On Friday, January 9, 2004 the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that there is a "reasonable indication" that domestic producers of wooden bedroom furniture have been "materially injured" as a result of imports from China. The petitioners are seeking duties as high as 440% on imports of wooden bedroom furniture, which, in turn, could cause retail stores m ajor supply disruptions, and their customers short term price volatility, as well as limit their access to affordable wooden bedroom sets.

The case is an attempt by a group of domestic furniture manufacturers to restrict access to Chinese imports and sever relations with other domestic manufacturers who work cooperatively with Chinese companies. Some manufacturers have adjusted well to the global market. (To illustrate, the largest domestic furniture producer, Furniture Brands, is actively opposing the petition.)

Numerous domestic producers benefit from imports and have been importing Chinese bedroom furniture for years. Ironically, many of the manufacturers who filed the case were responsible for establishing the Chinese furniture export industry years ago.

The real targets of the domestic furniture producers' actions are not Chinese imports themselves, but American retailers and importers who have now established their own sources of product from China, eliminating middleman profits, and thereby saving customers millions of dollars. The question in this ITC case is, "who will limit access to imported furniture?" not, "how will we save U.S. jobs?" Contrary to the domestic producers' claims of protecting and returning jobs to the U.S., these same domestic producers are already setting up importing programs in other countries such as Brazil, Chile, Vietnam and Indonesia. These actions undermine the claims of  "returning jobs" to the U.S.