Displaying items by tag: Southern African Customs Union

South Africa: The South African cement industry is calling on the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) to probe a flood of imports into the country. South Africa, which has six cement producers and more than 30% over-capacity, has become a net importer of cement. Imports have increased by 139% since 2016, according to The Concrete Institute’s (ITC) managing director Brian Perrie.

Perrie said in an interview that TCI, representing AfriSam, Dangote Cement South Africa, Lafarge Industries South Africa, Natal Portland Cement and PPC were approaching ITAC to investigate whether the industry required protection from an 18-month surge in imports.

He said that imported cement was undercutting South African prices by as much as 45%, while local producers also had to meet the requirements of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), meet black empowerment and other social requirements and, at the same time, protect thousands of jobs in the domestic industry. Also, the recent carbon tax translated into a 2% increase in selling prices, putting the local industry at a further price disadvantage. “Trade remedy protection is required," said Perrie, pointing out that producers did not want a ‘ban’ on imports, rather some form of protection to ‘level the playing field.’

South Africa instituted anti-dumping duties of 17 – 70% against importers from Pakistan in 2015. Imports duly fell in 2016 but rose again in 2017 and 2018, mainly from Vietnam and China. Perrie said that 350,441t of cement arrived in the second quarter of 2019 alone, the most since the third quarter of 2015. Most came in through Durban (260,909t), an 85% increase on the first quarter.

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.

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.