Trade Cases
Line Pipe Producers Refute Challenges to Section 232 Tariffs
Written by Sandy Williams
June 12, 2018
Speaking in support of the Section 232 tariffs, the American Line Pipe Producers Association is challenging recent claims by U.S. pipeline developers that they are unable to source sufficient quantities of large-diameter line pipe in the United States.
The large-diameter welded pipe industry in the U.S. is operating at its lowest capacity in years—well under 40 percent—and, if given the opportunity, is “ready, able and eager” to supply pipeline operators, says ALPPA.
“U.S. producers can make virtually everything demanded for American pipeline projects, and they do so using domestic steel,” said Tim Brightbill, trade counsel to ALPPA. “Complaints by industry groups such as the Interstate National Gas Association of America (INGAA) and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL) are completely unfounded. There is no reason why U.S. pipeline projects should not be using U.S.-manufactured large-diameter line pipe.”
A second allegation ALPPA refutes is that pipeline projects will be put on hold due to the high cost of Section 232 tariffs. Pipeline costs have been exaggerated, said ALPPA. Although tariffs may increase the price of imported pipe, large-diameter welded pipe accounts for only 20 percent of the total pipeline project cost, and pipeline projects continue to be highly profitable.
ALPPA notes that pipeline operators continue to rely on imports despite the tariffs, resulting in lost bids for domestic producers and further injury from “dumped and subsidized imports” of large-diameter pipe.
The Trump administration is correct in concluding that imports of steel pipe threaten U.S. national security and critical infrastructure, says ALLPA, pointing to affirmative preliminary determinations by the U.S. International Trade Commission in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on pipe imports from Canada, China, Greece, India, Korea and Turkey.
“ALPPA strongly opposes requests from pipeline operators to be excluded from the steel Section 232 tariffs,” said the association.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest 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.