A softened stance on softwood lumber?
Lumber dealers hoping for an agreement between the U.S. and Canada over softwood lumber imports received mixed signals on Monday. In the first news flash, products from three eastern provinces of Canada were excluded from the U.S. investigation into possible dumping or subsidizing of exports.
But that's about where a softer stance on imports ends. Also on Monday, the Commerce Department said it moved closer to imposing anti-dumping dutes on Canadian softwood lumber imports. In accordance with Monday's "affirmative preliminary determination," the new duties range from 4.59% to 7.72%, and they push total duties on the imported products into a range from about 17% to just over 30%.
"The United States is committed to free and fair trade, as seen today with the preliminary decision to exclude softwood lumber from the Canadian Atlantic Provices in the ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty cases," said Secretary Wilbur Ross. "While I remain optimistic that we will be able to reach a negotiated solution on softwood lumber, until we do we will continue to vigorously apply the AD and CVD laws to stand up for American companies and their workers."
Back in April, the U.S. announced a plan to slap tariffs of about 20% on Canadian lumber, a move criticized by the National association of Home Builders, among others. Some lumber dealers have expressed concern over the availability of lumber to fuel a housing recovery, plus the price volatility that the uncertainty fosters.
In 2016, imports of softwood lumber from Canada were valued at an estimated $5.66 billion, according to Commerce Department figures.
The Department of Commerce is currently scheduled to announce its final anti-dumping determination on Sept. 7, 2017.
On Monday, the Commerce Department announced softwood lumber products produced in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island are excluded from the investigation. The decision is preliminary.
“I am pleased to announce that my staff has determined the exclusion of these products is appropriate,” said Ross. “The U.S. petitioners and other parties support this determination; it of course will be subject to further comment on the record. A final decision on the matter is expected by late summer."
