Trade Cases
Fabricators Forum Focuses on Steel Tariffs
Written by Tim Triplett
March 19, 2019
As the market waits anxiously to see if President Trump gives in to the international pressure to rethink his national security tariff on steel imports, it’s clear that steel fabricators are not big fans of Section 232. Speaking at the Fabricators & Manufacturers Association annual meeting March 5 in Nashville, panelists’ comments reflected the divisive nature of the administration’s trade policy.
“In my opinion, Section 232’s goal was to protect a small number of steel mill jobs at the expense of the larger fabrication industry,” said Phil Kooima, owner of Kooima Co., Rock Valley, Iowa, expressing a common sentiment among fabricators and other steel users. “I believe the U.S. should import as much low-cost steel as possible to make fabricators more competitive. We compete in a global market, even if our customers are domestic. As we move closer to the end game for Section 232, I look forward to sourcing steel competitively all over the world, which will make all of us more competitive.”
Section 232 remains a sticking point with officials from Canada and Mexico, who have stated publicly that they won’t give final approval to the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement, the replacement for NAFTA, as long as the tariffs are in place. Some experts predict Trump will be forced to remove the tariffs, others speculate they may be replaced with some sort of quota.
The 25 percent tariffs are not paid by the governments of Mexico and Canada, explained Washington trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz. The tariffs are paid by the importers of record, which may be the foreign suppliers, steel consumers, traders, brokers, freight forwarders or logistics companies. In the end, the cost of the tariff is usually passed on, in all or in part, to the downstream consumer. “Tariffs are taxes. They are regressive,” said Leibowitz. “Steel is an intermediate good, used to make other products, so companies that make cars and capital equipment, etc., are the ones that end up paying most of the tariffs. It is up to the marketplace whether they can pass that cost along or whether they have to absorb some of it.”
The Section 232 tariffs on Canada and Mexico could be replaced with some form of quota, which places a limit on the amount of goods a country can export to the United States, Leibowitz said. Brazil, South Korea and Argentina currently are subject to U.S. steel quotas rather than tariffs. Those quotas place annual limits on imports, but are enforced quarterly; no more than 30 percent of the annual amount can be imported during any one quarter. Another possible form of quota, the tariff rate quota, would set an annual limit, beyond which any additional imports would be subject to a tariff.
Companies can apply for relief from the tariffs if they must source foreign steel because the product they require is not available in a sufficient quality or quantity in the U.S. The Commerce Department was slammed with more than 50,000 exclusion requests and has struggled to process them all. Commerce figures available as of Jan. 31 showed that nearly 50 percent of the requests were still pending. The backlog—including objections from domestic producers, rebuttals from filers and rebuttals to those rebuttals—could take many more months to process. Congress is asking questions and proposing measures to expedite the review process, but for many companies, there is little tariff relief in sight. “I am still looking for the first one that has been granted over the objection of a domestic producer,” said Leibowitz.
Service center executive Andy Gross, president of Alliance Steel in Chicago, said he agrees with Kooima that companies should be free to buy and sell at market levels, but he is fearful that rescinding Section 232 could have serious consequences. “The impact of a rapid unwinding of 232 could be devastating on the service center level. Service centers carry tens of thousands of tons of steel and a rapid decline in prices could be devastating to inventory values.”
Supporters of the tariffs often point to China as the main bad actor on the global stage of trade. But Chinese exports to the U.S. effectively have been banned by various antidumping and countervailing duty actions. “We have not seen offerings on HRC out of China in three years,” said Gross. “China in the carbon flat rolled world has not been an issue for a long time. It’s the other countries that were bringing in low-cost material.”
China may have eased exports of steel coils to the U.S., but Chinese-made parts continue to flow, noted Kooima. “We have seen an immense influx of parts, such as brackets and stampings from China, that are not affected by 232. This is distorting the market for fabricators.” Alliance Steel has lost volume with large customers that have opened plants in Asia so that they could import parts tariff-free, Gross added.
A tariff like Section 232 is a blunt instrument for trade enforcement. There are other, more precise and measured means to achieve fair trade, Leibowitz told the FMA crowd. “I think the situation will get worse if we stick with the remedies we have now. Companies will start to make long-term investment decisions about where to produce things and we could see an avalanche of offshoring.”
Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases
CRU: Turkey imposes tariffs on steel imports; Malaysia launches AD probe
Ankara has placed anti-dumping duties of ranging from 6.10% to 43.31% on hot-rolled steel sheet from China, India, Japan, and Russia. Meanwhile, Malaysia has announced it will investigate allegedly dumped steel wire rod from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
Price on trade: The excess capacity threat moves closer to home
The Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity (GFSEC) reaffirmed on Oct. 8 what domestic steel producers have long known—the threat of excess steel capacity never disappeared and is evolving. China’s steelmakers are boosting capacity and exports, echoing the 2016 global steel crisis. There is no doubt that China is successfully weaponizing excess capacity across many industries, and the fatal damage to domestic production and national security undermines the interests of all market-oriented countries. The question now is: How will GFSEC countries respond?
US bans steel made with forced labor from Baowu subsidiary
The US has banned imports from a subsidiary of the world’s largest steelmaker because it is allegedly using forced labor to produce steel products.
China challenges Canada’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, EVs
China is challenging Canada’s decision to put tariffs on imports of Chinese steel, aluminum, and electric vehicles.
Leibowitz: Harris, Trump don’t talk much about steel and trade – because they (mostly) agree
By most accounts, the issues that are most important for voters in this election are the economy, immigration, and abortion. International trade policy plays a key role in at least two of those three (the economy and immigration). Both presidential candidates recognize that trade and tariffs are an important focus. And “America first” is a rallying point for both candidates.