U.S. Wet Corn Exports Rose for the Third Consecutive Year

October 9th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the wet corn market in the U.S. amounted to $8.7B in 2018, dropping by -8.3% 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). Over the period under review, wet corn consumption continues to indicate a drastic deduction. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2016 with a decrease of -1.8% against the previous year. Wet corn consumption peaked at $15.3B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, consumption stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Wet Corn Production in the U.S.

In value terms, wet corn production stood at $9.6B in 2018. In general, wet corn production continues to indicate an abrupt shrinkage. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 when production volume decreased by -1.1% year-to-year. Wet corn production peaked at $16.7B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, production remained at a lower figure.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of wet corn exported from the U.S. stood at 2.1M tonnes, falling by -15.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, wet corn exports continue to indicate a perceptible decline. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 when exports increased by 5.2% year-to-year. Over the period under review, wet corn exports reached their peak figure at 2.6M tonnes in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, wet corn exports stood at $922M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, wet corn exports continue to indicate a deep shrinkage. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 with an increase of 1.8% y-o-y. Over the period under review, wet corn exports attained their peak figure at $1.6B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

Exports by Country

Ireland (493K tonnes), Israel (265K tonnes) and Colombia (147K tonnes) were the main destinations of wet corn exports from the U.S., with a combined 43% share of total exports. Chile, Egypt, the UK, Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco, New Zealand, Portugal and China lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 39%.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of exports, amongst the main countries of destination, was attained by New Zealand (+86.2% per year), while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Chile ($96M), Ireland ($92M) and Colombia ($78M) were the largest markets for wet corn exported from the U.S. worldwide, together accounting for 29% of total exports. Egypt, Indonesia, China, Israel, the UK, New Zealand, Turkey, Morocco and Portugal lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 34%.

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

Export Prices by Country

The average wet corn export price stood at $435 per tonne in 2018, going down by -11.2% against the previous year. In general, the wet corn export price continues to indicate a deep descent. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2015 when the average export price increased by 1.7% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average export prices for wet corn attained their peak figure at $629 per tonne in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was China ($1,055 per tonne), while the average price for exports to Portugal ($153 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to China, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced a decline.

Imports into the U.S.

In 2018, approx. 467K tonnes of wet corn were imported into the U.S.; increasing by 5.5% against the previous year. Overall, the total imports indicated a strong expansion from 2013 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +9.5% over the last five years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, wet corn imports increased by +57.5% against 2013 indices. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2015 with an increase of 16% year-to-year. Imports peaked in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, wet corn imports totaled $506M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +7.7% over the period from 2013 to 2018; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when imports increased by 12% y-o-y. In that year, wet corn imports reached their peak and are likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

Imports by Country

Thailand (128K tonnes), Germany (70K tonnes) and the Netherlands (41K tonnes) were the main suppliers of wet corn imports to the U.S., with a combined 51% share of total imports. These countries were followed by Pakistan, Denmark, France, China, Belgium, Taiwan, Chinese, Poland, Viet Nam and Brazil, which together accounted for a further 34%.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by Viet Nam, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest wet corn suppliers to the U.S. were Germany ($84M), Thailand ($82M) and the Netherlands ($46M), together comprising 42% of total imports. France, Belgium, Pakistan, China, Denmark, Taiwan, Chinese, Viet Nam, Brazil and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 40%.

Viet Nam recorded the highest growth rate of imports, among the main suppliers over the last five-year period, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

In 2018, the average wet corn import price amounted to $1,083 per tonne, rising by 6.6% against the previous year. In general, the wet corn import price, however, continues to indicate a mild downturn. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2018 when the average import price increased by 6.6% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for wet corn reached their maximum at $1,194 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Belgium ($2,141 per tonne), while the price for Thailand ($641 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Taiwan, Chinese, while the prices for the other major suppliers experienced more modest paces of growth.

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Ingredion Incorporated, Roquette America, Inc., Penford Corporation, Penford Products Co., Briess Industries, Inc., Rahr Malting Co., Malteurop North America Inc., Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC, Malt Products Corporation, Enjoy Life Natural Brands, Semo Milling, Great Western Malting Co, Western Polymer Corporation, Gro Alliance, Philadelphia Beer Works Inc, Unilever Bestfoods North America, Anderson Custom Processing, Tate & Lyle Americas, Great Western Malting, La Aceitera Inc, Holdings In Zone Inc, Staley Holdings, Cornproducts/Mcp Sweeteners, High Sea Sugar

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

Peeling Away Trade Protections for Bananas

October 8th, 2019 Andrea Durkin Leave a comment

Simple in appearance, pleasantly sweet, nutritious, and nearly universal in appeal, that Cavendish bunch of bananas on your counter comes off as pretty unassuming. In reality, it has been through jungle wars and trade wars and now sits on the precipice of extinction. More than half of the bananas traded globally are the Cavendish variety. But with two diseases threatening the world’s largest Cavendish plantations, growing to love more varieties could help save trade in bananas.

Still an Important Cash Crop

Grown in more than 150 countries, bananas are the eighth most important food crop in the world – fourth most important in developing countries. Bananas are among the most traded fruit in the world, generating revenues of more than $8 billion a year for the top banana exporters including Ecuador, the Philippines, Costa Rica, Colombia and Guatemala. However, most are produced for local or national consumption.

For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that between 70 and 80 percent of bananas in Africa are produced by smallholder farmers. Around 114 million tons are produced globally beyond what isn’t too small to be counted, yet only 19 million tons were shipped globally. That said, for the top five exporters, bananas are a major contributor to the total value of their agricultural exports. India and China are among the biggest producers but their output mainly serves the large domestic markets.

Peeling Away Trade Protections

The Banana Wars, centered on the European Union’s (EU) banana trade regime, spanned 20 years as the longest running series of disputes in the multilateral trading system to date (although the Boeing-Airbus dispute may be on track to take that title). As one of the most significant episodes in trade law, the Banana Wars are deserving of more attention, but here are some abridged highlights.

Europe’s banana regime began as an umbrella for complex arrangements at the individual EU Member State level that were designed to offer exclusive or preferential access to former colonies in Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), and at the same time shield EU producers from competition.

Under the EU’s original regime, ACP countries received a zero-tariff rate while imports from other countries were taxed at 20 percent. However, each Member State was allowed to “derogate” and maintain special protective provisions for imports from their overseas departments. For example, France set aside two-thirds of its market for Guadeloupe and Martinique and the remaining third for the ACP Franc Zone states of Cameroon and Cote d’Ivoire. The Spanish market was reserved for shipments from the Canary Islands. Greece banned imports to protect its own production in Crete. Only Germany opened to free trade.

The Single European Act of 1986 mandated an integrated EU market by January 1993, which required that Member States consolidate their programs into a common regime for bananas. As devised, this version still enabled members to discriminate among imports by source, offering better terms to their overseas departments and to imports from ACP countries. Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela (supported by the United States) challenged the regime as inconsistent with the EU’s obligations under the GATT.

The EU’s ability to offer tariff preferences was upheld because it had a waiver in the GATT for its general tariff preference program; but the GATT Panel found the EU’s discrimination through tariff quotas to be inconsistent with its obligations. However, prior to the WTO, a GATT member could simply veto the outcome of a panel decision, enabling the EU effectively to ignore the GATT Panel ruling.

Second Banana

The EU revised its banana regime in 1993 to include new special distribution licenses under a general quota. Licenses were divvied up among primary importers and importers performing secondary activities such as customs clearance, warehousing and storage; licenses were dependent on historical performance, subject to country allocations, market share and other criteria. After yet another challenge by the five Latin American countries, a GATT Panel found in 1994 that the EU’s licensing system was excessively restrictive and not covered by its waiver.

After 1995, with the WTO’s enforceable dispute settlement system in place and additional obligations to avoid discrimination in trade in services, the EU recognized it would face more challenges to its regime. The large multinational producers involved in shipping, warehousing, ripening, marketing and distribution had an even stronger case to make. The EU negotiated with all of the disgruntled Latin American producers but Guatemala to head off the legal challenge. Having offered additional or expanded quotas, they temporarily pleased some countries but further worsened the discriminatory effect for those countries not a part of the negotiation.

A third complaint against the EU’s banana regime was reviewed in the WTO in 1996, this time with the United States as the lead plaintiff in response to complaints from Chiquita and the Hawaiian Banana Association. A WTO decision in 1997 again concluded that, although the EU’s discriminatory tariffs were covered under its historical waiver, its tariff quota allocations and convoluted import licensing administration violated its WTO obligations. The EU’s next version of its banana regime did little to remedy the discriminatory elements, which led to the imposition of tariffs by the United States and Ecuador in response to the EU’s failure to comply with the WTO ruling. By 2001, the EU made another attempt to transition its system, but not until 2006 would the EU decide to phase in a tariff-only system, dispensing with quotas.

Banana Splits

At the end of 2009, after negotiations with non-ACP producers, the EU agreed to reduce the tariff rate it applies to all WTO members. Tariffs would come down from 176 euros per ton to 114 euros per ton by January 2017 (stipulating it could revert to higher rates if exporting countries exceed a “trigger” amount of imports). It wouldn’t be until 2012, that the EU and 10 Latin American countries finalized signed an agreement in the WTO to codify the revised EU banana tariff schedule (“The Geneva Banana Agreement”), officially closing the longstanding legal disputes.

As a prologue, the EU signed trade agreements with Andean and Central American countries in 2013 and Ecuador in 2017. Ecuador has seen a large bump in global export volume as its agreement with the EU is implemented. By next year, the tariff on bananas from Ecuador to the EU will go down to 75 euros per ton with no quota on the amount eligible for this rate. As the EU continues to edge toward “freer” trade in bananas, the ACP producers will face considerable adjustment.

Going Bananas

Having survived the banana trade wars, the popular Cavendish banana faces a new challenge, one that could actually wipe them out.

“Panama disease TR4” has ravaged thousands of acres of Cavendish plantations throughout Southeast Asia and Australia and is spreading to Africa and the Middle East. It can lie dormant in soil for decades and has proven resistant to fungicides and fumigants. It is only a matter of time before TR4 takes hold in Latin America, which supplies nearly the entire U.S. market. Banana plantations in the Caribbean are threatened by another disease called Black Sigatoka, which has been reducing banana yields by 40 percent every year in affected areas.

Before Cavendish was top banana, a banana called the Gros Michel (Big Mike) dominated the banana trade in the early 1900s until the fungus TR1 took it to the brink of extinction in the mid-1950s. At that time, the Cavendish variety from China was discovered to be resistant to TR1 so it replaced Mike. But bananas don’t have seeds. They breed asexually so they cannot recombine their genes to ward off threats. In other words, the Cavendish is ripe for attack because it cannot evolve – every generation is a clone of the previous.

Try Hanging with a New Bunch

If scientists don’t make a breakthrough, TR4 and TR1 could spell the end for the beloved Cavendish. With over 1,000 different varieties of bananas growing around the world, why not get to know some others that might grow more popular through trade – here are a few to get you started.

For your next dessert, try using Niño, Manzano (“apple bananas”) that have a hint of apple and strawberry flavor, or Goldfinger, a newer variety from Honduras. Intriguingly, there’s also Blue Java, named for its blue skin, which has a creamy, ice cream-like texture and purportedly offers a subtle vanilla flavor.

Cooking bananas include the Macho plantain and other fun-sounding varieties like the Burro which has squared sides and a lemon flavor when ripe, and the Rhino Horn from Africa, which can grow up to two feet long. If consumers demand it, perhaps global trade in bananas will finally branch out.

_________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Archives, Features, Global Trade Daily

Why Washington Shouldn’t see Vietnam as the Next China

October 8th, 2019 Cora Di Pietro Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

Hastening trade imbalance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options for low-cost sourcing plentiful

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

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

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

A battle worth waging – along with friends and allies

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

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

Archives, Global Trade Daily, In The News

New Foreign Investment Restriction Regulations Cement CFIUS Reform

October 7th, 2019 Joe Whitley, Alan Enslen and Julius Bodie Leave a comment

One of the emerging focal points of the U.S.-China trade war involves the implementation of updated foreign investment restrictions in key U.S. industries.

On September 17, 2019, the Department of the Treasury issued proposed regulations to implement the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), legislation that sought to reform and expand the scope of foreign investment reviews conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS, an inter-agency committee chaired by the Treasury Department with the authority to review, modify and potentially reject certain types of foreign investment that could adversely affect U.S. national security, has undergone a significant overhaul during the past year in the wake of FIRRMA becoming law in August 2018. It is now more vital than ever that companies understand how their business can be affected by the updated CFIUS regulations when they are seeking or negotiating a merger, acquisition, real estate investment or even a non-controlling investment from a foreign investor.

Typically, CFIUS reviews are voluntary and are conducted for merger or acquisition transactions where a non-U.S. company or a foreign government-controlled entity obtain a controlling interest in a U.S. company. If CFIUS determines that a covered transaction presents a national security risk, it has the authority to impose certain mitigating conditions before allowing the deal to proceed and can refer the transaction to the President for an ultimate decision.

However, FIRRMA updated and expanded the scope of CFIUS jurisdiction to authorize reviews of additional types of non-controlling foreign investments based on the type of U.S. company involved. The implementing regulations proposed in September 2019 are set to take effect February 13, 2020, and while the CFIUS reform regulations are motivated by concerns directly related to China, the impact of FIRRMA will be felt globally and the new rules will not be tied to or affected by impending trade negotiations. U.S. businesses, particularly those involved in critical technologies, real estate, infrastructure and data collection or maintenance, must take heed of how the updated rules will affect their global business decisions moving forward.

New Regulations for TID Companies Effective February 2020

Effective February 13, 2020, CFIUS will be authorized to review “covered control transactions,” (all foreign acquisitions resulting in direct control in a U.S. business, which CFIUS already had jurisdiction over), as well as non-controlling “covered investments” by a foreign person in a U.S. critical technology, critical infrastructure or sensitive personal data company. The new rules refer to these as “TID U.S. Businesses” (Technology, Infrastructure and Data), or to be more specific, a company that engages in one of the following categories of activity:

-produces, designs, tests, manufactures, fabricates or develops one or more critical technologies;

-owns, operates, manufactures, supplies or services critical infrastructure; or

-maintains or collects sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens that may be exploited in a manner that threatens national security.

“Critical technologies” include defense articles or defense services under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, certain nuclear-related products regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Controls and certain technologies on the Commerce Control List under the Export Administration Regulations. In addition, “critical technologies” will include certain “emerging technologies” that are yet to be defined, and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security is currently reviewing at least 17 technology areas that are anticipated to result in new controls (including bio-tech, artificial intelligence, microprocessors, positional navigation and timing technology, quantum computing and additive manufacturing (3D printing)).

“Critical infrastructure” includes key industry subsectors such as telecommunications, utilities, energy and transportation. “Sensitive personal data” is defined to include ten categories of data maintained or collected by U.S. businesses that (i) target products or services to sensitive populations (including U.S. military members and federal national security employees); (ii) collect or maintain such data on at least one million individuals; or (iii) have a business objective to collect such data on greater than 1 million individuals and such data is an integrated part of the U.S. business’s primary product or service. The categories of data include types of financial, geolocation and health data.

Non-Controlling Covered Investments

Under the new regulations, CFIUS will be authorized to review non-controlling covered investment in TID U.S. Businesses. A “covered investment” includes scenarios where a foreign investor obtains:

-access to material non-public technical information;

-membership or observer rights on the board of directors or an equivalent governing body of the business or the right to nominate an individual to a position on that body; or

-any involvement, other than through voting of shares, in substantive decision making regarding sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens, critical technologies, or critical infrastructure.

Filing a CFIUS declaration for a non-controlling covered investment will remain a largely voluntary process, and parties will be able to file a notice or submit a short-form declaration notifying CFIUS of a covered investment in order to receive a potential “safe harbor” letter (after which CFIUS in most scenarios will not initiate a review of a transaction).

However, if a foreign government holds a “substantial interest” in the foreign investor that obtains a “substantial interest” in a TID U.S. Business, a CFIUS filing will be mandatory. The updated regulations provide that a foreign government is considered to have a substantial interest in the foreign investor if it holds a 49% direct or indirect interest, whereas a foreign person will obtain a substantial interest in a TID U.S. Business if it obtains at least a 25% direct or indirect interest. CFIUS is also authorized to mandate declarations for transactions involving certain types of critical technology companies.

The proposed rules also include a “white list” provision providing CFIUS the authority to designate certain “excepted investors” and “excepted foreign states” that may be eligible for an exclusion in connection with non-controlling covered investments.

Global Impact: How Does This Affect My Business?

The most important practical effect of the updated regulations is the breadth of U.S. companies standing to be impacted or affected by new foreign investment restrictions. U.S. businesses and industries that have previously never had to consider filing a CFIUS declaration, including healthcare companies, tech start-ups, related infrastructure industries, venture capital funds, emerging technology companies and manufacturers, and any company with access to sensitive consumer data, will now have to contemplate the implications of a CFIUS review when considering even passive foreign investment. Robust due diligence on potential investors will be more important than ever to ensure compliance with both mandatory and voluntary CFIUS declaration filings. Cross-border deals will be a costlier and more time-consuming process that will require acute attention to detail when drafting the contractual rights afforded to foreign investors.

If you have any questions about the impact of the updated CFIUS regulations or how they may affect your company, please contact a member of Baker Donelson’s Global Business Team for additional information.

___________________________________________________________________

Joe D. Whitley is a shareholder at Baker Donelson, chair of the Firm’s Government Enforcement and Investigations Group and former General Counsel at the Department of Homeland Security. He can be reached at jwhitley@bakerdonelson.com.

Alan Enslen is a shareholder with Baker Donelson and leads the International Trade and National Security Practice and is a member of the Global Business Team. He can be reached at aenslen@bakerdonelson.com.

Julius Bodie is an associate with Baker Donelson who assists U.S. and foreign companies across multiple industries with international trade regulatory issues. He can be reached at jbodie@bakerdonelson.com.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

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

October 4th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

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

Consumption By Country in Asia

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

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

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

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

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

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia

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

Production in Asia

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

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

Production By Country in Asia

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

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

Harvested Area in Asia

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

Yield in Asia

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

Exports in Asia

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

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

Exports by Country

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

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

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

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

Export Prices by Country

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

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

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

Imports in Asia

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

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

Imports by Country

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

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

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

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

Import Prices by Country

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

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

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Has Move to Impeach President Trump Pushed Aside the USMCA?

October 3rd, 2019 GT Staff Leave a comment

The momentum to impeach in Washington, D.C., is not only hurtling Congress and President Donald Trump toward a potential constitutional crisis, but the prospect of reaching a solution to the ongoing trade standoffs has dimmed considerably.

That’s the opinion of leading international trade lawyer Clifford Sosnow, who notes the time frame for passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)—and thereby revamping the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—is growing shorter by the day, denting plans for global companies that rely heavily on exports.

“With impeachment officially on the table and the hyper-partisan climate in the lead-up to next year’s elections, there is serious concern whether the USMCA is dead in the water,” says Sosnow, an Ottawa-based partner with Canadian law firm Fasken.

“It’s unclear how much of a window is even left for approval of the USMCA. There are also high odds of failure post-election, especially if the Democrats win. The party has not shown any enthusiasm for the USMCA in its current form.”

Sosnow is not shooting from the hip in an easy chair. He has appeared before NAFTA and WTO panels and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, and he has numerous clients affected by tariffs as well as any decisions on NAFTA, including automobile manufacturers, banks, service companies, IT companies, large retailers, manufacturers, agriculture business, aerospace firms, and transportation companies.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Chicken Egg Market in Eastern Europe – Russia’s Production Is Growing Rapidly, Driven by Strong Domestic Demand and Expanding Exports

October 1st, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the chicken egg market in Eastern Europe amounted to $9.7B in 2018, surging by 6.6% 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). Over the period under review, chicken egg consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 when the market value increased by 13% against the previous year. The level of chicken egg consumption peaked at $10.8B in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, consumption stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Consumption By Country in Eastern Europe

The country with the largest volume of chicken egg consumption was Russia (2.6M tonnes), accounting for 54% of total consumption. Moreover, chicken egg consumption in Russia exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest consumer, Ukraine (898K tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Poland (345K tonnes), with a 7.2% share.

In Russia, chicken egg consumption expanded at an average annual rate of +1.6% over the period from 2007-2018. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Ukraine (+1.0% per year) and Poland (-3.8% per year).

In value terms, the largest chicken egg markets in Eastern Europe were Ukraine ($4.5B), Russia ($2.8B) and Hungary ($673M), together accounting for 82% of the total market.

The countries with the highest levels of chicken egg per capita consumption in 2018 were Ukraine (20 kg per person), Belarus (18 kg per person) and Russia (18 kg per person).

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

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Eastern Europe

Driven by increasing demand for chicken egg in Eastern Europe, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next seven years. Market performance is forecast to retain its current trend pattern, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +0.8% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 5.1M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production in Eastern Europe

The chicken egg production amounted to 5.1M tonnes in 2018, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. Overall, chicken egg production continues to indicate mild growth. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2010 when production volume increased by 3.2% against the previous year. The volume of chicken egg production peaked in 2018 and is expected to retain its growth in the near future. The general positive trend in terms of chicken egg output was largely conditioned by slight growth of the number of producing animals and a relatively flat trend pattern in yield figures.

In value terms, chicken egg production stood at $11.3B in 2018 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +1.4% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 with an increase of 39% against the previous year. The level of chicken egg production peaked at $12B in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, production stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Production By Country in Eastern Europe

Russia (2.5M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of chicken egg production, comprising approx. 50% of total production. Moreover, chicken egg production in Russia exceeded the figures recorded by the region’s second-largest producer, Ukraine (895K tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Poland (600K tonnes), with a 12% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in Russia totaled +1.6%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: Ukraine (+0.9% per year) and Poland (+0.8% per year).

Producing Animals in Eastern Europe

In 2018, approx. 444M heads of producing animals were grown in Eastern Europe; approximately reflecting the previous year. This number increased at an average annual rate of +1.1% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed over the period under review. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2012 with an increase of 5.3% y-o-y. Over the period under review, this number attained its peak figure level in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the near future.

Yield in Eastern Europe

In 2018, the average chicken egg yield in Eastern Europe totaled 11 kg per head, remaining stable against the previous year. Over the period under review, the chicken egg yield continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2009 when yield increased by 7% year-to-year. In that year, the chicken egg yield attained its peak level of 12 kg per head. From 2010 to 2018, the growth of the chicken egg yield remained at a lower figure.

Exports in Eastern Europe

In 2018, approx. 437K tonnes of chicken eggs were exported in Eastern Europe; rising by 6.8% against the previous year. Over the period under review, chicken egg exports continue to indicate resilient growth. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 when exports increased by 91% year-to-year. The volume of exports peaked in 2018 and are likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, chicken egg exports amounted to $657M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, chicken egg exports continue to indicate a buoyant expansion. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 when exports increased by 53% against the previous year. The level of exports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

Exports by Country

Poland prevails in chicken egg exports structure, finishing at 267K tonnes, which was near 61% of total exports in 2018. Belarus (40K tonnes) took the second position in the ranking, followed by Russia (33K tonnes), Latvia (23K tonnes) and the Czech Republic (20K tonnes). All these countries together occupied approx. 27% share of total exports. Bulgaria (15K tonnes) and Romania (12K tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

Poland was also the fastest-growing in terms of the chicken eggs exports, with a CAGR of +21.8% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Russia (+19.2%), Bulgaria (+15.5%), the Czech Republic (+6.4%), Latvia (+5.8%), Romania (+5.6%) and Belarus (+2.5%) displayed positive paces of growth. From 2007 to 2018, the share of Poland, Russia, Bulgaria, Latvia, the Czech Republic and Belarus increased by +54%, +6.5%, +2.8%, +2.4%, +2.3% and +2.2% percentage points, while the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Poland ($402M) remains the largest chicken egg supplier in Eastern Europe, comprising 61% of total chicken egg exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the Czech Republic ($43M), with a 6.5% share of total exports. It was followed by Bulgaria, with a 5.2% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value in Poland amounted to +19.0%. The remaining exporting countries recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: the Czech Republic (+2.1% per year) and Bulgaria (+11.2% per year).

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the chicken egg export price in Eastern Europe amounted to $1,504 per tonne, picking up by 3.6% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the chicken egg export price, however, continues to indicate a noticeable slump. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2017 when the export price increased by 24% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the export prices for chicken eggs attained their peak figure at $2,301 per tonne in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Bulgaria ($2,219 per tonne), while Belarus ($733 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Poland, while the other leaders experienced a decline in the export price figures.

Imports in Eastern Europe

In 2018, the imports of chicken eggs in Eastern Europe stood at 182K tonnes, jumping by 6.4% against the previous year. The total imports indicated strong growth from 2007 to 2018: its volume increased at an average annual rate of +4.6% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. Based on 2018 figures, chicken egg imports decreased by -6.8% against 2015 indices. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2013 with an increase of 20% y-o-y. The volume of imports peaked at 196K tonnes in 2015; however, from 2016 to 2018, imports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

In value terms, chicken egg imports amounted to $383M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, chicken egg imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 when imports increased by 20% y-o-y. In that year, chicken egg imports attained their peak of $489M. From 2015 to 2018, the growth of chicken egg imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

Russia represented the main importing country with an import of around 84K tonnes, which amounted to 46% of total imports. It was distantly followed by the Czech Republic (20K tonnes), Hungary (17K tonnes), Poland (12K tonnes), Lithuania (11K tonnes), Latvia (8.7K tonnes) and Romania (8.5K tonnes), together creating a 42% share of total imports.

Imports into Russia increased at an average annual rate of +6.5% from 2007 to 2018. At the same time, Hungary (+15.5%), Lithuania (+15.4%), Romania (+7.6%), Latvia (+3.7%) and Poland (+2.7%) displayed positive paces of growth. Moreover, Hungary emerged as the fastest-growing importer in Eastern Europe, with a CAGR of +15.5% from 2007-2018. The Czech Republic experienced a relatively flat trend pattern. While the share of Russia (+23 p.p.), Hungary (+7.3 p.p.), Lithuania (+4.6 p.p.), Romania (+2.6 p.p.), Poland (+1.6 p.p.) and Latvia (+1.6 p.p.) increased significantly, the shares of the other countries remained relatively stable throughout the analyzed period.

In value terms, Russia ($208M) constitutes the largest market for imported chicken eggs in Eastern Europe, comprising 54% of total chicken egg imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by the Czech Republic ($35M), with a 9% share of total imports. It was followed by Hungary, with a 7.2% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value in Russia amounted to +3.3%. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: the Czech Republic (-4.1% per year) and Hungary (+10.6% per year).

Import Prices by Country

The chicken egg import price in Eastern Europe stood at $2,099 per tonne in 2018, picking up by 3.7% against the previous year. Overall, the chicken egg import price, however, continues to indicate a noticeable slump. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 an increase of 11% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the import prices for chicken eggs attained their maximum at $3,152 per tonne in 2007; however, from 2008 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Russia ($2,490 per tonne), while Latvia ($1,300 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Uncategorized

Global Cotton-Seed Oil Market – Production Rose 2.7% to Reach 5.7M tonnes in 2018

September 27th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The global cotton-seed oil market revenue amounted to $8.2B in 2018, falling by -3.6% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). The market value increased at an average annual rate of +2.3% from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 13% y-o-y. The global cotton-seed oil consumption peaked at $8.9B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, consumption stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Consumption By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of cotton-seed oil consumption in 2018 were India (1.6M tonnes), China (1.4M tonnes) and Pakistan (470K tonnes), together comprising 62% of global consumption. These countries were followed by Brazil, Australia, Uzbekistan, Turkey, the U.S., Burkina Faso and Myanmar, which together accounted for a further 25%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of cotton-seed oil consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Myanmar, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, India ($3.5B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by China ($1.5B). It was followed by Pakistan.

The countries with the highest levels of cotton-seed oil per capita consumption in 2018 were Australia (10,839 kg per 1000 persons), Uzbekistan (7,845 kg per 1000 persons) and Burkina Faso (4,923 kg per 1000 persons).

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of cotton-seed oil per capita consumption, amongst the main consuming countries, was attained by Myanmar, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Driven by increasing demand for cotton-seed oil worldwide, 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 +1.4% for the seven-year period from 2018 to 2025, which is projected to bring the market volume to 6.3M tonnes by the end of 2025.

Production 2007-2018

In 2018, the amount of cotton-seed oil produced worldwide stood at 5.7M tonnes, going up by 2.7% against the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.0% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations over the period under review. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2011 with an increase of 6.5% y-o-y. The global cotton-seed oil production peaked in 2018 and is likely to continue its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, cotton-seed oil production stood at $7.4B in 2018 estimated in export prices. Over the period under review, the total output indicated a modest increase from 2007 to 2018: its value increased at an average annual rate of +1.0% over the last eleven years. The trend pattern, however, indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2012 with an increase of 24% y-o-y. The global cotton-seed oil production peaked at $9.4B in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, production failed to regain its momentum.

Production By Country

The countries with the highest volumes of cotton-seed oil production in 2018 were India (1.6M tonnes), China (1.4M tonnes) and Pakistan (470K tonnes), together accounting for 61% of global production. These countries were followed by Brazil, Australia, Uzbekistan, the U.S., Turkey, Burkina Faso and Myanmar, which together accounted for a further 26%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of cotton-seed oil production, amongst the main producing countries, was attained by Australia, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Exports 2007-2018

In 2018, approx. 168K tonnes of cotton-seed oil were exported worldwide; picking up by 17% against the previous year. In general, cotton-seed oil exports, however, continue to indicate a mild slump. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when exports increased by 18% y-o-y. In that year, global cotton-seed oil exports reached their peak of 234K tonnes. From 2009 to 2018, the growth of global cotton-seed oil exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, cotton-seed oil exports amounted to $144M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, cotton-seed oil exports, however, continue to indicate a temperate deduction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when exports increased by 18% year-to-year. In that year, global cotton-seed oil exports attained their peak of $237M. From 2009 to 2018, the growth of global cotton-seed oil exports remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Exports by Country

The U.S. (47K tonnes) and Australia (42K tonnes) represented the key exporters of cotton-seed oil in 2018, resulting at approx. 28% and 25% of total exports, respectively. Kazakhstan (16K tonnes) held a 9.7% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by Malaysia (5.7%). The following exporters – Benin (7,036 tonnes), Argentina (6,725 tonnes), Azerbaijan (5,989 tonnes), South Africa (5,630 tonnes), Burkina Faso (4,310 tonnes) and Brazil (3,637 tonnes) – together made up 20% of total exports.

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

In value terms, the largest cotton-seed oil markets worldwide were the U.S. ($42M), Australia ($25M) and Kazakhstan ($14M), together accounting for 56% of global exports.

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

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average cotton-seed oil export price amounted to $857 per tonne, declining by -2.4% against the previous year. In general, the cotton-seed oil export price continues to indicate a mild descent. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2010 an increase of 6.8% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the average export prices for cotton-seed oil attained their maximum at $1,012 per tonne in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was South Africa ($1,396 per tonne), while Azerbaijan ($558 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Imports 2007-2018

Global imports stood at 141K tonnes in 2018, picking up by 14% against the previous year. Overall, cotton-seed oil imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 with an increase of 36% year-to-year. The global imports peaked at 162K tonnes in 2013; however, from 2014 to 2018, imports failed to regain their momentum.

In value terms, cotton-seed oil imports totaled $132M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Overall, cotton-seed oil imports continue to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 when imports increased by 33% year-to-year. Over the period under review, global cotton-seed oil imports attained their peak figure at $155M in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, imports stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Imports by Country

In 2018, Mexico (16,353 tonnes), Malaysia (14,348 tonnes), Australia (13,963 tonnes), Saudi Arabia (12,915 tonnes), Tajikistan (11,277 tonnes), South Africa (8,493 tonnes), Nigeria (8,024 tonnes), Germany (6,365 tonnes), Canada (6,355 tonnes), India (6,036 tonnes), Uzbekistan (5,582 tonnes) and Kyrgyzstan (4,855 tonnes) were the major importers of cotton-seed oil in the world, achieving 81% of total import.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main importing countries, was attained by Saudi Arabia (+85.1% per year), while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Australia ($16M), Malaysia ($15M) and Mexico ($15M) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2018, with a combined 35% share of global imports. These countries were followed by Tajikistan, Nigeria, Canada, South Africa, Germany, India, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, which together accounted for a further 40%.

In terms of the main importing countries, Tajikistan experienced the highest rates of growth with regard to imports, over the last eleven-year period, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The average cotton-seed oil import price stood at $939 per tonne in 2018, dropping by -2.4% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the cotton-seed oil import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 an increase of 18% year-to-year. Over the period under review, the average import prices for cotton-seed oil reached their maximum at $1,116 per tonne in 2010; however, from 2011 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Canada ($1,220 per tonne), while Saudi Arabia ($6.6 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.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, EU Trade, Global Trade Daily

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

September 26th, 2019 Ben Bidwell Leave a comment

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

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

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

Up to $25 billion worth of EU goods at stake

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

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

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

5 key questions to insulate your supply chain

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

-Do you have a plan to cover the costs?

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

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

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

-Will you need to increase your customs bond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Are your product classifications current and accurate?

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

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

-Do you have the support you need?

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

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

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

If you only employ one strategy…

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

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

____________________________________________________________

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

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

U.S. Broadwoven Fabric Imports Bounced Back in 2018 Due to Rising Supply from India

September 25th, 2019 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the broadwoven fabric market in the U.S. amounted to $3.6B in 2018, remaining constant 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). Over the period under review, broadwoven fabric consumption continues to indicate a measured drop. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2014 with an increase of 3.7% y-o-y. In that year, the broadwoven fabric market attained its peak level of $4.3B. From 2015 to 2018, the growth of the broadwoven fabric market remained at a somewhat lower figure.

Broadwoven Fabric Production in the U.S.

In value terms, broadwoven fabric production amounted to $3.5B in 2018. In general, broadwoven fabric production continues to indicate a measured downturn. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2014 with an increase of 3.9% against the previous year. In that year, broadwoven fabric production reached its peak level of $4.1B. From 2015 to 2018, broadwoven fabric production growth failed to regain its momentum.

Exports from the U.S.

In 2018, the amount of broadwoven fabric exported from the U.S. stood at 251 tonnes, shrinking by -56.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, broadwoven fabric exports continue to indicate a drastic contraction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2017 with an increase of 191% year-to-year. In that year, broadwoven fabric exports reached their peak of 571 tonnes, and then declined slightly in the following year.

In value terms, broadwoven fabric exports amounted to $2.8M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. Over the period under review, broadwoven fabric exports continue to indicate a drastic shrinkage. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 with an increase of 100% year-to-year. In that year, broadwoven fabric exports attained their peak of $5.2M, and then declined slightly in the following year.

Exports by Country

Viet Nam (212 tonnes) was the main destination for broadwoven fabric exports from the U.S., accounting for a 85% share of total exports. Moreover, broadwoven fabric exports to Viet Nam exceeded the volume sent to the second major destination, China (13 tonnes), more than tenfold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Chile (5 tonnes), with a 2% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume to Viet Nam totaled +255.8%. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: China (+17.8% per year) and Chile (+186.0% per year).

In value terms, Viet Nam ($2.1M) remains the key foreign market for broadwoven fabric exports from the U.S., comprising 74% of total broadwoven fabric exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by China ($238K), with a 8.6% share of total exports. It was followed by Colombia, with a 3.5% share.

From 2013 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value to Viet Nam totaled +157.6%. Exports to the other major destinations recorded the following average annual rates of exports growth: China (+20.4% per year) and Colombia (+63.4% per year).

Export Prices by Country

The average broadwoven fabric export price stood at $11 per kg in 2018, surging by 21% against the previous year. Over the period under review, the broadwoven fabric export price, however, continues to indicate a moderate shrinkage. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2018 when the average export price increased by 21% against the previous year. The export price peaked at $13 per kg in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Colombia ($22 per kg), while the average price for exports to Chile ($7.5 per kg) was amongst the lowest.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was recorded for supplies to China, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced a decline.

Imports into the U.S.

Broadwoven fabric imports into the U.S. amounted to 9.2K tonnes in 2018, surging by 2.9% against the previous year. Overall, broadwoven fabric imports, however, continue to indicate a drastic reduction. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2015 when imports increased by 7.1% year-to-year. In that year, broadwoven fabric imports attained their peak of 13K tonnes. From 2016 to 2018, the growth of broadwoven fabric imports failed to regain its momentum.

In value terms, broadwoven fabric imports totaled $69M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018. In general, broadwoven fabric imports, however, continue to indicate a deep contraction. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2018 when imports increased by 3.7% y-o-y. Over the period under review, broadwoven fabric imports attained their peak figure at $97M in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, imports remained at a lower figure.

Imports by Country

China (3.3K tonnes), Pakistan (2.6K tonnes) and India (2.6K tonnes) were the main suppliers of broadwoven fabric imports to the U.S., together accounting for 93% of total imports.

From 2013 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by India, while the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest broadwoven fabric suppliers to the U.S. were China ($22M), Italy ($17M) and India ($12M), together comprising 73% of total imports.

In terms of the main suppliers, Italy recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to imports, over the last five-year period, while the other leaders experienced a decline.

Import Prices by Country

The average broadwoven fabric import price stood at $7,535 per tonne in 2018, remaining constant against the previous year. Over the period under review, the broadwoven fabric import price, however, continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2017 when the average import price increased by 17% y-o-y. The import price peaked at $8,246 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2018, import prices failed to regain their momentum.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was Italy ($61,521 per tonne), while the price for Pakistan ($4,146 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Milliken & Company, Tk Holdings, BGF Industries, BP Amoco Chemical Company, Glen Raven, Albany International, Polartec, Astenjohnson, National Presto Industries, Culp, Burlington Industries, Xerium Technologies, Propex Operating Company, Westpoint Home, Jay Franco & Sons, Cone Denim, The Hallwood Group Incorporated, Galey & Lord, Hyosung Usa, R B Pamplin, Westpoint International, Collins & Aikman Products Co., Nvh, Nouveau Verre Holdings, Itg Holdings

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

U.S. Wet Corn Exports Rose for the Third Consecutive Year

Wet Corn Production in the U.S.

Exports from the U.S.

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports into the U.S.

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Companies Mentioned in the Report

Still an Important Cash Crop

Peeling Away Trade Protections

Second Banana

Banana Splits

Going Bananas

Try Hanging with a New Bunch

Hastening trade imbalance

Options for low-cost sourcing plentiful

A battle worth waging – along with friends and allies

New Regulations for TID Companies Effective February 2020

Non-Controlling Covered Investments

Global Impact: How Does This Affect My Business?

Consumption By Country in Asia

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Asia

Production in Asia

Production By Country in Asia

Harvested Area in Asia

Yield in Asia

Exports in Asia

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports in Asia

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Consumption By Country in Eastern Europe

Market Forecast 2019-2025 in Eastern Europe

Production in Eastern Europe

Production By Country in Eastern Europe

Producing Animals in Eastern Europe

Yield in Eastern Europe

Exports in Eastern Europe

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports in Eastern Europe

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Consumption By Country

Market Forecast 2019-2025

Production 2007-2018

Production By Country

Exports 2007-2018

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports 2007-2018

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Up to $25 billion worth of EU goods at stake

5 key questions to insulate your supply chain

-Do you have a plan to cover the costs?

-Will you need to increase your customs bond?

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

-Are your product classifications current and accurate?

-Do you have the support you need?

If you only employ one strategy…

Broadwoven Fabric Production in the U.S.

Exports from the U.S.

Exports by Country

Export Prices by Country

Imports into the U.S.

Imports by Country

Import Prices by Country

Companies Mentioned in the Report

most viewed today