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:

CountryDumping rate
Canada5.27%
China122.52% (deposit rate set at 111.98%)
Germany6.88%
South Korea0-2.69%
Netherlands0%
Taiwan0%
Turkey0%
United Kingdom0%

In the CVD portion of the case investigating imports from China, Commerce set the following subsidy rates:

CompanySubsidy rate
Baoshan Iron & Steel649.98%
Shougang Jingtang United Iron & Steel Co. and related companies331.88%
China-wide entity331.88%

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

Laura Miller is a reporter and editor for Steel Market Update. She has held a variety of positions within the steel industry since 2007, including reporting and editing for Steel Business Briefing/Platts, the Association for Iron and Steel Technology, and Kallanish Commodities, as well as marketing for what was then known as ThyssenKrupp Steel USA (now AM/NS Calvert). After a five-year hiatus working across other industries, she returned to steel in 2021 and has covered the flat rolled, tubular, and trade areas of the industry. She is a member of the Association of Women in the Metal Industries and a past-president of the AWMI Pittsburgh Chapter. She holds a BA in Latin American Studies from Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. She can be reached at laura@steelmarketupdate.com or 724-759-7869.

Read more from Laura Miller

Latest in Trade Cases

Price: How did ‘Buy Clean’ get switched to ‘Buy Dirty’?

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) appropriated more than $4 billion to the General Services Administration (GSA) and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) for “Buy Clean” programs. The statute makes clear that GSA and FHWA purchases under these programs are limited to those with “substantially lower” emissions. There is no ambiguity in that requirement. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined “substantially lower” to mean products with the lowest 20% of embodied emissions when compared to similar materials.

Op-Ed: Strong trade enforcement builds prosperity and security

Tariffs on unfairly traded steel and other products help to stabilize America’s most important industries, safeguard tens of thousands of jobs, and protect national security. My union, the United Steelworkers (USW), never seeks these remedies lightly. And presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, implement them only after diligent investigations documenting the harm that foreign adversaries intentionally inflict upon our country with dumping, overproduction and other kinds of trade cheating. I don’t think Lewis Leibowitz considered these points while criticizing tariffs in his excessively pro-free-trade column, “Where is the voice of the consumer?” on May 5.

Leibowitz on trade: Where is the voice of the consumer?

The election campaign is white-hot right now, and the Biden administration is touting its protectionist message. Just this past week, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) touted this message. In a release entitled “What They are Saying,” USTR quoted many of the usual protectionist groups praising government action against Chinese steel exports and shipbuilding. Consuming industries in the United States, which employ many times the American workers as the industries seeking trade protection, were not mentioned.