Trade Cases
U.S. Steel’s Section 337 Case Delayed
Written by Tim Triplett
July 8, 2017
The administrative law judge presiding over U.S. Steel’s Section 337 case against Chinese steelmakers has extended the deadline for fact discovery by three weeks. The close of discovery is now set for July 15, pushing back the evidentiary hearing from September to mid-October.
In the International Trade Commission case it filed in April 2016, U.S. Steel accuses Chinese steel companies of false designation of origin, alleging that they routinely misrepresent country of origin paperwork for products originating in China to avoid paying antidumping and countervailing duties on certain carbon and alloy steel products.
On June 28, U.S. Steel filed a motion claiming that three of the seven Chinese mills cited in the case have refused to produce documentation on shipments of steel to certain additional countries. U.S. Steel seeks discovery-related information on hot-rolled steel, cold-rolled steel, corrosion-resistant steel and oil country tubular goods from Chinese mills on countries they have allegedly transshipped steel products through, including Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and Thailand. U.S. Steel believes the Chinese transshipments were nothing more than a blatant circumvention of U.S. trade laws. During the transshipment process the countries not subject to duties would repackage and mark the steel as being from that country and not China where the steel was actually produced.
U.S. Steel’s aim in the 337 case is to exclude Chinese steel from the U.S. market though a Section 337 exclusion order, even though very little Chinese steel is currently entering the country, notes Washington trade attorney Lewis Leibowitz. “An exclusion order could conceivably broaden into exclusion orders on other countries, but only if U.S. Steel can prove that Chinese steel is entering through a third country. It’s hard to know where this claim is going,” he said.
Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest 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.