The Food Institute Report | July 9, 2001 In an effort to increase antidumping duties on imported apple juice concentrate from the People's Republic of China, the U.S. apple industry has formally requested the Commerce Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duties announced last May, [See FOOD INSTITUTE REPORT, May 22, 2000, page 9, for earlier story]. Most suppliers in China have been subjected to a 52% levy although some were levied as little as 9.4%. The duties are subject to review annually for five years, with this request from the apple industry marking the first anniversary of the imposition of these duties. Commerce will now review and if needed, recalculate the dumping margins for shipments from each supplier since Nov. 23, 1999. If those margins are found to be insufficient, new margins will be announced and importers will be required to make up the difference on those shipments. Preliminary results are expected to be announced in March 2002, and final results by June of that year.
The review request was spearheaded by the U.S. Apple Association, McLean, VA, whose President and CEO, Kraig R. Naasz, noted, "We have suffered severe losses due to dumped imports of Chinese concentrate, and we intend to avail ourselves of every legal opportunity to safeguard our livelihoods against the abuse of our nation's trade laws."
In a press release from U.S. Apple, the association notes that China re-emerged as the leading supplier of apple juice concentrate to the U.S. this spring, shipping 15 million single strength equivalent gallons during the first quarter of 2001 at prices of $ 3.75-$ 4.00 per gallon of concentrate - "the same price at which Chinese concentrate was being sold in the U.S. market when the apple industry decided to pursue and antidumping complaint three years ago."
Last month, U.S. Customs announced it had developed means of determining the country of origin of various commodities, including apple juice concentrate, which it is employing to investigate possible circumvention of antidumping duties. See FOOD INSTITUTE REPORT June 25, page 22, for details.The Food Institute Report:
