On February 26, 2021, the Coalition of American Manufaturers of Mobile Access Equipment, consisting of JLG Industries Inc. and Terex Corporation, filed antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions against U.S. imports of certain mobile access equipment, which consists primarily of boom lifts, scissor lifts, material telehandlers, and subassemblies thereof, from China. Mobile access equipment is used to lift persons, tools, equipment, materials, other cargo up in construction, warehouse, agricultural, and facility maintenance applications.
Although many are waiting to see what the Biden Administration will do with Trump’s trade policies (will the Trump tariffs be lifted?), other trade actions are still being filed by domestic industries seeking relief from imports. This latest AD/CVD case on mobile access equipment from China looks like a case where U.S. producers probably got squeezed by Trump’s tariffs that increased the costs and affected the availability of steel and other parts needed to manufacture the mobile access equipment here in the United States. With the additional burden of Trump tariffs increasing their costs of production, it became harder for U.S. producers to compete with Chinese imports of mobile access equipment who did not have to deal with such extra tariff costs. The trickle down effect of Trump’s tariffs has resulted in downstream U.S. manufacturers seeking their own protection from competing imports, which ultimately will be paid for by the consumers who purchase such products.
Below is a summary of the AD/CVD petitions on mobile access equipment from China
The petition proposes the scope of the merchandise to be covered by these AD/CVD investigations as certain mobile access equipment which consists primarily boom lifts, scissor lifts, material telehandlers, and subassemblies thereof. Mobile access equipment combines a mobile (self-propelled or towed) chassis, with a direct, mechanically connected device for lifting peersons, tools and/or materials, capable of reaching a working height of ten feet or more, and a coupler that provides an attachment point for the lifting devise, in addition to other components.
The scope also includes subassemblies such as scissor arm assemblies, boom assemblies, chassis frame or frame sections, and boom turntable assemblies.
The scope excludes forklifts, mobile self-propelled cranes, and motor vehicles that incorporate a scissor arm assembly or boom assembly.
See the proposed scope definition for a complete description of the physical characteristics of the covered merchandise, and the HTS numbers that may be used to import the subject merchandise.
2. Alleged AD/CVD Margins.
Petitioner calculated estimated dumping margins of up to 86.56%.
Although Petitioner alleged numerous government subsidy programs that benefitted the Chinese mobile accesss equipment industry, Petitioner did not allege a specific subsidy rates.
3. Named Exporters/ Producers
Petitioner included a list of companies it believes are producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. See attached list here.
4. Named U.S. Importers
Petitioner included a list of companies it believes are U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. See attached list here.
5. Estimated Schedule of Investigations.
February 26, 2021 – Petitions filed
March 18, 2021 – DOC initiates investigation
March 19, 2021 – ITC Staff Conference
April 12, 2021 – ITC preliminary determination
July 26, 2021 – DOC CVD preliminary determination (assuming extended deadline) (5/22/21 – unextended)
September 24, 2021 – DOC AD preliminary determination (assuming extended deadline) (8/5/21 – unextended)
February 6, 2022 – DOC final determination (extended)
March 23, 2022 – ITC final determination (extended)
March 30, 2022 – DOC AD orders issued (extended)
Under U.S. trade laws, a domestic industry can petition the U.S. Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to investigate whether the named subject imports are being sold to the United States at less than fair value (“dumping”). For AD duties to be imposed, the U.S. government must determine not only that dumping, but also that the subject imports are causing “material injury” or “threat of material injury” to the domestic industry.