Taxes are imposed when the degree of hydrolysis exceeds 80%? Technology and trade game in the US PVA anti-dumping case
Jun 09, 2025
The US International Trade Commission determined, in accordance with the Tariff Act of 1930, that the revocation of the anti-dumping duty order on certain Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) originating in China, Japan and South Korea imported into the United States may cause substantial damage to the US industry. In 2002, Celanese and DuPont launched anti-dumping investigations against the above countries. In 2003, the ITC decided that Japanese imports were a risk for injury, but they left out Germany. They also excluded China's Sichuan Weiye Company because it didn't meet the required standards at the time. On the other hand, they found that Shanghai Volkswagen was indeed dumping. In July and October 2003, the United States officially imposed anti-dumping duties on PVA from China, Japan and South Korea.
ITC clearly defined the "domestic similar products" of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) in the review. According to the Tariff Act, similar products refer to products that are similar or most similar to the investigated goods in terms of characteristics and uses. The Ministry of Commerce has limited the scope of the investigation to PVA with a degree of hydrolysis exceeding 80%, while excluding 15 specific forms of PVA.
PVA is a water-soluble synthetic polymer in the form of white particles or powders, and its properties are mainly determined by the degree of hydrolysis, viscosity and molecular weight. In terms of production process, PVA is produced by hydrolysis of vinyl acetate monomers under the action of a catalyst after polymerization. In the USA, PVA is captively consumed or sold to end users primarily as an intermediate in the production of PVB, which is a plastic laminate used as an adhesive between panes of automotive safety glass or load-resistant architectural glass. PVA is also sold to end users (and occasionally to distributors) for use in the textile and paper industries in sizing formulations(such as PVA 098-08 & PVA 1099); as a binder in adhesive and soil binding formulations（such as PVA 088-20 & PVA 1788); and as an emulsion or polymerization aid in colloidal suspensions, water-soluble films, cosmetics, and joint compounds (such as KURARAY POVAL 17-94).
Although different grades of PVA have differences in specific applications, the committee believes that all PVAs with a degree of hydrolysis exceeding 80% should be considered as the same type of product. This decision is based on three main points: first, all types of PVA share the same basic chemical makeup; second, different grades of PVA can be swapped for each other in many cases; and third, the way they are made and the materials used are pretty similar. It's important to note that while end users tend to stick to one specific grade of PVA to keep costs down, this habit doesn't change the fact that the product itself is quite uniform.
In this review, the Commission stuck with the product definition from the original investigation for two reasons: major manufacturers like Celanese and DuPont agreed with it, and the market hasn’t changed much since then. This decision also continues the Commission's position in the original investigation, that is, not to classify PVB-grade PVA into different product categories.
Website: www.elephchem.com
Whatsapp: (+)86 13851435272
E-mail: admin@elephchem.com
BACA SELENGKAPNYA
Jaringan IPv6 didukung
