Trade Cases
U.S Steel Section 337 Investigation Closed
Written by Sandy Williams
March 20, 2018
The final complaint in the U.S. Steel Section 337 investigation against steel manufacturers in China was dismissed by the International Trade Commission on Monday. In a 3-1 decision, the USITC said U.S. Steel failed to show specific antitrust injury.
The antitrust claim was the last of three complaints that U.S. Steel brought against its Chinese competitors. The company alleged that eight Chinese steel manufacturers violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to fix prices and control production. The antitrust claim was terminated by Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord in November, but sent back to court after U.S. Steel appealed.
U.S. Steel withdrew its trade secrets complaint in February 2017 and the false designation of origin investigation was terminated in October.
“From the outset of the Section 337 case, our company sought to challenge the brazen violation of our trade laws by foreign competitors,” U.S. Steel said in a March 19 statement to Inside U.S. Trade. “We have learned how insurmountable that obstacle is for a single company to overcome.”
The 337 investigation originally targeted 40 respondents that are Chinese steel manufacturers or distributors. Eighteen of the respondents participated in the investigation and the rest were found to be in default, including 15 respondents in the false designation of origin claim.
The Commission is authorized to order relief against the Defaulting Respondents which may include: “(1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of articles manufactured or imported by the Defaulting Respondents; and/or (2) issue cease and desist orders that could result in the Defaulting Respondents being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered.”
The Section 337 investigation, however, is essentially closed.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
Price on Trade: IEEPA tariffs head to the Supreme Court, DOJ ramps up trade enforcement
International trade law and policy remain a hot topic in Washington and beyond this week. We are paying special attention to the ongoing litigation of the president’s tariff policies and the administration’s efforts to heighten trade enforcement.
Mexico considers stiff tariffs for steel, autos, and other imports
Mexico is considering imposing steep tariffs on imports of steel, automobiles, and over 1,400 other products. Its target? Countries with which it does not have free trade agreements, mainly China, India, Thailand, and other South Asian nations.
Leibowitz: With ‘reciprocal’ tariffs struck down again in court, what happens next?
President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Policy Act (IEEPA) were struck down again, this time on Aug. 29 by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The legal and policy mess continues, with the next stop being the US Supreme Court.
Market unfazed by US circuit court’s IEEPA decision
Repealing any reciprocal tariffs placed by President Donald Trump on US imports of direct reduced iron (DRI), iron ore, hot-briquetted iron (HBI), and pig iron would have only a nominal impact on the US steel market, market participants said.
ITC votes to keep HR duties after sunset review
The US government determined this week that hot-rolled steel imports from a handful of countries continue to threaten the domestic steel industry.