Our Top Picks

"...there is an opportunity to appeal through the higher courts. Our legal team will evaluate what the basis was for those decisions and why those four commissioners decided that and if there is an opportunity for appeal, I think we will pursue that."

"If imports from China were to have an injurious effect on the domestic industry, one would expect the increasing volume of such imports to drive down prices in the United States. But imports from China, on average, do not underprice domestic MLWF... An affirmative finding of injurious dumping and/or subsidization from the USITC tomorrow would require disregard of these and other crucial facts and would warrant closer scrutiny of the antidumping regime." 

Commerce ruling issued, Floor Covering Weekly, 5-20-2011

"...antidumping rate of only 10.88% for majority of suppliers...from China while two of the Mandatory respondents received a rate of only zero percent. The China-wide preliminary rate is 82.6 percent but may only apply to a small number of companies.  Jonathan Train, president of the AFCJF, said, 'The fact that the third Mandatory received a rate of only 5% of what the Petitioners had originally demanded proves our point that the Petitioners' claims were exaggerated and wildly inaccurate.'"

Also see:  Letter to the Editor, Floor Covering Weekly, 5 23-2011

"How the petitioners perceive their self-interest has perplexed us from get-go:  It's confusing because one of the petitioners currently imports engineered flooring from China and resells under their brand in the U.S. Another petitioner actually helped establish the flooring manufacturing industry in China and currently uses U.S. prison labor to make its products in the U.S. Still another petitioner is building a factory in China."

From China, an end run around tariffs, The Washington Post, 5-23-2011

“..in January 2005, the Commerce Department slapped import tariffs on Chinese-made beds, nightstands and related wares [in the Furniture Antidumping Case]. ... [The result is that] The number of Americans now employed making bedroom furniture is less than half what it was when the tariffs began... The only Americans getting more work as a result of the tariffs are Washington lawyers.”

"The U.S. firms seeking the duties include Shaw Industries, a maker of carpet and other flooring based in Dalton, Ga., and owned by Berkshire Hathaway Inc., the investment company headed by Warren Buffett. ...Six of the eight U.S. manufacturers seeking the duties in recent years also have imported Chinese flooring and distributed it along with their domestically made products."

“Production will simply shift to Russia, Ukraine, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brazil, Europe etc… So the whole objective of the duty is pointless… Despite having production facilities in the USA, 10 of the 12 US complainers in the filing are amongst the largest importers from China to begin with. They actually helped train, set up and support the very competition they are now complaining about…distributors and other direct companies have dedicated years…to developing a world class supply chain. That investment is exactly what the complainers are targeting. They know that the business itself will not come back to them, but they want to interrupt the global supply chain to gain an advantage. Gaining a competitive edge is cool with us, but doing it by whining to the government and manipulating the process is self serving and not honorable.”

Cautionary tale for the flooring industry -- Petitioners in furniture case extract millions in cash payments from rivals in dumping case, Wall Street Journal, 2-14-2011

“Some U.S. furniture makers…have found a reliable way to extract cash from Chinese competitors deemed by U.S. officials to have 'dumped' their products… About $13 million was paid to a group of 20 U.S. furniture makers from 2006 through 2009… Two of six ITC commissioners expressed misgivings about the payments. Commissioner Charlotte Lane said …that she was ‘very, very troubled’ by the settlements, adding: ‘I cannot figure out for the life of me how they are actually legal’… Commissioner Daniel Pearson said the settlements create ‘additional costs and distortions’ in furniture trade, ‘with little evidence that these distortions have yielded any benefits to the industry overall, the U.S. consumer, or the U.S. taxpayer.’"

The Truth About China’s 'Dumping' Practices, SupplyChainBrain, 1-31-2011

“The real victims of the charade aren’t the Chinese, who can find alternative markets for their products….It’s independent U.S. importers and distributors, who can’t compete under Commerce’s draconian rules. Domestic producers are determined to drive foreign competitors out of the market, Perry claims, and in many cases they’re succeeding."

Antidumping case to profoundly affect flooring market, Floor Covering Institute, 12-12-2010

“A major concern is the disruption to our industry and the amount of management time that…will have to spend on this issue - at a time when all their energies are surely needed elsewhere. Competition from the Chinese has spurred many US manufacturers to improve processes and efficiencies but the recent market decline means they haven’t seen positive outcomes yet. Will the outcome give a significant boost to domestic manufacturers? Or, will it do more damage than good?”

About Antidumping and CVD laws

“After investigating the impacts of the antidumping initiative between 2005 and 2009, the ITC determined that the antidumping order should stay in effect. Interestingly, however, the report revealed that the antidumping duties did little to protect U.S. manufacturers, which now face just as large a threat from Vietnam.”

Economic Self-Flagellation: How U.S. Antidumping Policy Subverts the National Export Initiative, Cato Institute, 6-31-2011

“One major oversight of the NEI [President Obama’s National Export Initiative] is its failure to include any sensible reforms to the U.S. antidumping regime. Four out of every five U.S. antidumping measures restrict imports of inputs consumed by downstream U.S. producers in their own production processes… Those downstream companies are more likely to export and create jobs than are the firms that turn to the antidumping law to restrict trade…The NEI should include a serious commitment to antidumping reform.”

Death by Antidumping, Forbes, 1-3-2011

“…the U.S. antidumping regime undermines U.S. manufacturing, penalizes U.S. exporters, and diminishes chances for achieving the administration’s goal of doubling exports in five years.”

The U.S. Antidumping Law -- a U.S. Jobs Destroyer, IndustryWeek, 3-17-2011

"Antidumping cases do not work. They do not help U.S. companies injured by imports. As ITC Commissioner Pearson recently stated in the December 2010 ITC determination in the Furniture from China Sunset case, "In this particular investigation, additional costs and distortions have been added by the use of the administrative review and settlement process, with little evidence that these distortions have yielded any benefits to the industry overall, the U.S. consumer, or the U.S. taxpayer.""

What Price Protectionism?, International Wood Products Association (IWPA), 5-3-2011

"...what do you think is going to happen if punishing duties are placed on flooring imports? China flooring companies will cease buying U.S. woods which they use in manufacturing flooring that is exported back to the American market and around the world. Losing or reducing this export opportunity to China is going to severely impact an industry already facing significant trouble...Reduced global demand for their lumber, lower prices for their lumber, no wonder sawmillers are concerned...U.S. consumers consumers will find fewer choices when shopping. And do you really think flooring manufacturers will lower prices now that they have less competition? " 

Wall Street Journal has it right on magnesium tariffs, blog by Senator Claire C. McCaskill (D-MO), responding to Wall Street Journal editorial 1-4-2011

“Antidumping duties are supposed to ensure that U.S. businesses are not undercut by unfair trade practices. But typically they raise prices on the many to benefit the few, costing more jobs than they protect.” 

"...the U.S. antidumping apparatus was gradually captured by interested parties, and the law transformed from one predicated on protecting consumers and preserving competition into a tool that suppresses competition in the name of remedying ‘injury’ done to domestic producers…”

Congress should tackle antidumping reform, Forbes, 12-21-2010

“…influential constituencies…have mastered the use of antidumping as a bludgeon to cripple the competition… Antidumping measures always raise the costs of firms in downstream industries…The law routinely claims domestic firms as victims…is often used as a tool by domestic firms waging battle for supremacy over other domestic firms. Rarely does the law lead to job creation or job restoration in the domestic industry. And never is the allegation of ‘unfair trade’ substantiated, or even investigated. Myth and misinformation explain the persistence of the U.S. antidumping regime.”