MODEX Day Two: Coronavirus Impacting More than Just Trade Operations

Archives, Global Trade Daily, In The News

MODEX Day Two: Coronavirus Impacting More than Just Trade Operations

March 11th, 2020 GT Staff Leave a comment

Day two for MODEX 2020 concluded with industry players addressing the now-notorious coronavirus and what this means for both domestic and international markets fortunate enough to continue operations without disruption. From what we learned during the session, “Coronavirus and Global Supply Chains” the wave currently felt in China, Italy, and beyond, will eventually make its way to the U.S. and companies have no reason not to be prepared.

Researcher Philip J. Palin, John Paxton with MHI, and David Shillingford with Resilience360 took the unsettling topic head-on and addressed concerns without hesitation. Traders be aware: for domestic and untouched international markets, the worst isn’t over. The coronavirus creates more than just health concerns. It impacts trade operations, legal concerns, and causes financial turmoil as we’ve already started to see.

“The virus is the primary cause of the supply chain impact but the secondary causes coming from the virus include financial, regulatory, compliance, and legal,” explained Shillingford. “Another risk to think about is workforce risk. How many of the workers that left for Chinese New Year have been able to come back, and for those that have returned, are they able to work with open factories or are they still under quarantine?”

“The good news is, the extraordinary supply and demand disruption we’re discussing in terms of China is being released. It’s slow but it’s happening and it’s giving us a benchmark of for how long domestic disruption will be,” Palin stated after announcing the first containership from China arrived at the Port of Los Angeles in almost 10 days on Monday.

Shillingford goes on to explain the shifting patterns in consumer behavior as well, noting that due to worldwide panic, demand is shifting and challenging the logistics sector. Buying habits have undoubtedly changed in recent weeks along with mindsets. Interactions are now limited to a fist-bump or elbow touch rather than a handshake and the numbers of public events cancelled are going up.

“Other things we are seeing involve personnel movement. It’s not just transportation impacted,” Shillingford added.

On the legal side of the crisis, Chinese suppliers are having an issue with certificates and contractual obligations. Shillingford urges industry players to understand the importance of knowing if suppliers have been issued force majeure slips.

“One thing supply chains hate is variance, and there’s going to be a lot of variance and volatility on the demand side,” he concluded.

What does all this mean for the U.S.? At the end of the day, it’s a matter of preparation and strategizing for the more fortunate markets without the disruption of a complete shut-down.

“There was a hidden, horrible problem in the Hubei province that required a draconian measure to prevent transmission of the virus. We should be ahead of that curve as well as the rest of the world, even with this very contagious virus,” explained Palin. “And even if we are behind that curve, we don’t have 300 million workers separated from their place of work.”

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Stories

The Impact of the Coronavirus on U.S. Trade Proceedings

March 9th, 2020 Mark Ludwikowski Leave a comment

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has had an undisputed impact on health and travel around the globe during the past two months. It has also stifled trade with China, where it originated. The pressure from tariffs and the ongoing trade war is beginning to shift to pressure from supply chain disruptions caused by the coronavirus. Importers and manufacturers that source from China have been particularly affected, as have maritime, construction, and global supply chain entities. But as trade with China has taken a hit, how have U.S. agencies handled the administration and enforcement of ongoing proceedings involving China?

Of all U.S. federal agencies with oversight over trade with China, the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) is perhaps the most directly involved. The DOC administers antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing (“CVD”) cases, as well as Section 232 tariffs that target Chinese imports. The Office of the United States Trade Secretary (“USTR”) administers the Section 301 tariffs specifically targeting China.

The virus has had a lesser impact on the administration of Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs because this is handled almost entirely in Washington. However, in AD/CVD cases DOC officials must regularly travel to China to conduct onsite verifications of Chinese producers examined in these proceedings. The DOC is currently overseeing nearly 200 ongoing AD/CVD cases against China. Of these, new investigations require verifications, and in the remaining annual reviews the DOC must verify Chinese producers at least once every three years. Each verification takes at minimum a week and involves two or three officials. That adds up to significant travel to China during an average year.

So how has the DOC been mitigating the impact of the virus on its ability to administer trade remedy proceedings? For one, many AD/CVD verifications have been put on hold indefinitely due to health concerns and because major airlines have suspended flights to China. This can be good or bad depending on which side of the case one is (i.e., U.S. companies that brought the cases vs. the importers that have to pay the duties). If the case is likely to result in high margins, importers and their Chinese suppliers would likely want verification so that they can personally prove to DOC officials that they are not dumping and do not receive illegal subsidies. On the other hand, if the AD/CVD margins are projected to be low, then U.S. producers may want the Chinese producers verified, and conversely the latter would prefer not to be audited.

The DOC has also been generous about granting extensions for submissions to Chinese respondents in AD/CVD cases. The agency recognizes that responses to its questionnaires require access to information which has been difficult for Chinese employees to access. Many of them are in quarantined areas and unable to get to work, let alone respond to DOC’s requests. Chinese legal counsel and accountants that regularly support respondents in DOC’s proceedings also are less able to reach their clients.

The DOC may even consider a less conventional approach – tolling of AD/CVD cases. Tolling would allow for ongoing proceedings to be paused or delayed. There is little precedent for such action in response to a foreign emergency or crisis. The DOC last tolled deadlines in its proceedings during the U.S. government shutdown in January 2019. But that was necessitated by domestic federal government concerns. With the coronavirus, a close comparison could be made to the 2004 Asian tsunami crisis, but that event did not necessitate tolling of DOC’s AD/CVD cases involving shrimp from Thailand and India whose seafood industries were decimated.

The DOC has the discretion to toll its deadlines. However, an action that changes AD/CVD duties would require Congressional approval. Hence pleas for a reduction in such duties would face an uphill effort and encounter resistance from domestic producers (as it did when Thailand asked to have dumping duties on its shrimp reduced after the tsunami).

Although the coronavirus itself appears to have become a non-tariff barrier, the Trump Administration has given no indication of backing off its trade deal reached with China in January. Under the agreement, China promised to increase purchases of U.S. crops and meat products by $20 billion in 2020 in exchange for a reduction or delay on current tariffs. Indeed, in late February, USTR Robert Lighthizer and Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue insisted that the Administration will hold China accountable for its commitments, even as the outbreak disrupts global supply lines.

_______________________________________________________________

*Mark Ludwikowski is the leader of the International Trade practice of Clark Hill, PLC and is resident in the firm’s Washington D.C. office. He can be reached at 202-640-6680 and mludwikowski@ClarkHill.com

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

DRIVING CONGRESS TO ACT ON NATIONAL SECURITY TARIFFS

March 9th, 2020 Ed Gerwin Leave a comment

Volkswagen GTI is turbocharged with room for…tariffs?

The Volkswagen Golf GTI is a perennial winner of Car and Driver’s 10Best award. The German-built sport hatchback combines “speed, handling, build quality, an attractive interior, and room for the family,” all for under $30,000. Car and Driver raves about the GTI’s turbocharged engine and notes it’s a formidable challenger to competing “hot hatches.”

Apparently, the U.S. Department of Commerce believes that the GTI poses another challenge — maybe a turbocharged threat to America’s national security.

In a still-confidential 2019 report, the Department reportedly found that imported autos like the GTI “threaten to impair the national security” and recommended that the president impose tariffs as high as 25 percent.

All revved up

The president would enact these tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. As TradeVistas’ Andrea Durkin has detailed, Section 232 is a little-used Cold War-era law under which Congress delegated broad authority to the president to restrict imports for national security reasons. The law is also the basis for current controversial duties on steel and aluminum.

The proposed tariffs have generated opposition from vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, economic analysts and members of Congress. The Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers notes that a 25 percent tariff on autos and parts would raise the price of an average imported car by an estimated $6,000 (and add $2,000 to a U.S.-built car) while potentially leading to the loss of over 600,000 American jobs. The Association of Global Automakers (now merged with the Auto Alliance to form the Alliance for Automotive Innovation) questions how passenger cars and light trucks are relevant to national security, suggesting that “America does not go to war in a Ford Fiesta.” Statements from Administration officials suggest that the “national security” justification for auto tariffs may be a pretext to gain negotiating leverage in other contexts.

Congress may put the brakes on Presidential tariffs

With the possible exception of avid inventor Ben Franklin, America’s founders would be astounded by the GTI. They might be equally astonished, however, by the Trump Administration’s assertion of broad authority to impose tariffs. After fighting a revolution against “taxation without representation,” the founders believed it was vital to entrust the power to impose tariffs and other taxes to the people’s representatives. Specifically, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests Congress with the “power to lay and collect taxes [and] duties.”

Since 1934, after its disastrous experience with the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, Congress has increasingly delegated specific trade and tariff powers to the president, subject to a variety of limitations. Presidents have generally used these powers judiciously and to reduce tariffs to expand trade. For example, when President Kennedy signed the 1962 Trade Expansion Act (which enacted Section 232), he emphasized the importance of opening trade and reducing trade barriers and warned against “stagnating behind tariff walls.”

President Trump has taken a maximalist approach to his delegated powers to impose tariffs, particularly for “national security” reasons. In response, Congressional critics from both parties point out that under the Constitution, Congress should be the ultimate driver of tariffs, not the president.

Other concerns with the Administration’s application of national security tariffs include a lack of transparency in determining tariffs and administering tariff exclusions, its use of an overly broad definition of national security, and the cascading impacts on U.S. producers from higher metal prices. Legal experts are also concerned that the Administration did not follow the law when it imposed new tariffs on derivative steel products (including nails and bumpers) and when it extended its review of auto tariffs when time limits under Section 232 have likely expired.

Time for a trade law tune-up?

Congress could rein in presidential national security tariffs by simply repealing Section 232. However, even critics of current tariffs recognize that there are circumstances where the president might need authority to adjust trade in response to national security threats. Accordingly, Congress has focused instead on bipartisan proposals to place additional limits on the president’s ability to employ Section 232.

The Trade Security Act of 2019, introduced by Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Representative Ron Kind (D-WI), would bifurcate the Section 232 process. The Department of Defense (DoD) would first investigate whether there is a national security basis for restricting imports of an article. If DoD finds that an article poses a security threat and the president decides to act, the Commerce Department would then recommend tariffs or other measures to address the threat. The Portman-Kind bill would also enable Congress to disapprove any Section 232 trade restriction imposed by the president through a resolution of disapproval that would itself be subject to a veto by the president. This legislation would not impact current Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum.

The Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019, introduced by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) would also require DoD to take the lead in investigating whether an article poses a national security threat, while also adopting a tighter definition of national security. Notably, under this legislation, no proposed Section 232 action by the president could take effect unless Congress first passes a resolution of approval. The Toomey-Gallagher bill would also (i) repeal current steel and aluminum duties unless Congress passes an expedited resolution of approval, (ii) direct the independent U.S. International Trade Commission to report to Congress on the economic impacts of Section 232 actions, and (iii) require that the USITC administer the tariff exclusion process for future Section 232 actions.

Getting out of neutral

For the past year, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been attempting to meld the Portman and Toomey bills into a compromise measure that would attract veto-proof majorities in Congress. Despite considerable bipartisan support, Grassley notes that this effort has faced two challenges. First, there’s opposition from Republicans who see the legislation as a rebuke of President Trump. Second — as any student of U.S. trade history could have predicted —interests that benefit from new national security tariffs are now lobbying intensely to retain these tariffs. Despite this opposition, Grassley has vowed to continue efforts to enact Section 232 reform in 2020.

More potholes ahead?

Meanwhile, Volkswagen’s GTI and other imported autos will continue to face the threat of national security tariffs. And that threat won’t necessarily subside if a Democratic president takes office next year. Some Democrats have already proposed using the Trump Administration’s expansive reading of Section 232 to advance their own policy goals — particularly to address the climate crisis. Carbon-emitting autos like the GTI would be a prime target for new tariffs.

The GTI was designed for Germany’s smooth, high-speed autobahns. When it comes to U.S. national security tariffs, however, the GTI’s road ahead may continue to be full of potholes.

_________________________________________________________________

Ed Gerwin is a lawyer, trade consultant, and President of Trade Guru LLC.

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

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Germany’s Gypsum Plaster Production Grew for the Fifth Consecutive Year in 2018

March 9th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the plaster market in Germany amounted to $208M in 2018, increasing by 3.8% 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).

The market value increased at an average annual rate of +1.2% over the period from 2007 to 2018; however, the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being recorded over the period under review. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 with an increase of 21% y-o-y. Plaster consumption peaked at $239M in 2016; however, from 2017 to 2018, consumption stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Market Forecast to 2030

Driven by increasing demand for plaster in Germany, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +1.8% for the period from 2018 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 2.5M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production in Germany

Plaster production in Germany amounted to 3.3M tonnes in 2018, levelling off at the previous year. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.5% over the period from 2007 to 2018; the trend pattern remained consistent, with somewhat noticeable fluctuations being observed in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 with an increase of 11% against the previous year. Over the period under review, plaster production attained its maximum volume in 2018 and is likely to see steady growth in the near future.

In value terms, plaster production stood at $326M in 2018 estimated in export prices. In general, plaster production continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern.

Exports from Germany

In 2018, the amount of plaster exported from Germany totaled 1.4M tonnes, falling by -4.1% against the previous year. Over the period under review, plaster exports attained their maximum at 1.4M tonnes in 2012; however, from 2013 to 2018, exports remained at a lower figure.

In value terms, plaster exports totaled $100M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Exports by Country

The UK (308K tonnes), Belgium (259K tonnes) and the Netherlands (155K tonnes) were the main destinations of plaster exports from Germany, with a combined 13% share of total exports.

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

In value terms, the largest markets for plaster exported from Germany were Switzerland ($16M), Belgium ($14M) and the UK ($13M), with a combined 7.1% share of total exports.

The UK recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of exports, in terms of the main countries of destination over the period under review, while exports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Export Prices by Country

In 2018, the average plaster export price amounted to $74 per tonne, jumping by 6.7% against the previous year. Overall, the plaster export price, however, continues to indicate a mild descent. The pace of growth appeared the most rapid in 2013 an increase of 29% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the average export prices for plaster reached their peak figure at $107 per tonne in 2009; however, from 2010 to 2018, export prices stood at a somewhat lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was Switzerland ($130 per tonne), while the average price for exports to the UK ($43 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 Belgium, while the prices for the other major destinations experienced mixed trend patterns.

Imports into Germany

In 2018, the amount of plaster imported into Germany totaled 112K tonnes, growing by 14% against the previous year. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.6% 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 2017 when imports increased by 34% y-o-y. Imports peaked in 2018 and are expected to retain its growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, plaster imports amounted to $10M (IndexBox estimates) in 2018.

Imports by Country

Austria (45K tonnes), Belgium (36K tonnes) and France (14K tonnes) were the main suppliers of plaster imports to Germany, with a combined 2.4% share of total imports. The U.S., the Netherlands, the UK and Poland lagged somewhat behind, together accounting for a further 0.3%.

From 2007 to 2018, the most notable rate of growth in terms of imports, amongst the main suppliers, was attained by the U.S., while imports for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, France ($3.8M) constituted the largest supplier of plaster to Germany, comprising 0.7% of total plaster imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Austria ($1.6M), with a 0.3% share of total imports. It was followed by Belgium, with a 0.3% share.

From 2007 to 2018, the average annual growth rate of value from France amounted to +4.5%. The remaining supplying countries recorded the following average annual rates of imports growth: Austria (-0.6% per year) and Belgium (+1.6% per year).

Import Prices by Country

The average plaster import price stood at $91 per tonne in 2018, declining by -13.2% against the previous year. In general, the plaster import price continues to indicate a mild shrinkage. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 when the average import price increased by 31% year-to-year. In that year, the average import prices for plaster attained their peak level of $136 per tonne. From 2009 to 2018, the growth in terms of the average import prices for plaster remained at a somewhat lower figure.

There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major supplying countries. In 2018, the country with the highest price was France ($267 per tonne), while the price for Austria ($36 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

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

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily

10 Tips for Cutting Costs and Improve Customer Service in Supply Chain Logistics

March 6th, 2020 Kurt Walker Leave a comment

As organizations continue to create and source raw materials from overseas, controlling expenses remains the number one priority for players involved in international trade.

One critical factor that executives should monitor closely is logistics management. This sector covers important activities relating to procurement, transport, and storage of goods. In most industries, supply chain logistics account for 5% to 50% of a product’s total cost.

Some of the issues that affect logistics costs include fuel prices, complex international trade laws, and security. High transportation fees are mainly caused by high fuel prices delays in ports. Complex international trade laws increase warehousing costs by lengthening delivery times.

As technology evaluation.com reports, air-freight shipment takes about eight to twelve days. During these days, the cargo is on ф route around 5% of the time. 95% of the time is spent lying in warehouses waiting for compliance checks and documents. So, how can you cut down costs and improve customer service in supply logistics? Keep reading!

1. Use your space efficiently

Using your space efficiently will save you a lot of money in the long run. As you already know, storing your supplies in a warehouse comes at a cost. Figure out whether you are making the most out of your space or not.

You might discover other ways of finding spaces that are best suited for your business. As we’ve seen, supplies, spend most of their time in warehouses waiting for compliance checks. The more efficient you are at warehousing; the more profits you’ll generate at the end of the day.

2. Automate your processes

Organizations that use technology solutions to automate compliance processes have the power to speed up the process four times as much compared to organizations that rely on manual work. Automating tasks such as document preparation will eliminate expensive mistakes and errors.

Automating your processes also leads to fewer delays at crossing points thus resulting in timely deliveries, increased customer satisfaction and avoidance of expensive fines.

3. Inform decision-makers

According to dissertation service, providing decision-makers or your customers with the costs of freight associated with each service level, the reliability of every lane and the total cost of transporting inventory will make it easier for them to make informed decisions and work with you in the future. In most cases, your customers will select the cheapest option that complies with the laws to meet their needs.

4. Figure out the real costs of sourcing overseas

Before sourcing overseas, you need to calculate freight, brokerage, duty, and transportation costs to support these long supply chains. You should factor in other costs such as engineers flying overseas. Once you figure out the total landed cost and its impact on your business, you might discover that domestic buy is quite attractive. For instance, sourcing from Ohio to your plant in the US might be cheaper in the long run compared to sourcing from China.

5. JIT inventory management

There are many benefits to implementing Just-in-Time inventory management. With this system, you can order and receive inventory only when you need to. In the long run, this will reduce your inventory transportation costs, protect against write-downs attributed to dips and eliminate unnecessary overhead costs caused by excess inventory.

6. Sales and operations planning

For a supply chain to function at its highest efficiency, sales, and operations planning is required. Optimal performance greatly depends on creating proper plans. However, it can be complicated and expensive in the long run.

By working with a third-party logistics provider, your team will eliminate waste and redundancies thus enabling you to analyze data, forecast and enhance visibility so that everyone is involved. During the sales and operations planning process, you should address issues such as unrestrained stock-outs, obsolete inventory, inaccurate forecasts and adjusting demand and production schedules.

7. Package your products well

Packaging your products well will result in less or no damages during the shipping process. Ensuring that the people responsible for packaging your products do it properly will minimize quality costs and build your reputation. As the saying goes, it’s the smallest things that matter the most.

8. Assess your performance

You have to measure the performance of your strategies to forge the way forward. Doing business without assessing your performance regularly is a recipe for disaster. By not assessing your performance, you’ll have a hard time determining how much money you are spending and saving. Come up with your key performance indicators and gauge how well your business is doing.

9. Eliminate variability during transit times

The more variable the transit times, the higher the likelihood that the receiving party is using premium freight, ordering more quantity than is necessary to compensate for the uncertainty of creating buffers of inventory. When you understand these dynamics, you’ll realize that paying for higher freight costs will enhance variability and save your company loads of cash in the long run.

10. Choose your mode of transport.

Which mode of transport is the cheapest? Trains? Airplanes? Automobiles? In most cases, rail is cheaper when transporting bulky goods than air or trucking. Also, water is cheaper than air. Regardless of the delivery model, it’s important to get all the quotes from different modes of transport available.

Conclusion

Managing a supply chain logistics company is not the easiest thing to accomplish. You have to make the right move every time out to avoid expensive mistakes and losses. The ten tips discussed above will help you reduce your costs and grow your business. You owe it to yourself to assess your situation and determine what needs to be changed or implemented.

_____________________________________________________________

This guest post is contributed by Kurt Walker who is a blogger and college paper writer. In the course of his studies he developed an interest in innovative technology and likes to keep business owners informed about the latest technology to use to transform their operations. He writes for companies such as Edu Birdie, XpertWriters and uk.bestessays.com on various academic and business topics.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Calcium Carbonate Production in Germany Totaled 155K Mt in 2018

March 6th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

The revenue of the calcium carbonate market in Germany amounted to $126M in 2018, declining by -5.9% against the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price).

In general, calcium carbonate consumption continues to indicate a relatively flat trend pattern. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2015 when the market value increased by 34% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the calcium carbonate market attained its maximum level at $139M in 2008; however, from 2009 to 2018, consumption remained at a lower figure.