Trade Cases
ITC Finds Injury in Corrosion-Resistant Steel Trade Case
Written by Sandy Williams
June 26, 2016
The U.S. International Trade Commission announced Friday that it made an affirmative decision on injury to U.S. steel producers by imports of corrosion resistant steel products from China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan. The USITC determined by unanimous vote that the U.S. steel industry was materially injured by the import of corrosion-resistant steel products (galvanized, Galvalume, aluminized, etc.) sold at less than fair value and subsidized by the five countries.
The decision follows an earlier one late last week in which all six commissioners found injury in the case of imports of cold-rolled flat products from China and Japan.
As a result of the US ITC’s affirmative determinations, Commerce will issue a countervailing duty order on imports of these products from China, India, Italy, and Korea and antidumping duty orders on imports of these products from China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan.
In addition, the Commission made negative findings with respect to critical circumstances in regard to imports of these products from China, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan. As a result, goods will not be subject to retroactive countervailing duties and antidumping duties that would have been based on the dates of the Department of Commerce’s affirmative preliminary determinations. The ITC also did not find critical circumstances in the cold-rolled flat steel decision announced earlier last week.
The products covered by these investigations are certain flat‐rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion‐resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc‐, aluminum‐, nickel‐ or iron‐based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non‐metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.) and products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths).
The subsidy and dumping margins determined by the Department of Commerce in their final decision on May 25, 2016 were:
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
Price: Should billions in Section 232 revenue go to foreign manufacturers or to the American people?
Do we want the benefits of the Section 232 tariffs to flow to the bottom lines of foreign steel and aluminum producers or to the US government and, ultimately, domestic manufacturers and their workers? In our view, the answer is simple. Section 232 exceptions do nothing more than lead to underserved profits for foreign manufacturers who are harming the US industrial base. That revenue could be used to pursue the Trump administration’s other policy priorities - such as deficit reduction or expanded tax cuts.
Mills allege ‘critical circumstances’ in CORE trade case vs. South Africa, UAE
"Recent activity in the marketplace strongly indicates that these imports are being rushed into the United States in an effort to avoid the imposition of antidumping duties," petitioners said.
European Commission eyes retaliation vs. Trump steel tariffs: Report
The European Commission is looking into making current quotas on steel imports stricter as a countermeasure to President Trump’s recently announced tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to the US, according to an article in Reuters.
Trump could levy tariffs on auto imports in April: Report
President Donald Trump said last week that he could place tariffs on auto imports, according to an article in Politico.
Section 232 tariffs are headed downstream
The Trump administration has revealed the list of derivative steel products being added to the Section 232 tariff list.