Trade Cases
Dismissal of Antitrust Claim in Section 337 Case to be Reconsidered
Written by Sandy Williams
December 26, 2016
The US International Trade Commission announced last week that it will review an initial determination of Administrative Law Judge Sandra Lord in the US Steel Section 337 case against China.
On November 14, 2016, Lord granted a motion by respondents to terminate US Steel’s antitrust claim in the Section 337 investigation. US Steel Corp. and the Commission Investigative Attorney responded on November 23 with petitions for a review of the termination and requested an opportunity to present oral arguments to the Commission.
The Commission agreed in its announcement on December 19 to review the initial determination to terminate the antitrust claim and requested written responses to the following questions from the parties concerned.
- Explain the policies that underlie the injury requirement under Section 337 (a)(1)(A)(iii) (and how it differs from the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(i). Explain what the complainant must prove to satisfy its antitrust claim.
- Explain how antitrust injury stranding for private litigants in federal court compares to or differs from the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A).
- Explain whether “antitrust injury” standing is, or should be, required for establishing a Section 337 violation based on a claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes as a matter of law and/or policy.
- Explain whether good cause exists to amend the complaint, presuming it is plead as “antitrust injury.”
- Explain any further legal reasoning or argument why the complainant’s antitrust claim should or should not be terminated at the present stage of the investigation.
Note: Section 337 (a)(1) reads as follows:
Parties to the investigation must file written submissions on the issues identified by close of business on January 17, 2017. Responsive submissions must be received no later than February 1, 2017
Commission will determine whether to conduct oral argument and announce decision no later than February 24, 2017. Oral argument, if granted, will be held on March 14, 2017.
NOTE: A PDF of the USITC review determination can be accessed here.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
US and Canada expect positive outcomes from tariff negotiations
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that they’ll be formulating a trade deal that works for both nations.
Leibowitz: When the shutdown should end
There is no doubt that the current government shutdown reflects the vast divisions between the extremes of American politics, society, and even geography. Almost all Americans agree that government is necessary, but voters disagree...
Price: The U.S. Steel shutdown that wasn’t and a call to stop ‘valuation cheating’
How can the U.S. government block U.S. Steel’s Granite City rolling mill closure without harming other American steelmakers? Reducing imports should be the first step. Foreign producers continue to aggressively target the U.S. market, especially now as they find themselves displaced by Chinese exports.
US steel industry applauds ITC final determination in coated trade case
Domestic mills praised the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC's) final determination that imports of corrosion-resistant (CORE) steel from 10 countries pose a threat to them.
ITC’s final ruling: Dumped, subsidized CORE imports are harming domestic market
The US International Trade Commission (ITC) finds that corrosion resistant steel (CORE) imports from 10 countries have caused material damage to domestic product producers, according to the ITC’s statement.