On October 1, 2002, U.S. Commerce completed its study of an ABMA complaint filed in February 2002, deciding to impose dumping duties on ball bearings from China. The duties range from 2.39% to 59.3% in this preliminary stage and could go up or down, significantly, when the final rates are set.

In the nine months since the U.S. Commerce Department agreed to pursue the complaint, we received hundreds of comments from around the world. After the duties were announced on October 1, we asked various companies and individuals for their reactions.

Many asked for anonymity, so we've included direct comments from some, paraphrasing general opinions from others.

ABMA President, David Rohn, said, "We're gratified by the preliminary determination made by the Department of Commerce. The determination by Commerce substantiates our position that Chinese ball bearing manufacturers are dumping product into the U.S. and in some cases at a substantial margin."

SKF USA President, Sten Malmstrom, agreed with the ABMA's statement, saying, "Quite frankly, he said what I would have said ... He speaks for the whole industry."

The Timken Company said, "As a guiding principle, Timken is committed to free and fair global trade. The Timken Company has facilities in 24 countries around the world and sells product in many more. As a global manufacturer, free trade is very important to us, but that free trade must also be fair.

The events of this week are just one step in a lengthy analytical process. We will continue to monitor this closely as it progresses."

More than one respondent mentioned that the U.S. must be careful when it takes strong trade action such as levying dumping duties. In this global economy, they point out, duties and trade actions in one market often create consequences in other markets.

NSK, for example, is concerned about the effect in Europe of changes in U.S. duties:
"Low cost low spec. commodity items from China are already on the market in Europe. Sales effort on bearings from China into Europe is now likely to increase. We and our distributors will need to work harder to remind users why they need to continue to specify NSK quality bearings. Most customers are already aware of 'total costs' in relation to reliability, downtime, warranty, reputation and so on.

We will continue to encourage them to stay with top brands like NSK that represent consistent quality wherever they are made."

Others blame the problem on distortions in China's economy, primarily from the government-run businesses: "This dumping situation results from the fact that the Chinese are operating in a communist market economy. Some of these Chinese managers only figure their variable costs when pricing their bearings, because they don't have to pay for the factories that they manage for some local government. This peculiarity distorts everything."

And China's recent entry into the WTO, sponsored by the United States, got some attention: "One of the things that I have not seen is that we give them most favored nation treatment, they are in the WTO now, and they still dump bearings at below cost."

Although over 80% of the comments, especially from bearing distributors, were strongly against the duties, many say they are surprised the preliminary duties are so low.

Politics was mentioned often and never positively. "The Bush administration is protectionist to the core," wrote one. "They prop up weak steelmakers and other manufacturers in the short run with policies that destroy these industries in the long run - after they're out of office, of course." Several others pointed out that the Timken family are well-known Bush campaign donors and supporters.

Others called into question the motivation behind the complaint itself. The most common recurring theme was, "What is the ABMA pretending to protect? The low end of the U.S. bearing industry, that disappeared 20 years ago? Read the dissenting opinions in the ITC vote! It's just a grab by these companies for a piece of that big CDSOA payout. They want what Timken and Torrington got last year."

Similarly, many others questioned whether the U.S. companies are only involved because they don't yet have operations in China. "The companies suing have operations elsewhere in cheap production areas like the Czech Republic; they just want a free ride without the Chinese competition. The second we put duties on Chinese bearings, they'll flood the market with cheap bearings from their own plants in India, Taiwan, and who-knows-where."

International economics was a recurring theme from those against tariffs, most saying expensive and skilled U.S. resources are better spent making high-end bearings; protecting the U.S. industry only allows it to go on making bearings it shouldn't be making.

Some thought the basic process was sound, but needed more detailed attention in particular market segments.

Jack O'Donnell at IBSCO said, "I would like to call attention to the fact 45 Chinese producers were assigned a 22.99% dumping duty as an average of the assigned duty that the three mandatory respondents received from the investigation. I realize the need to limit the scope of the investigation, but the process used to initiate the preliminary duties on these 45 companies does not accurately portray their impact on certain segments of the bearing industry." He describes a situation in the miniature bearing market segment, then says, "I encourage all people involved in the bearing industry with knowledge of other market segments to speak up and be heard."

Finally, there was a small, but vocal, group questioning the entire process, duties or no duties. One said, "The government spends millions of tax dollars on studies, reports, having meetings, and on consultants. Attorneys bill bearing companies for more millions. A 20-cent bearing becomes a 25-cent bearing. Who cares?"