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

Canada, mirroring the US, plans to take harder line on imported steel and aluminum
The actions, which includes tariffs, are necessary to protect the Canadian market from global overcapacity. They are also needed because other countries have redirected material to Canada as a result of higher US tariffs, Carney said.

Industry cautiously optimistic despite lack of steel specifics in US-UK trade deal
Details of a new tariff-rate quota on US imports of British steel are lacking in the new US-UK trade deal.

Mexico shuts down steel importer amid trade talks
The Mexican government shut down two plants and warehouses operated by US-based LAU Industries.

US and Canada talk trade, market contemplates fate of S232 steel protections
Trade talks are progressing between the US and the market is contemplating the future of Section 232 tariffs.

Leibowitz: Tariffs are the trade version of going nuclear
In short, when tariffs go up, jobs in consuming industries go down. There is conclusive evidence from past actions: safeguard tariffs in 2002 and Section 232 tariffs in 2018. It is happening again in 2025. The Trump administration wants foreign producers (and US retailers) to absorb tariff increases (except in antidumping cases, where foreign absorption of tariffs is illegal).