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
Leibowitz: Renewed trade war with China over rare earths
On Oct.10, President Trump announced major increases in tariffs on Chinese goods. The trigger was a new regime of export controls on rare earth metals and products using those elements, including magnets, capital equipment, and catalysts for catalytic converters in cars and trucks.
Industry piles on new Section 232 steel derivative inclusion requests
The Department of Commerce received 97 submissions from producers, manufacturers, and groups seeking Section 232 tariff coverage for steel and aluminum derivative products.
Price on Trade: New EU steel tariffs don’t mean the US should weaken its stance
Any steel imports into the EU that exceed the new, lower quota level would be subject to a 50% tariff, which represents a major increase from the EU’s current 25% out-of-quota tariff. This move would largely align the EU’s steel tariff rate with Canada and the United States.
Global steel forum sets 2026 framework deadline as US ups pressure on excess capacity
Global steelmakers sounded the alarm Friday over the deepening excess steelmaking capacity crisis. Ministers at the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity (GFSEC) in Gqeberha, South Africa, pledged to...
CRU: China’s indirect steel exports find new destination markets
The boom in China’s direct steel exports has not stopped this year, even with a rise in protectionist measures globally. The increase is driven by...