Trade Cases
USS Seeks Reversal of Suspension of Section 337 Investigation
Written by John Packard
July 17, 2016
United States Steel (USS) has filed a motion to reverse the judge’s decision to suspend the Section 337 investigation pending consultation with the Commerce Department. US Steel was not the only entity which felt the investigation should continue, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations which is part of the International Trade Commission (ITC) also filed a motion to reverse the suspension as well. We discussed the two requests with trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz who was of the opinion that US Steel has a chance to get the suspension reversed. Here is what US Steel and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations argued to the ITC:
US Steel Request
U.S. Steel argued the suspension was legally improper. The pointed to the U.S. Department of Commerce (US DOC) has already completed the antidumping and countervailing duty cases on HR, CR and corrosion resistant. The two cases pending before the US DOC are not relevant to the 337 case complaint because the stainless case is not covered by the 337 complaint and cut to length plate is not produced by US Steel and is not pertinent to the exclusion relief requested.
Office of Unfair Import Investigations
The ITC Staff argues in their documents that the Commission should review and reverse the suspension as well. They argue that the three causes of action authorized by the Commission’s institution of the investigation do not implicate the antidumping or countervailing duty laws:
1) Price fixing is not the same as a finding of dumping, because price fixing involves a conspiracy between producers, not the act of selling a product below “fair value.”
2) Theft of trade secrets is not an issue in AD/CVD cases.
3) Evasion of AD/CVD tariffs is not an issue before Commerce.rade attorney Lewis Leibowitz Comments:
“Of the three points, only 3 is a dubious argument. The other two are pretty clearly distinct from issues faced in Commerce Department trade cases. These documents suggest that the ITC could well review and reverse the suspension of the 337 case in the near future.
In addition, the disclaimers by US Steel indicate that the relief they are seeking is not nearly as comprehensive as the press and public may have believed. Certain products are not likely to be covered by any exclusion order.”
John Packard
Read more from John PackardLatest in Trade Cases
Industry piles on new Section 232 steel derivative inclusion requests
The Department of Commerce received 97 submissions from producers, manufacturers, and groups seeking Section 232 tariff coverage for steel and aluminum derivative products.
Price on Trade: New EU steel tariffs don’t mean the US should weaken its stance
Any steel imports into the EU that exceed the new, lower quota level would be subject to a 50% tariff, which represents a major increase from the EU’s current 25% out-of-quota tariff. This move would largely align the EU’s steel tariff rate with Canada and the United States.
Global steel forum sets 2026 framework deadline as US ups pressure on excess capacity
Global steelmakers sounded the alarm Friday over the deepening excess steelmaking capacity crisis. Ministers at the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity (GFSEC) in Gqeberha, South Africa, pledged to...
CRU: China’s indirect steel exports find new destination markets
The boom in China’s direct steel exports has not stopped this year, even with a rise in protectionist measures globally. The increase is driven by...
U.S. Steel sues Algoma over iron pellet shipments
U.S. Steel is suing Algoma over the Canadian flat-rolled producer's rejection of iron pellet shipments, arguing it has breached its contract.