Trade Cases
Commerce rules four countries are unfairly trading tin mill products
Written by Laura Miller
January 5, 2024
On the afternoon of Friday, Jan. 5, the US Department of Commerce issued its final determination in the trade case involving tin mill products from a handful of countries.
The trade case was brought by Cleveland-Cliffs and the United Steelworkers (USW) union last January. Under investigation is the alleged dumping of tin mill products by Canada, China, Germany, South Korea, the Netherlands, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, as well as the subsidization of the imports from China.
In its final ruling, Commerce determined the following dumping rates:
| Country | Dumping rate |
| Canada | 5.27% |
| China | 122.52% (deposit rate set at 111.98%) |
| Germany | 6.88% |
| South Korea | 0-2.69% |
| Netherlands | 0% |
| Taiwan | 0% |
| Turkey | 0% |
| United Kingdom | 0% |
In the CVD portion of the case investigating imports from China, Commerce set the following subsidy rates:
| Company | Subsidy rate |
| Baoshan Iron & Steel | 649.98% |
| Shougang Jingtang United Iron & Steel Co. and related companies | 331.88% |
| China-wide entity | 331.88% |
The US International Trade Commission (ITC), the agency responsible for the injury determinations in trade cases, held a final hearing in this trade case on Thursday, Jan. 4. It will make its final injury ruling next month.
Since Commerce determined that the Netherlands, Taiwan, Turkey, and the UK did not dump tin mill steel into the US market, the ITC will not make injury determinations for those countries and imports from there will not face any duties.
Cliffs’ response
Cleveland-Cliffs applauded Commerce’s decision regarding Canada, Germany, South Korea, and China.
“Together with the existing Section 232 tariffs and quotas, these dumping calculations will provide a check against unfairly traded products from all the major sources of tin mill imports,” Cliffs said in a statement.
“With the heightened levels of both geopolitical uncertainty and supply chain disruptions in the world, we continue to expect disturbances in international trade. Today’s outcome should put importers on notice that the United States will not tolerate unfair trade that harms employers, workers and communities,” Cliffs’ chairman, president, and CEO Lourenco Goncalves added.
Laura Miller
Read more from Laura MillerLatest 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.