (LTL) service times from the U.S. Midwest to Ontario, Canada, in recognition of the province’s rise as a manufacturing hub. Averitt’s strategically placed border service centers in Laredo, El Paso, Harlingen and Del Rio provide easy access to all points throughout Mexico, by rail, truck or expedited air.

BNSF RAILWAY

One of North America’s leading freight transportation companies, BNSF boasts a.32,500 route-mile network covering 28 U.S. states and three Canadian provinces. The railway utilizes multiple strategies to make international shipments easier for customers. These include market experience, customs clearance know-how and participation in special North American rail service alliances. The BNSF network also includes five U.S.-Mexico gateways (San Diego, El Paso, Eagle Pass, Laredo and Brownsville) and operations in Fort Worth, Texas, and Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey, Mexico. Service options include carload, transload and intermodal (Mexi-Modal) that allow for shipments of all major commodities into and out of Mexico.

CG RAILWAY

Picture in your head a railroad line extending from the American South to southern Mexico. You can imagine the track snaking along the contour of the Gulf of Mexico, extending west from Alabama through Mississippi and Louisiana before reaching Texas and turning due south through the border and beyond. What you did not picture was a shift from rail at Alabama’s Port of Mobile to an ocean ferry making a direct route over water to Puerto Coatzacoalcos in Veracruz, Mexico. That’s what CG Railway (CGR) has been doing since 2000: providing a faster, more cost-effective route between the eastern U.S. and Canada to central and southern Mexico. CGR offers C-TPAT (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism) certification, bilingual customer support, proactive port security, reduced mileage and wear and tear on equipment and direct interchanges with the CSX, Norfolk Southern, Canadian National and Kansas City Southern railroads, the Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway and Terminal Railway Alabama State Docks and their Mexican counterparts.

CN NORTH AMERICA

Canadian National is based in Montreal, Quebec, and the Class I freight railway’s network is the largest in that country by physical size and revenue. Established in 1919 and formerly government-owned, Canada’s only transcontinental railway spans from the Atlantic coast in Nova Scotia to the Pacific coast in British Columbia, across about 20,400 route miles of track. But you’d be mistaken to think CN, as it has more commonly known since 1960, is strictly a Great White North concern. The railway also serves the U.S. South and Midwest and, having gone private in 1995, it now counts as its single largest shareholder Bill Gates. Through the ’90s and 2000s, CN North America has acquired multiple lines passing through several U.S. states.

CROWLEY

The private, Jacksonville, Florida-based corporation is the largest operator of tugboats and barges in the world. Crowley American Transport provides ocean liner cargo services between the U.S., Canada, Mexico, South America and the Caribbean. Its American Marine Transport unit delivers local, over-the-road, and commercial trucking services in the continental U.S. Crowley Marine Services provides worldwide contract and specialized marine transportation services, including petroleum product transportation and sales, tanker escort and ship assist, contract barge transportation and ocean towing, logistics and support services, marine salvage and emergency response services, spill-response services on the West Coast and all-terrain transportation services.

CSX TRANSPORTATION

The subsidiary of CSX Corp., a Fortune 500 company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, CSX Transportation is a Class I freight railroad operating in the eastern United States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The railroad operates around 21,000 route miles of track. While its lines blanket the east coasts of Canada and the U.S., you don’t have to be located on railroad track for CSX to help you, as it has access to 70 ports and nationwide transloading and warehousing services.

DB SCHENKER

The global logistics and supply chain management giant has 93 branches in every U.S. state, Mexico and Canada. Schenker of Canada Ltd. provides logistics services, airfreight, custom brokerage, custom consulting, sports events, land transport and courier services. DB Schenker Mexico celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2017, having begun down there with a single location and 40 associates and now boasting of 500 employees in its corporate office in Mexico City as well as in Guadalajara, Monterrey, Queretaro, Puebla, Cancun, Ciudad Juarez and various other branches. DB Schenker Mexico offers air freight, ocean freight, land freight, customs brokerage, over-dimensioned projects, warehousing and contract logistics.

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN

The KCS North American rail holdings and strategic alliances are primary components of a NAFTA railway system linking the commercial and industrial centers of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. “KCS is just one interchange away from every major market in North America,” boasts the railroad. KC Southern de Mexico offers unique rail access to the Port of Lazaro Cardenas on Mexico’s Pacific coast, which is an ideal spot to avoid congestion in U.S. West Coast ports. KCS also has access to Gulf of Mexico ports, including Altamira, Tampico and Veracruz in Mexico and Brownsville, New Orleans, Corpus Christi, Houston, Gulfport, Lake Charles, Mobile and Port Arthur in the U.S.

LIVINGSTON INTERNATIONAL

Billed as North America’s No. 1 company focused on customs brokerage and compliance, Livingston International also offers international trade consulting and freight forwarding across the continent and around the globe. Headquartered in Chicago, Livingston operates along the U.S.-Canada border, with regional air/sea hubs in Los Angeles, New York and Norfolk. Livingston employs more than 3,200 employees at more than 125 key border points, seaports, airports and other strategic locations in North America, Europe and the Far East. Livingston is a customs brokerage leader in Canada, and the company also promises to move goods seamlessly into Mexico.

LOGISTICS PLUS

Whether it is working as a 3PL or 4PL partner, the Erie, Pennsylvania-based company specializes in total logistics management, LTL and truckload transportation, rail and intermodal services, project cargo and project management, import/export services, air and ocean freight forwarding, warehousing and distribution, global trade compliance services and logistics and technology solutions. Logistics Plus serves small and large businesses throughout the Greater Toronto Area, with an office in the zone that has access to the Port of Toronto and expertise in shipping in and out of Canada though the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. Bilingual logistics experts help customers with intra-Mexico, cross-border, or international shipping using air, ocean, ground or rail transportation.

LYNDEN

Seattle-based Lynden not only delivers to, from and within Canada, the company does business there. Its long-established Canadian presence allows it to provide complete coverage for any transportation need. They can help with warehousing and distribution or 3PL in Canada, where Lynden boasts of knowing “the ins and outs of customs brokerage, duties and taxes, imports and exports.” From its offices in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta, and Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Lynden offers scheduled less-than-truckload (LTL) and truckload (TL) service to points in Alaska and the Lower 48.

LYNNCO

The Tulsa, Oklahoma-based company optimizes customers’ supply chains coast-to-coast in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. LynnCo manages businesses and determines how and when ground, international air/ocean, spot/capacity, procurement and expedited services are the best options. For instance, LynnCo helped a U.S. manufacturer determine if shifting units to Mexico was profitable. The answer was no after factoring in the risks of moving, poor facilities, added shipping costs and product quality.

POLARIS TRANSPORTATION GROUP

Billing itself as “an American company headquartered in Toronto,” Polaris has a quarter century of experience in scheduled LTL service between the U.S. and Canada. The company knows both countries’ customs rules and participates in every border security program, including C-TPAT, PIP (Partners in Protection), CSA (Customs Self- Assessment) and FAST (Free and Secure Trade). The company’s scheduled service connects Ontario and Quebec markets with the U.S. through a combination of its fleet and facilities along with those of its long-established partner carriers.

PUROLATOR INTERNATIONAL

The U.S. subsidiary of Canada’s leading provider of integrated freight and parcel delivery services, Jericho, New York-based Purolator International seamlessly transports shipments between the U.S. and Canada and manages the respective countries’ customs processes with aplomb. They pick up/drop off at every point in the U.S. and boast of a distribution network that extends to every Canadian province and territory. What truly takes Purolator International over the top is a commitment to continue improving, as evidenced by a recent $1 billion growth investment that includes two new hubs that will allow for faster fulfillment for both courier and e-commerce shipments from the U.S. throughout Canada, where consumers also will be seeing more access points, including upgraded retail pickup locations.

R+L GLOBAL

“Shipping to Mexico is facil,” according to Ocala, Florida-based R+L Global Logistics. Its qualified network of premium carriers in Mexico provide secure door-to-door Less than Truckload (LTL) and Full Truckload (FTL) services. They cover the entire Mexican territory and move cargo across all major U.S./Mexico border gateways. They also move intra-Mexico shipments.

SCHNEIDER

The Green Bay, Wisconsin-based giant specializes in regional trucking, long-haul, bulk, intermodal, supply chain management, brokerage, warehousing, port logistics and transloading. Decades of cross-border freight experience means customer cargo moves without question or delay. Once goods move across the border, Schneider has the assets and personnel in place to deliver it safely and securely. “Here’s the simple fact: No one makes shipping to Canada and Mexico easier or more efficient than Schneider,” the company boasts. “By road or by rail, your freight is in the best hands possible.”

SENKO

The Japanese logistics giant has offices in the U.S., where their own trucks and warehouses work with a network of vendors. The 3PL/4PL supply chain solutions provider uses its own IT technology developed in Japan to help arrange liquid tank transportation, flatbed, drayage, refrigerated, dry, expedited shipping and freight broker services. Senko Logistics Mexico is the company unit south of the border.

SUNSET TRANSPORTATION

The St. Louis-based company has offices and agents across the country, and customers whose shipments are moved around the globe. Sunset arranges freight for a wide range of industries, from wholesale food distribution to specialized construction equipment. “Cross-border solutions” include customs clearance for land, rail, air and ocean, LTL, TL, intermodal, rail, air, expedited and specialized freight, contracted lane and spot market, C-TPAT compliance, multimodal programs, a Laredo, Texas, warehouse and distribution facility and 24/7 bilingual, bicultural support.

SURGERE

Headquartered in North Canton, Ohio, Surgere is a leader in linking OEMs, tier suppliers and logistics providers through an automotive data system that provides visibility on returnable containers at every stage of their movement between supplier and vehicle maker. The supply chain innovators, whose clients include Nissan and CEVA Logistics, recently opened Technologias Avanzadas Surgere de Mexico in Aguascalientes, Mexico, which has more than 1,300 suppliers and automotive plants within 200 kilometers of the location. “Central Mexico is the automotive hub for Latin America—making it a natural progression—and a welcomed challenge for us,” explained David Hampton, Surgere’s vice president for International Operations, in announcing the move. Surgere hopes to have the Mexico office fully staffed before the end of this year.

TQL

Cincinnati, Ohio-based Total Quality Logistics (TQL) was founded in 1997 and is now the second-largest freight brokerage firm in the nation, with more than 5,500 employees in 57 offices across the county. Known for combining industry-leading technology and unmatched customer service, TQL boasts of providing competitive pricing, continuous communication and “a commitment to do it right every time.” They move more than 1.6 million loads across the U.S., Canada and Mexico annually through a broad portfolio of logistics services and a network of more than 75,000 carriers.

USA TRUCK

The Van Buren, Arkansas-based company provides customized truckload, dedicated contract carriage, intermodal and third-party logistics freight management services throughout North America. USA Truck has nearly two decades of experience servicing Mexico, which has allowed the company to expand its presence south of the border and partner with many Mexican carriers. USA Truck’s Capacity Solutions coordinates transportation into and out of Mexico with a vast carrier network, and they service most major Mexican markets and consistently maintain C-TPAT certification. USA Truck also has a select fleet of third-party carriers providing service into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada.

UTXL

Launched in 1997 by four founders with more than 100 years of combined asset-based trucking experience, UTXL started with this goal: to be the safest, most reliable and cost effective niche capacity resource to customers in support of their core carrier programs. UTXL has served thousands of shippers across the U.S., Canada and Mexico, including some of the largest shippers in the world. One of their mottos is: “Any point in the U.S., Canada or Mexico … any length of haul.”

WERNER ENTERPRISES

“We keep America moving” is the motto of this Omaha, Nebraska-based company that has one of the largest transportation services to and from Mexico and is a premiere long-haul carrier to and from Canada and throughout North America. Werner has offices in Mexico and Canada as well as experienced and knowledgeable staff engineer solutions. PAR documentation allows for quicker access through customs into Canada, and their network of alliance carriers can manage entire supply chains within Canada and Mexico regardless of equipment needs.

WW SOLUTIONS

The unit of Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics participates in Mexico’s automotive industry not only as a carrier and logistics provider. WW Solutions specializes in processing solutions at ports and at OEM plants, providing services that include pre-delivery inspections, accessory fittings, repairs, storage, washing, vehicle preparation, quality control, inventory management and the procurement of technical services.

YRC FREIGHT

Yellow Transportation (founded in 1924 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) merged with Roadway (founded in 1930 in Akron, Ohio) to create YRC Freight, which is the largest subsidiary of YRC Worldwide Inc. based in Overland Park, Kansas. A leading transporter of industrial, commercial and retail goods, YRC Freight offers solutions for businesses across North America and is the only carrier with on-site, bilingual representatives at border crossing points in Mexico to expedite customs clearance.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

COMMERCE ISSUES PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS IN PROBES OF DRIED TART CHERRY IMPORTS FROM TURKEY

October 9th, 2019 GT Staff Leave a comment

The U.S. Department of Commerce on Sept. 23 announced the affirmative preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of dried tart cherries from Turkey, finding that exporters sold dried tart cherries at less than fair value at rates ranging from 541.29 to 648.35 percent and received countervailable subsidies at a rate of 204.93 percent.

Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect cash deposits from importers of dried tart cherries from Turkey based on these preliminary rates.

Investigations were initiated based on petitions filed by the Dried Tart Cherry Trade Committee, whose members include Cherry Central Cooperative (Traverse City, Michigan), Graceland Fruit, Inc. (Frankfort, Michigan), Payson Fruit Growers Coop (Payson, Utah), Shoreline Fruit, LLC (Traverse City, Michigan) and Smeltzer Orchard Co. (Frankfort, Michigan). In 2018, imports of dried tart cherries from Turkey were valued at an estimated $1.2 million.

Commerce is scheduled to announce its final AD and CVD determinations on or about Dec. 5. If affirmative final determinations are made, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will be scheduled to make its final injury determinations on or about Jan. 21, 2020. Only if both Commerce and the ITC make affirmative final injury determinations will AD and CVD orders be issued. Any negative final determinations end the investigations with no orders issued.

Germany’s Production of Potato Starch Is Continuously Decreasing Due to Exports Contraction

Production in Germany

Exports from Germany

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports into Germany

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Consumption By Country in Asia

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia

Production in Asia

Production By Country in Asia

Exports in Asia

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports in Asia

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

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

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

Consumption By Country in the EU

Production in the EU

Production By Country in the EU

Exports in the EU

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports in the EU

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

The Ride Music Starts

Theme Park Rules

Beef and Bananas – How Carousel Started

Riding a New Horse

Others Get on the Ride

Round and Round We Go

Celebrating Diwali in India with California almonds

Almonds have deep roots in India

Tariffs could dampen California’s bumper crop

“Tomorrow Begins Today”

Tariffs are a tough nut to crack

Nothing to celebrate

Exports from the U.S.

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports into the U.S.

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

most viewed today