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
Price on trade: What a difference a year makes!
As everyone surely knows by now, the SMU Steel Summit starts on Monday in Atlanta, Ga. So, this is a great opportunity to reflect on how much has changed since the 2024 Summit. Certainly, no one could have imagined the wholesale and transformative changes to U.S. and global trade policy.
Canadian steelmakers call for protection after US adds derivatives to S232
The Canadian Steel Producers Association expressed dismay upon the news that the Trump administration had added over 400 products to the list of derivative products covered by the 50% Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum.
China opens WTO dispute with Canada over steel, aluminum
China has requested dispute consultations with Canada at the WTO about Canadian measures on Chinese steel and aluminum imports.
Inclusion requests result in 400+ additions to S232’s derivatives list
The Commerce Department has added over 400 HTS codes to the list of steel and aluminum derivative products covered under the Section 232 tariffs.
Leibowitz on Trade: The New World Orders
The question of the new world order was on many minds last week when I spoke on another SMU Community Chat. The short answer is that nobody knows in detail what the effects of all the economic and geopolitical developments will be.