Trade Cases

Vietnam CR & Coated: Cancel, Ship or Wait & See?
Written by John Packard
September 27, 2016
Steel Market Update spent a good portion of our day today talking with steel traders and end users who have exposure (orders on the books not yet delivered) to Vietnamese cold rolled and/or galvanized/Galvalume steels. We were trying to determine how the importers of record were handling any orders on the books.
What we found is there are essentially three ways the steel trading companies are handling existing Vietnamese orders on the books.
• A number of traders have cancelled their orders and have decided that the risk is just too high.
• A number of traders have orders on the books and letters of credit in place and they have no choice but to allow the steel to be shipped (although the end destination might be altered) .
• A third group of traders are in communication with their attorneys and they don’t quite know what they are going to do.
Traders don’t know how the US Department of Commerce is going to act to this circumvention request. Obviously we are in a hyper-charged political environment which could favor the domestic steel mills. At the same time there is a WTO definition of transformation which (we believe) supports the ability of the Vietnamese mills to convert hot rolled to cold rolled or galvanized and in the process change the country of origin.
The fear is that the importers of record might end up liable and would have to pay the cash deposits/duties that are in place against Chinese cold rolled and CORE products.
In the case of Chinese cold rolled we are talking antidumping duties (AD) of 256.70 percent and countervailing duties of 256.44 percent.
Chinese galvanized products have an antidumping duty (AD) of 209.97 percent and the countervailing duties are either 39.05 percent or 241.07 percent.
So, the risk is quite significant should the US DOC rule in favor of the domestic steel mills.
Some of the Comments Made to SMU by Traders Today:
“…as far as I can tell, folks are split on this issue. some feel the reasoning in the suit is unsupportable, i.e., buying substrate (HR) on the open market and adding value to it, (cr/coated) is a fundamental part of steel making for re-rolling mills. furthermore, sourcing ‘parts’ in other countries is a universal and integral practice necessary to building finished products. If the domestics have evidence and can argue that ‘repackaging’ is taking place, i.,e, exporting a finished product from a 3rd country with documents stating it was produced in the exporter’s home country, then there may be traction to be gained. The filing has dried up the offers from what I can determine, but if there are brokers offering VN during this interim, I doubt many buyers would be willing to take the chance.”
“Today I am notifying customers that any un-shipped tonnage from Vietnam will not be coming. We are cancelling. It appears most of the customers have been understanding. Not pleased but understanding. Not sure about the time line on when penalties will be accessed and the Chinese percentage is too great of a risk. Not willing to take a chance at this time. I can not see any trading company taking a chance and making new offers. While I think the domestics have a difficult road to be successful, I acknowledge that the industry has a very strong record of winning trade cases. Has it been 40 years since they last lost a case. Even while the industry was on full fledge allocation 5 of the last 7 months, they still want to eliminate ANY competition. For Vietnamese material we will sit on the sidelines while this process plays out.”
“We are really not doing anything right now, as we await advice from our attorneys and directions from our top management. We have cancelled nothing to date. We are not soliciting any new business and whatever we had quoted, is now on hold.”

John Packard
Read more from John PackardLatest in Trade Cases

Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.

Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.

ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.

Steel Summit: Zekelman advocates for ‘Fortress North America’
Barry Zekelman has a unique vantage point from which to view today’s trade landscape. A Canadian national who owns operations in both the US and Canada, he has also had dialogue with both Canadian and American administrations.

Steel Summit: Execs urge clarity on trade/tariff policy, want stronger USMCA
Tariff policy dominated the discussion of the SMU Steel Summit trade panel on Tuesday afternoon. The message was clear: uncertainty is rattling the steel supply chain.