Trade Cases

CORE Anti-Circumvention Determinations Delayed
Written by Sandy Williams
August 31, 2017
The Commerce Department has extended the deadline for determinations in the anti-circumvention investigation of corrosion-resistant steel from China to Feb. 15, 2018.
On Nov. 14, 2016, the anti-circumvention case was initiated on CORE steel products from the People’s Republic of China in response to a request from steel companies ArcelorMittal USA, Nucor, U.S. Steel, AK Steel, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and California Steel Industries.
The group charged that hot and cold rolled steel produced in China was being sent to Vietnam where it was processed into corrosion-resistant steel products and then sent to the U.S. under Vietnam origin, circumventing the AD/CVD duties placed on imports of steel from the PRC.
Commerce has determined that more time is necessary to solicit and analyze information related to the investigation.
Washington trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz was not surprised by the delay, noting the investigation was stalled for nearly six months. “There are two major issues in this case,” said Leibowitz, “China substrate and ‘substantial transformation.'”
Philip Bell, president of the Steel Manufacturers Association, acknowledged at SMU’s Steel Summit Conference that any exports from Vietnam could not be covered by circumvention unless Chinese substrate were used in the material coming to the U.S. SMA represents domestic EAF steel producers.
“That is absolutely correct, in my opinion,” said Leibowitz. “Commerce must accept this limitation on their authority to find circumvention or they will violate the law.”
“On substantial transformation, if HRC is imported into Vietnam, and CORE is entered into the U.S., there are at least two substantial transformations: hot rolled to cold rolled and cold rolled to coated, corrosion resistant steel. The applicable statute requires a finding that any addition to value in Vietnam must be ‘minor.’ It seems clear to me that a process that results in a substantial transformation cannot be ‘minor.’ That is an issue Commerce will need to address.
“Finally, the ability of WTO member countries to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on new countries through ‘circumvention’ is an open issue. No court has ruled on that one way or the other. Vietnam will surely challenge any such finding and could well prevail.”

Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases

Leibowitz: Tariffs are the trade version of going nuclear
In short, when tariffs go up, jobs in consuming industries go down. There is conclusive evidence from past actions: safeguard tariffs in 2002 and Section 232 tariffs in 2018. It is happening again in 2025. The Trump administration wants foreign producers (and US retailers) to absorb tariff increases (except in antidumping cases, where foreign absorption of tariffs is illegal).

Nippon exec responds after Trump ‘golden share’ comments: Report
A Nippon executive has hit back regarding the deal for USS following President Trump's talk of a "golden share" on Thursday.

US rebar producers seek import relief with new trade case
The four countries targeted for duties are currently the top offshore suppliers of rebar to the US market: Algeria, Bulgaria, Egypt, and Vietnam.

CRU Insight: A 50% S232 tariff will raise US steel prices and shift trade flows
This CRU Insight examines how the increase in Section 232 tariffs on steel to challenging levels will lead to significatively higher prices for end consumers in the US market.

Canacero hits out at new US steel tariffs
Mexican steel trade group Canacero has condemned the US’ actions of raising tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%.