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

Price on Trade: IEEPA tariffs head to the Supreme Court, DOJ ramps up trade enforcement
International trade law and policy remain a hot topic in Washington and beyond this week. We are paying special attention to the ongoing litigation of the president’s tariff policies and the administration’s efforts to heighten trade enforcement.

Mexico considers stiff tariffs for steel, autos, and other imports
Mexico is considering imposing steep tariffs on imports of steel, automobiles, and over 1,400 other products. Its target? Countries with which it does not have free trade agreements, mainly China, India, Thailand, and other South Asian nations.

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.