GI sheet makers rap DTI reporting

A group of galvanized iron (GI) sheet manufacturers has assailed the Department of Trade and Industry for alleged "erroneous" reporting on the legal dispute over product standards.

A spokesman for the group clarified that Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Rosemarie Carandang did not junk their petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the enforcement of Philippine National Standard (PNS) 67 for zinc-coated GI sheets.

"Contrary to DTI dispatches, a TRO was in fact issued by the court after we proved that enforcement of an unconstitutional and illegal administrative order, PNS 67, would cause irreparable injury to our firms and our workers," Bienvenido Dulce, executive vice president of Sonic Steel Industries Inc., said.

Sonic Steel, along with Group Steel Corp., Richardson Steel Corp. and Tower Steel Corp., earlier asked the court to stop the DTI from conducting market sampling, issuing derogatory press statements and from confiscating pure zinc-coated roofing materials from sales outlets.

Although the TRO was good only for five days, Dulce said the judge has set a hearing on their application for a more extensive preliminary injunction that would restrain the DTI from enforcing PNS 67 until the court finally rules on its constitutionality.

In their petition, the four GI sheets makers alleged that DTI mandatory standards for zinc-coated GI sheets violated the "equal protection clause" of the Constitution.

They pointed out that their competitors that manufacture pre-painted and aluminum-zinc coated GI sheets are subject only to voluntary standards.

"The results is that manufacturers of pre-painted and aluminum-coated sheets are not subject to sanctions even if they do not comply with standards, precisely because the standards applicable to them are voluntary," Dulce said.

"In our case, however, we are being subjected to mandatory standards under pain of sanctions. That is totally unfair," Dulce pointed out.

"Our competitors are able to sell cheaper products since they do not have to comply with mandatory requirements on the thickness and coating of the roofing materials they offer to consumers," Dulce added.

Petitioners also questioned the validity of the DTI sanctions meted out to manufacturers that do not comform to PNS 67. They said the National Administrative Register had certified that PNS 67 was never published pursuant to the Administrative Code.