Trade Cases
Two Chinese Mills Hit with Section 337 Sanctions
Written by Sandy Williams
August 13, 2017
Trade actions are moving ahead in the Section 337 case against Chinese steel producers. Sanctions have been placed on two of seven Chinese respondents by Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord for failure to produce documentation necessary to investigate transshipment charges brought by U.S. Steel.
On June 28, 2017, U.S. Steel filed a motion for sanctions against steel producers Shagang, WISCO, and Masteel for violation of Order No. 61 requiring documentation of production capacity. U.S. Steel claimed that the companies missed a May 31 deadline to provide production capacity information.
U.S. Steel requested the court make a factual finding that manufacturing capacity at the three mills constituted “threat of substantial injury” and order a sanction that would satisfy the burden of establishing such injury. U.S. Steel also requested monetary sanction in the form of attorney fees and court costs incurred as a result of the alleged violation of Order No. 61.
On July 10, the named companies filed an opposition motion.
Judge Lord granted the sanctions in respect to Shagang and WISCO, saying the parties should have been producing these documents much earlier in the investigation and, after issuance of Order No. 61, there was “no excuse for any further delay.” In respect to Masteel, Lord found that the delay in submission of capacity information was “inadvertent and that, more importantly, the omission was promptly corrected.” No sanctions were placed against Masteel.
U.S. Steel filed the Section 337 petition in April, 2016 in an effort to block all imports of carbon and alloy Chinese steel to the U.S. The petition also included a false designation of origin claim and a charge of price fixing. The antitrust claim of price fixing was dismissed by Lord and, following an oral argument in July, is awaiting a determination on whether the dismissal was justified. U.S. Steel withdrew its claim of trade secret theft in February.
The seven Chinese manufacturers targeted in the Section 337 petition are Baosteel Group, HeSteel Group, Masteel Group, Shougang Steel Group, Shagang Steel Group, WISCO Steel Group and Ansteel Group. U.S. Steel alleges that the respondents have circumvented U.S. trade actions by transshipment of steel products through Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and Thailand. The group of seven have filed motions asking for a “summary determination” that no violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 occurred.
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.