Trade Cases
Dismissal of Antitrust Claim in Section 337 Case to be Reconsidered
Written by Sandy Williams
December 26, 2016
The US International Trade Commission announced last week that it will review an initial determination of Administrative Law Judge Sandra Lord in the US Steel Section 337 case against China.
On November 14, 2016, Lord granted a motion by respondents to terminate US Steel’s antitrust claim in the Section 337 investigation. US Steel Corp. and the Commission Investigative Attorney responded on November 23 with petitions for a review of the termination and requested an opportunity to present oral arguments to the Commission.
The Commission agreed in its announcement on December 19 to review the initial determination to terminate the antitrust claim and requested written responses to the following questions from the parties concerned.
- Explain the policies that underlie the injury requirement under Section 337 (a)(1)(A)(iii) (and how it differs from the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A)(i). Explain what the complainant must prove to satisfy its antitrust claim.
- Explain how antitrust injury stranding for private litigants in federal court compares to or differs from the injury requirement under Section 337(a)(1)(A).
- Explain whether “antitrust injury” standing is, or should be, required for establishing a Section 337 violation based on a claim alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes as a matter of law and/or policy.
- Explain whether good cause exists to amend the complaint, presuming it is plead as “antitrust injury.”
- Explain any further legal reasoning or argument why the complainant’s antitrust claim should or should not be terminated at the present stage of the investigation.
Note: Section 337 (a)(1) reads as follows:
Parties to the investigation must file written submissions on the issues identified by close of business on January 17, 2017. Responsive submissions must be received no later than February 1, 2017
Commission will determine whether to conduct oral argument and announce decision no later than February 24, 2017. Oral argument, if granted, will be held on March 14, 2017.
NOTE: A PDF of the USITC review determination can be accessed here.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
Price on Trade: The foolishness of free trade with controlled economies
It was only a matter of time before a shutdown happened. And, no, we aren’t talking about the federal government’s lapse in appropriations. On Oct. 9, Beijing announced a series of restrictions that will effectively shut down exports of rare earth elements, magnets, and certain downstream products vital to advanced manufacturing.
Trump pulls plug on trade talks with Canada after anti-tariff Reagan ad
US President Donald Trump took to social media late Thursday night to announce he was canceling trade talks with Canada.
Leibowitz: Renewed trade war with China over rare earths
On Oct.10, President Trump announced major increases in tariffs on Chinese goods. The trigger was a new regime of export controls on rare earth metals and products using those elements, including magnets, capital equipment, and catalysts for catalytic converters in cars and trucks.
Industry piles on new Section 232 steel derivative inclusion requests
The Department of Commerce received 97 submissions from producers, manufacturers, and groups seeking Section 232 tariff coverage for steel and aluminum derivative products.
Price on Trade: New EU steel tariffs don’t mean the US should weaken its stance
Any steel imports into the EU that exceed the new, lower quota level would be subject to a 50% tariff, which represents a major increase from the EU’s current 25% out-of-quota tariff. This move would largely align the EU’s steel tariff rate with Canada and the United States.