PIA Statement on U.S. Department of Commerce Anti-Dumping Investigation on Coated Free Sheet Paper
WASHINGTON, DC—June 8, 2007—The U.S. Department of Commerce recently announced its affirmative preliminary determination in the ongoing anti-dumping (AD) investigation of imported Coated Free Sheet (CFS) paper, setting rates ranging from 23 to 99 percent in China, 0 to 30 percent in South Korea, and 10.85 percent in Indonesia. Following the March announcement of affirmative preliminary determinations of tariffs in the concurrent Countervailing Duties investigation, this is yet one more blow to domestic printers sure to be impacted by pricing and supply dynamics of the CFS paper market. The investigation was initiated by one U.S.-based paper supplier, NewPage Corporation; the industry as a whole did not petition for this investigation.
The Printing Industries of America (PIA) has filed comments with the ITC opposing expansion of the investigation and also opposing the imposition of countervailing duties against the Chinese, Korean, and Indonesian paper sources. For more information on PIA’s advocacy efforts on this issue, please visit www.gain.net.
The following statement is from Michael Makin, President & CEO of Printing Industries of America/Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (PIA/GATF):
“PIA is disappointed to learn of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s affirmative preliminary determinations in the ongoing antidumping duty investigations on Coated Free Sheet (CFS) paper imported from China, Indonesia, and Korea. Following the March announcement of affirmative preliminary determinations of tariffs in the concurrent Countervailing Duties investigation, this is yet one more blow to domestic printers sure to be impacted by pricing and supply dynamics of the CFS paper market.”
“PIA remains concerned that the Commerce Department and the Administration did not adequately consider the data above (much of which was submitted in formal comments during the initial investigation proceedings) as it made the preliminary affirmative decisions, and we remain concerned that such consideration will not be made fully prior to the final determinations. We hope that this is not the case.”