The menacing trade remedies laws have done their share to breed cynicism about U.S. free trade rhetoric. But this greeting on the website of the most recent U.S. petitioner is apropos of the tone conveyed by those laws.
Pretty scary, huh? Not as scary as being an importer of Chinese-manufactured, off-road tires, nowadays.
Having been acquainted with that grizzly, you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Titan Tires, one of the biggest American manufacturers of tires for agricultural machines, went on the offensive Monday, when it (along with several labor unions) filed petitions with the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department for relief from allegedly subsidized and dumped import competition from China.
To win trade relief, Titan et. al. will need to demonstrate that the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized or dumped imports. It’s generally not very hard to satisfy the meager statutory thresholds for demonstrating injury, but what is so absolutely stunning to those naïve enough to expect a modicum of justice from the process is how petitioners can distort the truth with impunity before the ITC.
Although most of the crucial economic facts are redacted from the public version of this latest petition (which is accessible on the ITC’s website), here is a sample of the injury argument presented therein. From page 18:
As the table below shows, Titan’s domestic production, capacity utilization, shipments and employment data all demonstrate current material injury.
Then there is a table with the relevant data for the periods 2004–2006 redacted. Then, on page 19:
Titan’s financial data regarding its certain OTR tire operations also indicate the company is experiencing material injury.
Then there is another table with the financial data redacted.
So how can one know, without seeing those numbers, that petitioners are taking liberties with the truth? Well, beyond the grizzly on Titan’s website is a list of SEC filings, in which the company presents an entirely different assessment of its performance and prospects. Here’s the annual report from 2006, and here are some excerpts:
The Company recorded sales of $679.5 million for 2006, which were 45% higher than 2005 sales of $470.1 million. The significantly higher sales level was attributed to the expanded agricultural product offering of Goodyear branded farm tires and the expanded earthmoving, construction and mining product offering of Continental & General branded off-the-road (OTR) tires… Income from operations was $22.0 million for 2006 as compared to $12.0 million in 2005.
So the company’s sales were 45 percent higher in 2006, and its operating profits were 83 percent higher. The company’s first quarter 2007 10‑Q filing reveals continued revenue and operating profit growth in 2007.
Titan is also having difficulty keeping up with growing U.S. demand:
Due to capacity constraints at Titan’s Bryan, Ohio, OTR tire facility, the Company is adding OTR tire capacity at its Freeport, Illinois, and Des Moines, Iowa, facilities.
Capital expenditures for 2006, 2005 and 2004 were $8.3 million, $6.8 million and $4.3 million, respectively. Capital expenditures in 2006 were used primarily for updating manufacturing equipment, expanding manufacturing capacity and for further automation at the Company’s facilities. Capital expenditures for 2007 are forecasted to be approximately $16 million to $18 million and will be used to enhance the Company’s existing facilities and manufacturing capabilities including additional capacity for OTR tire production.
Adding production capacity is not typical behavior for a company that is under assault by injurious imports. Adding capacity to the tune of more than doubling the previous year’s capital investment reflects confidence in the company’s future prospects. And confident, Titan should be:
As of January 31, 2007, Titan estimates $171 million in firm orders compared to $122 million at January 31, 2006, for the Company’s operations.
Titan’s 2006 Annual Report also boasts that $100 invested in Titan in 2001 would have been worth $436.47 at the end of 2006, whereas the same investment in the S&P 500 index would have been worth $135.03. That is some very impressive performance.
Of course, contrasting the dire self-assessments of industries petitioning for trade relief with the upbeat assessments of industries seeking to attract investors has been a favorite pastime of trade remedies’ observers. It’s been a running joke within the international trade bar that lying to the SEC lands you in jail, while lying to the ITC lands you protection from foreign competition.
