Trade Cases

Do U.S. Steelmakers Really Need Section 232?
Written by Tim Triplett
July 25, 2017
Even conceding that a strong U.S. steel industry is vital to the nation’s security, it’s unclear whether America’s steelmakers really need an assist from the government in the form of new tariffs or quotas under Section 232.
“Is the industry deserving of any kind of help? I believe you can make a good case that the answer is no,” says veteran steel industry analyst Charles Bradford of Bradford Research in New York.
Overall, steel stocks are trading at their highest levels in years. Steelmakers such as Nucor and Steel Dynamics are reporting strong sales and profits. Others, such as U.S. Steel and ArcelorMittal, are not. “But the fact they haven’t performed well doesn’t mean it can’t be done,” says Bradford. “If Nucor and SDI can have the return on invested capital that they report, that shows the industry is not in need of any help.”
Steel executives in the United States are quick to blame their woes on China, its overproduction and excessive exports of unfairly priced steel. While that certainly has been the case in the past, it’s not as true today. “China is actually now a net importer, not an exporter, of steel. All that analysis about how China is a bad actor in the steel business is absolutely false,” Bradford says.
China’s steel exports equal about 10 percent of its current domestic consumption. That percentage is about the same for the United States, Bradford says. “They have a much bigger base, though, so there is a lot more steel coming out of China,” he adds.
China’s overcapacity may not be as excessive as it seems, Bradford says. Using WTO guidelines, the Chinese report their “capacity,” the theoretical amount of steel that their mills’ equipment could produce. In the U.S., mills report their “capability,” which is the actual amount they are able to produce. “It’s the bottlenecks that actually define the output. That’s the difference between capacity and capability,” Bradford explains.
The Chinese say they have 1.2 billion tons of annual steelmaking capacity, while their actual output is just above 800 million tons. “I have long felt that about 300 million tons of Chinese capacity is illusory,” Bradford says.
The United States’ trade deficit with China is distorted by other factors. When the U.S. imports a product, the cost includes freight. When it exports a product, the cost does not. “If you export one $500 ton of steel to China, it would show up in U.S. export data as $500. If that same ton of steel is imported from China, it might show up as $550, including freight. It makes the import figure look substantially greater,” Bradford says.
Bradford is among those who do not concede that a subsidy for the steel industry is necessary for national security. The Department of Defense is a relatively small consumer of steel, compared with other industries, and the nation’s steel industry has more than enough capability to meet the DoD’s needs.
The Trump administration is getting a lot of pushback from U.S. manufacturers and other steel consumers, who contend that further restrictions on imports will raise their cost for steel and make them less competitive. At stake are millions of jobs in manufacturing, they say, versus thousands of jobs in the steel industry.
The administration will probably try to make the case that the nation’s entire infrastructure, and the steel needed to maintain it, is vital to national defense, Bradford says, but he offers no prediction for the long-delayed Section 232 report due from the Department of Commerce. “There’s no way to read what they will do,” he says. “They’ve been irrational.”

Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest 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.