Displaying items by tag: International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa

Several of South Africa’s cement and concrete producers joined up in early March 2021 to form an industry association called Cement & Concrete SA (CCSA). The Concrete Institute, Concrete Society of Southern Africa and the Association of Cementitious Material Producers established the organisation to, “take the lead on all matters relating to cement and concrete in South Africa.” Setting up an organisation like this takes time and it fits with the move in recent years of thinking about the whole building materials chain rather than just focusing on one part. The country is also in the first phase of its carbon tax and no doubt producers feel they need to make a renewed effort to fight their corner. Other aspects such as promoting the ‘value creation story’ of the cement and concrete industry in South Africa, research and training also makes sense.

The timing here is compelling due to the ongoing review of anti-dumping measures that were levied by the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC) upon imports by Pakistan-based cement producers. Local media in South Africa reported that ITAC started reviewing the tariffs in December 2020 in a process expected to take up to 18 months in duration. As reported in January 2021 (GCW 489), imports to the country fell after ITAC introduced tariffs in 2015 but they have started to edge up since then, particularly from producers in other countries such as Vietnam and China. Separately, the CCSA may have scored an early victory with the news that its application that government-based infrastructure projects should only use locally-produced cement was working its way through the government.

Looking at the general market, PPC reported ‘muted’ sales of cement in April and May 2020 due to the country’s first coronavirus-related lockdown from late March 2020. Similar to some other countries, construction projects halted and cement plants stopped producing. However, the market bounced back as the restrictions were relaxed with strong sales from June 2020 to September 2020 for the leading producer. It noted that the increase in volumes was mainly due to consumer retail although it noted that government infrastructure cement demand was also starting to be felt. PPC’s cement sales volumes fell by 5 – 10% in South Africa and Botswana from April to June 2020 but then rose by 20 – 25% from July to September 2020. The continuation of this sales momentum was also noted in October and November 2020. Dangote Cement’s operations in the country reported a similar situation, with sales up by 7% year-on-year in the first nine months of 2020 due to a surge in home improvement related demand after the first lockdown ended. Similar to PPC, it reckoned that demand increased by 25 - 30% year-on-year in the third quarter of 2020 as limitations in travel and entertainment led to some people saving money instead.

After the summer sales bounce, producers were soon complaining about rising import levels in the autumn of 2020 with volumes catching up with the amounts recorded in 2019. Hence the ITAC review is a timely reminder of the perils facing local producers.

South Africa’s general coronavirus experience has been an outlier compared to the rest of Africa with higher cases and deaths reported. Yet, it’s still reported lower per capita rates than many comparable countries in Europe and the Americas. Like the UK and Brazil, the country also holds the dubious distinction of having a coronavirus variant named after it. Its cement market appeared to snap back with pent up demand following the lifting of restrictions in common with other countries that implemented tougher public health rules. At which point the importers caught up again a few months later. The effects of South Africa’s second wave of coronavirus led to a lockdown in late December 2020. The effects upon building materials sales are likely to be less drastic than previously because this lockdown has had lighter restrictions compared to March 2020. Surrounded by all of this, the CCSA has sure picked a busy time to start work.

Cement imports were one of the themes in this week’s news, with stories on the topic from South Africa and Ukraine. The former concerned the latest chapter in that industry’s saga on slowing down imports. The International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) has started a review on tariffs imposed on cement from Pakistan that were introduced in 2015.

Local producers in South Africa have experienced mixed fortunes since 2015, such as PPC and AfriSam’s failed merger attempt or the introduction of a local carbon tax, and were starting to complain again about imports even before the effects of coronavirus in 2020. This led the Concrete Institute to lobby ITAC in 2019 about rising imports from other nations, principally Vietnam and China.

Back in 2013 cement imports from Pakistan to South Africa were 1.1Mt. This represented the vast majority of all imports to the country. Tariffs of 14 – 77% were imposed on Pakistan-based exporters in mid-2015, initially for six months, but this was then extended. Roughly a year later in mid-to-late 2016, Sephaku Holdings said that imports of cement had ‘significantly’ declined on a year-on-year basis, particularly from Pakistan. By the end of June 2016 approximately 0.16Mt had been imported compared to 0.5Mt in the previous period. However, it noted that 75% of the volume was from China. Since then imports started to creep up. Cement imports reportedly rose by 84% year-on-year in 2018 and then by 11% in 2019. Data from construction industry data company Industry Insight suggests that Vietnam accounted for 70% or 0.47Mt of the 0.68Mt of cement imported into South Africa in the first nine months of 2020. The remaining 30% or 0.20Mt came from Pakistan. In this kind of environment it seems unlikely that ITAC will do anything other than extend tariffs.

Meanwhile in the northern hemisphere, in Ukraine this week a court in Kiev dismissed a challenge by the Belarusian Cement Company to remove cement import tariffs from Russia, Belarus and Moldova that were introduced in mid-2019 for five years. Notably, a law firm representing Dyckerhoff Cement Ukraine, HeidelbergCement Ukraine, Ivano-Frankivsk Ukraine and CRH subsidiary Podilsky Cement commented favourably upon the court’s decision to uphold tariffs. These producers form UKRCEMENT, the association of cement producers of Ukraine. However, the association doesn’t include Russia-based Eurocement, which operates Ukraine’s largest cement plant at Balakleya. Relations have been poor between Russia and Ukraine since a war between the countries that started in 2014. So any trade tariffs implemented upon Russia and/or Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) members will inevitably carry the whiff of geopolitics. Yet, in Ukraine’s defence, it also started an anti-dumping investigation into cement imports from Turkey in September 2020. Nationalism may be relevant but let’s not discount hard-nosed economics just yet.

Turkey’s involvement in Ukraine leads to last week’s presentation at Global Cement Live by Sylvie Doutres, DSG Consultants on cement and clinker trade in and out of the Mediterranean region. Readers can watch the presentation here but the headline story here was the trend of reducing exports away from southern European countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece, to greater exports from North African countries and Turkey over the last decade. Turkey particularly has pushed its share of exports even more in 2020 despite (or perhaps because of) a tough domestic market. The general trend here away from southern Europe has been blamed on European Union-based (EU) producers becoming less competitive often against newer plants in nearby countries.

Battles between producers and government tariff policies are a perennial feature of any market in commodities such as cement. The ebb and flow of import and export markets cover many factors including production costs, distribution networks, tariff structures and more. Distinctive features of cement trading, for example, are the high cost of transporting heavy building materials over land and the world’s chronic cement production overcapacity. In the EU’s case one reason that often gets blamed is the emissions trading system (EU ETS) and the mounting cost it is imposing upon cement production. For example, today’s story that Holcim España wants to convert its integrated Jerez plant into a grinding unit has been blamed on falling exports and a reduction in ETS credits. It is noteworthy then that the EU ETS rate breached the Euro30/t level in December 2020. This may be good news for the sustainability lobby but the exodus of exports away from Southern Europe tells its own story. What form the EU ETS carbon border adjustment mechanism takes as part of the EU Green Deal will be watched closely by producers both inside and outside the EU.

Global Cement Live continues on 21 January 2021 with Kevin Rudd, Independent Cement Consultants, presenting 'Independent or third party factory acceptance testing of major cement plant equipment and critical spare parts and the challenges of Covid’

South Africa: The International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) started a ‘sunset’ review in December 2020 of import tariffs imposed on cement from Pakistan. The investigation will last up to 18 months, according to Moneyweb. Existing anti-dumping duties, which were first implemented in 2015, will remain in place during proceedings.

The review by ITAC follows lobbying by the Concrete Institute (TCI) in 2019 to add additional protection against imports of cement from other countries like Vietnam. Construction industry data company Industry Insight reports that Vietnam accounted for 70% or 0.47Mt of the 0.68Mt of cement imported into South Africa in the first nine months of 2020. The remaining 30% or 0.20Mt came from Pakistan.

South Africa: The Concrete Institute says that the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) should impose a temporary ban on cement imports to protect the local industry. The institute is preparing an application to the commission, according to the Business Daily newspaper. Bryan Perrie, its managing director, said that imports from Pakistan dropped in 2016 after tariffs were introduced. However, this has been replaced by imports from China and Vietnam. He added that prices have dropped ‘drastically,’ especially in coastal areas, that this is starting to effect jobs and cement producers are delaying expansion plans. The Concrete Institute represents PPC, AfriSam, Lafarge Africa, Sephaku and Natal Portland Cement.

South Africa: The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) has confirmed to Pretoria News that Longkou Fanlin Cement had been approved for sale in the country. However, the mandate is only part of the process the Chinese cement producer needs to secure to allow it to import cement into the country.

Thato Chabeli, the interim group manager of marketing, public relations and communications at SAB, confirmed to local press that ‘two schemes’ for Longkou Fanlin Cement had been approved by the SABS. He added that the trade body had not received any other applications from Chinese cement producers. The SABS certifies cement as being compliant with the South African compulsory specification before it can be sold in the domestic market. However, Chabeli, added that the Chinese cement producer also needed to secure a letter of approval from the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) before the company would be permitted to export its cement to South Africa. The NRCS has not responded to queries by local press on the matter.

Industry commentators have compared potential cement imports from China to those of Pakistan. Local cement producers filed a dumping complaint with the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) about cement imported into South Africa from Pakistan. ITAC made a final determination in December 2015 on the anti-dumping duties and imposed duties ranging between 14.29 - 77.15% on cement imported from Pakistan. Subsequently, cement imports to South African from Pakistan fell by 30% year-on-year. The Pakistan government has since approach the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for arbitration on the dispute.

South Africa: Lucky Cement has filed papers in the High Court in Pretoria contesting a 14.29% provisional antidumping duty imposed in May 2015 on its cement exports to the Southern African Customs Union (SACU). The Pakistan-based cement producer has accused the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) of failing to consider the losses suffered by producers due to a Competition Commission ruling on a cement cartel, according to Business Day. ITAC intends to oppose the motion.

ITAC imposed provisional anti-dumping duties of 14.3 – 77.2% on Portland Cement originating in or imported from Pakistan from 15 May 2015 for six months. The duty was imposed on bagged cement.

"The breaking up of anticompetitive behaviour must have resulted in more normal competition in the industry with resulting lower prices and tighter margins," said Lucky Cement chief financial officer Muhammad Faisal. "It was illogical and irrational for ITAC to attribute 100% of the injury to the SACU cement industry to Pakistani exports."

Faisal also objected to ITAC's decision to retrospectively limit its inquiry to only bagged cement. The dumping margin placed on Lucky Cement was based on all its cement sales whereas ITAC focused only on bagged cement in SACU.

The Competition Commission imposed a fine of US$9.3m on Afrisam and US$11.1m on Lafarge in 2011 and 2012 respectively, after concluding that a cement cartel did exist. It estimated its intervention would save consumers US$335 – 454m for the period 2010 to 2013.

Pakistan: The Pakistan government is working on two options to challenge South African anti-dumping duties on Pakistani exports of cement. The first step will be to hold bilateral consultations with the South African government to resolve the anti-dumping duties favourably. Failing that, then the Pakistan government has the option to take the issue to the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation (WTO), according to an official from the Pakistan National Tariff Commission (NTC).

The International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC) imposed provisional anti-dumping duties of 14.3 – 77.2% on Portland Cement originating in or imported from Pakistan from 15 May 2015 for six months. The duty was imposed on bagged cement.

According to local media, Lucky Cement, the major supplier to South Africa with a 55% market share, seems to have had sales volumes little affected by the anit-dumping measure due to its low duty. However, Attock Pakistan, the second largest supplier with a 35% market share, has been the worst hit due to its high anti-dumping duty. Pakistani cement exporters are exploring other markets in southern Africa.

Pakistan: Cement producers in Pakistan are considering sourcing their coal from Indonesia instead of South Africa. The move is in response to an on-going investigation initiated by the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) on alleged dumping of Portland Cement from Pakistan.

The ITAC intends to finish its investigation by the end of January 2015 with the introduction of a preliminary antidumping duty on import of Pakistan cement in South Africa, according to Pakistan local media. Pakistan's Ministry of Commerce has also raised the matter with its South African counterpart in the meeting of Joint Trade Commission (JTC) of the two countries in South Africa in November 2014 but so far no consensus has been reached between the two countries.

Industry sources have said that five to six Pakistan-based exporters of cement constitute the biggest buyers of South African coal. Pakistan is the third largest buyer of coal from South Africa after China and India. Local cement makers collectively import 3Mt/yr of coal worth US$240m from South Africa and export around 1.3Mt/yr of cement worth US$120m.

South African authorities have started a new investigation into imports of cement from Pakistan. This time the inquiry will examine trade dumping allegations made by local producers including Afrisam, Lafarge, NPC Cimpor and PPC.

The application made by the cement producers provided evidence that the difference between the price of cement (the dumping margin) in Pakistan and for imports from Pakistan in 2013 was 48%. Or, in other words, the price of Pakistan cement imported to South Africa was nearly half that of what is was being sold for in the country that it was actually produced in.

The data submitted to the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa comes from a report by Genesis Analytics on Pakistan cement prices in 2013 and tax information from the South African Revenue Service. Neither source is readily available for more detailed analysis here but data released by XA International Trade Advisors suggests that cement imports from Pakistan rose to 1.1Mt/yr in 2013 and at a value of US$59m. Roughly, this gives a price of US$55/t. This compares to an average price of US$90/t, from the All Pakistan Manufacturers' Association for the first nine months of the 2012 – 2013 Pakistani fiscal year, giving a dumping margin similar to the allegation by the South African cement producers.

Separate industry sources quoted by the Pakistan media on the story reported that the country supplies 1.5 - 1.6Mt/yr of cement to South Africa, its biggest export market, receiving a revenue of US$125m. Although this suggests a dumping margin lower than the one presented to the authorities it is still high.

Other information of note in the investigation notification is that the Pakistan cement imports are only competing heavily with the local bagged cement market in the Southern African Customs Union, which also includes neighbouring Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. The notification discounts bulk cement imports from Pakistan as being 'prohibitively' expensive suggesting that the Pakistan cement producers have no import infrastructure in southern Africa or that something else is stopping them. For example, the country's market leader for production, Lucky Cement, has export facilities in Karachi with silos and automatic ship loaders. Yet it's only 'brick-and-mortar' presence overseas are projects building an integrated plant in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a grinding plant in Iraq.

It may also be worth considering that South African industry newcomer Sephaku Cement hasn't joined the dumping allegation. The Dangote subsidiary was set to start producing clinker in late August 2014. This is out of character considering how prominent the Nigerian-based cement producer has been in campaigning against imports to its home nation. However, the Aganang plant in Lichtenburg, North West Province is over 700km from the coast and presumably safe from foreign imports at present.

One final question occurs. How are Pakistan cement producers able to dump bagged cement on the South African market at prices lower than what they are selling it for at home? If individual producers sold their excess at home at a lower price they could potentially undercut their competitors and make a profit. There are many barriers, from input costs to industry structural issues and other reasons that may be preventing this. However, if the South African cement producers succeed in their latest attempt to block imports from Pakistan it may add more impetus to remove such barriers.