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

China Has Failed to Comply With WTO Commitments: AISI
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) has laid out a case for China’s failure to comply with its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, which it joined in 2001.
Deputy USTR Hits Out at ‘Surge’ of Mexican Steel Imports
Deputy United States Trade Representative (USTR) Jayme White met on Wednesday with Mexico’s Under Secretary of Economy for Foreign Trade Alejandro Encinas, and discussed issues regarding the “surge” into the US of Mexican steel and aluminum imports.
Leibowitz: Europe Aims to Impose Countervailing Duties on EVs From China
Trade policy moves create great ironies sometimes. I often write about these ironies when the US acts against the interests of the country as a whole by protecting certain industries from international competition. But the US is not alone, especially in recent years as the World Trade Organization and the international geopolitical order have been […]

Leibowitz: Banning Inputs and Components—Effective Policy or Not?
As the global trading system, which used to be “rules-based,” continues its slide toward the absence (defiance? disregard?) of rules, governments around the world are trying new things.

Leibowitz: Warming Commercial Relations? The Raimondo Visit to China
Last week the Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, visited China for high-level meetings with the Chinese government. Her counterpart, Wang Wentao, China’s Commerce Minister, participated in the discussions. The four-day meeting included an announcement of two new working groups dealing with US-China economic relationships. The first was a forum to explain US export controls relating […]