Foreign-trade disputes rise to most since ’01, tally shows

U.S. companies are lodging new trade lawsuits against their foreign competitors with a scope and frequency not seen in more than 15 years, government documents show, as a wave of new complaints builds under President Donald Trump.

A Washington Post analysis of Commerce Department data found 23 new trade disputes initiated since January, making 2017 the busiest year for tariff cases since 2001. The new cases target trade between the United States and 29 countries, the most in any year since 2001.

The cases include fights over South Korean washing machines, Spanish olives, Chinese aluminum foil, Vietnamese tool chests, Argentine biodiesel and Canadian jetliners. The U.S. trade disputants include financially strapped solar panel manufacturers, downsizing Rust Belt steel plants and declining California olive farms.

Several requests came from companies that are under foreign ownership. And in a shift from previous years, some profitable corporations are asking the government to place new restrictions on their foreign rivals, taking advantage of a recent change in federal law.

The surge of complaints comes as the White House moves to redefine America’s role in the global economy.

“At President Trump’s direction, we have told American businesses that we will be more enforcement minded than any recent administration, while also remaining committed to a fair and transparent process that is professionally and impartially implemented,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in an emailed statement. “They know we will stand with American workers in the face of unfair trade practices.”

Tariff cases typically start when U.S. companies formally accuse foreign competitors of “dumping” products in the United States at unfairly low prices or benefiting from unfair subsidies, or both. Then the Commerce Department and a quasi-judicial U.S. agency called the International Trade Commission decide what to do.

Ross has said he wants the government to file more cases on its own, something that could let companies save on legal expenses. The Commerce Department took its first step in that direction in a November tariff action against sheet-metal distributors in China, the first government-initiated action since 1985.

The Washington Post’s count of 23 new disputes in 2017 is based on the number of petitioners placing new tariffs; if for example a single U.S. company asks for tariffs on products from 10 countries, the Post treated it as a single new dispute even though such an action would spur 10 Commerce Department investigations.

Some companies are pushing for price quotas, which forbid foreign firms from selling below a given price. And in two cases this year, three companies have invoked a powerful and seldom-used U.S. trade lever called the “safeguard” provision, which imposes blanket taxes on products regardless of the country of origin.

Such cases are unique in that they require a direct signoff from the president; before Trump took office, no company had asked to be safeguarded in this way since 2001.

The U.S. companies seeking tougher import duties argue that trade restrictions are needed to level the economic playing field and sustain American jobs.

For instance, a Washington state paper company, North Pacific Paper, is accusing Canadian competitors of flooding the U.S. market with less expensive products.

Meanwhile, two familyowned olive farm conglomerates, Bell-Carter Foods and Musco Family Olive, are asking the Commerce Department to counteract Spanish olive farmers that they say are propped up by an elaborate system of farm subsidies there.

A coalition of U.S. biodiesel manufacturers claims rivals in Indonesia and Argentina are selling their products in the United States at unfairly low prices. It says the Argentine government also is giving tax breaks to exporters to unfairly subsidize the industry.

Two companies asking for blanket “safeguard” protection — Georgia-based Suniva and Oregon’s SolarWorld USA — are solar panel manufacturers that make photovoltaic cells.

Over the past few years, they claim a flood of less-expensive components from Chinese solar manufacturers has put them at a disadvantage; the two companies have since filed for bankruptcy and have laid off thousands.

Their claim, however, does not have the backing of others in their industry: The trade group Solar Energy Industries Association opposes the tariff, which it argues will cause 88,000 jobs to be lost elsewhere in the industry. The International Trade Commission ruled in SolarWorld’s and Suniva’s favor in October, but the two companies said the duties it recommended are too small.

Others seeking tariffs are not suffering nearly as badly. The third company asking for broader safeguard protection — Chicago-based home appliances giant Whirlpool — logged $5.4 billion in sales this year.

But Whirlpool’s profit margins have been dwindling for years, in part because it claims it is losing market share in a key product category — washing machines — to South Korean manufacturers LG and Samsung. Whirlpool argues they have been dumping washing machines in the United States for years and moving their production centers around the world to avoid earlier tariffs.

In arguing against tariffs, the foreign companies have pointed out that they also employ Americans.

“No one should doubt our commitment to creating jobs in the U.S. We have been marketing our products here for nearly 40 years and have more than 18,000 workers,” Samsung senior vice president John Herrington said in a statement rebutting Whirlpool’s tariff request.