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 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.