Importers Worried about Vietnam Trade Bill

A group of heavy hitters in the retail and apparel industry is mounting a major campaign to protest antidumping measures, which are part of a bill to grant Vietnam permanent normal trade relations, a precursor for entering the World Trade Organization.

The bill took a major step forward on Sept. 29 when Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina withdrew their opposition to the measure giving Vietnam trade advantages. This followed promises by U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez that they would protect the U.S. apparel and textile industry from unfairly priced cheap goods coming from Vietnam.

The Commerce Department said it would monitor textile imports from Vietnam to make sure that country wasn’t dumping goods at below cost on the U.S. market. In a departure from the past, the government promised to file antidumping cases, which historically are costly and have been undertaken by private industries affected by dumped goods.

Apparel importers are afraid this is just another way for the government to curb imports now that quotas have been eliminated among all 149 countries that belong to the World Trade Organization.

Representatives of big name apparel makers and importers, such as Liz Claiborne Inc., Gap Inc., J.C. Penney Inc., Eddie Bauer, Polo Ralph Lauren, and the National Retail Federation, had a conference call on Oct. 5 to discuss sending a letter opposing the government’s involvement in antidumping cases.

“No one would do business with Vietnam if the government undertakes antidumping cases,” said Laura Jones, executive director of the United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel in New York. The cases would create a threat of antidumping duties as high as 90 to 100 percent on goods imported from Vietnam next year. “Nobody knows what their final cost will be,” Jones noted.

One major Southern California chainstore retailer said such antidumping measures would mean grave consequences for the firm’s multimillion-dollar business because it could be applied to other countries such as China or India. “We are supposed to be freeing up trade and making it less complicated. This is a vestige of the past,” said the retail executive, who requested anonymity. “You need stability. You need assurances you can land this garment during the third quarter at this price.”

Congress is expected to vote on the trade bill when it reconvenes after the November elections. —Deborah Belgum