CITA OKs four more safeguards on China apparel

CITA OKs four more safeguards on China apparel    The U.S. Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) has approved four more safeguard cases against China, covering man-made fiber shorts, non-knit (woven) shirts, man-made fiber trousers, and combed cotton yarn.
   All four were filed as threat-based cases in October 2004. CITA had been blocked from approving them by an injunction issued Dec. 30 by the Court of International Trade in New York. A federal appeals court stayed that injunction in April.
   CITA's approvals 'validate the U.S. textile industry's prediction that China would surge into the market in a disruptive way. We are gratified that the U.S. government approved these cases. Failure to act would have cost tens of thousands of U.S. jobs,' said Auggie Tantillo, executive director of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC), a group supporting the interests of U.S. domestic apparel and textile manufacturers.
   AMTAC cited figures from the U.S. Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) showing that the volume of U.S. imports from China, through April 2005, had increased 287 percent in man-made fiber trousers, 364 percent in man-made fiber shirts, 292 percent in non-knit shirts, and 78 percent in combed cotton yarn.
   'The U.S. textile industry has six other safeguard cases pending. We urge the U.S. government to approve them under the fastest timetable allowed by the safeguard procedures,' Tantillo said.
   U.S. importers of apparel expressed a different view of CITA's latest safeguards. 'This outrageous and unjustified action only proves how right the importers were to go to court to challenge the textile program,' said Laura E. Jones, executive director of the United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA).
   'The U.S. is rushing to act, not even allowing the public the opportunity to finish submitting comments on the issue of market disruption. That only proves that the fact-finding process is a farce,' Jones said.
   She questioned whether the United States can later add a finding of market disruption after it presents its formal request and statements of justification of threat-based safeguards to the Chinese government. 'The U.S. found out the hard way once before, losing a textile case at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the mid-1990s, that WTO rules don't allow you to add new arguments after the fact. The U.S. can't say it finds threat now and then add market disruption later,' Jones said.
   The Court of International Trade is considering a lawsuit filed against the United States by USA-ITA, charging that CITA acted illegally in considering the imposition of safeguards based solely on a threat that imports would increase after the lifting of apparel quotas at the end of 2004.