Trade Cases
Leibowitz: Steel Product Exclusion Process is Stuck
Written by Tim Triplett
July 5, 2018
Lewis Leibowitz, trade attorney and contributor to Steel Market Update, offers the following commentary on the latest developments in Washington:
The steel product exclusion process is stuck. While more than 11,000 comments have been filed, the overwhelming majority of which are product exclusion requests, less than 100 (by my latest count) have been processed. Of the 56 requests that have been DENIED, none of them reached the merits of the request. Rather, the Commerce Department rejected them because there was insufficient information presented. None of the requests I saw went into any detail about the nature of the deficiencies. The 42 requests that were granted involved very small tonnages; the largest single approval that I saw was for 100 metric tons. As readers will know, steel imports used by American manufacturers total about 30 million tons.
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has blamed the delay on Congress approving insufficient funding to process the requests. This seems an unlikely excuse because the process has shown few signs of actual standards being applied. Even the approvals are vague. Applicants for exclusion still have scant information on which to base a decision to apply or not to apply. I remain hopeful that standards will evolve or be articulated.
Product exclusions are the only way to avoid either tariffs or quotas, unless you have a supplier in Australia. That nation remains the world’s only source of steel for U.S. buyers that is subject neither to tariffs nor “absolute” quotas. The countries that are subject to such quotas are Argentina, Brazil and South Korea.
In the meantime, calls for reconsideration of the tariffs are growing. Mid-Continent Nail, one of the largest nail manufacturers in the United States, has said it may close its doors by Labor Day if its product exclusion requests are not approved soon. It appears that nails are on the short end—steel wire (Tariff heading 7217) is subject to the 25 percent steel tariffs, while nails (7317) are not. This indeed could be a mortal blow to nail producers. Nails from many foreign sources are subject to antidumping and countervailing duties, but the nail industry claims that the steel tariffs are a deadly hit to nail producers in the United States.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott wrote to President Trump on June 28 that the steel and aluminum tariffs threatened jobs in downstream industries. So far, the president has not responded. Analyses far and wide have confirmed Gov. Abbott’s fears. The jobs put in danger are much more numerous than those being saved in steel and aluminum. Gov. Abbott’s main concern, of course, is workers in oil and gas exploration and production. Arguably, that industry is far more directly related to the national security than steel and aluminum production in this day and age.
Russia, the EU, Turkey, India and other countries have requested WTO consultations with the United States over steel and aluminum tariffs. This is the first step in the WTO dispute settlement process. The United States also has resorted to dispute settlement—the cases will run their course over the next year or so.
Mark your calendars—tomorrow the “section 301” tariffs on $34 billion of imports from China become effective, as will Chinese retaliatory tariffs on a similar amount of trade going the other way.
On the hopeful side, there are rumors today that the European Union may offer a deal on automobile tariffs to stave off tariffs by the U.S. on $300 billion of auto trade.
It is a daily vigil in Washington these days.
Lewis Leibowitz
The Law Office of Lewis E. Leibowitz
1400 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 776-1142
Fax: (202) 861-2924
Cell: (202) 250-1551
Lewis Leibowitz will be joined by Steel Manufacturing Association President Philip Bell at the SMU Steel Summit Conference on Aug. 27 to answer questions about trade and trade issues. Go to www.SteelMarketUpdate.com/events/steel-summit for more information and to register.
Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases
Leibowitz on trade: How much will the Trump tariffs hurt the US? How much will they help?
The benefits from higher tariffs are speculative and unproven. The disruptions caused by tariffs and other trade restrictions are better documented and cannot be rationally denied. For the tariffs to be good policy, the Trump argument must therefore be sure that the benefits to the US exceed the cost of these disruptions. Otherwise, we have madness masquerading as policy.
Trump to place 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, 10% on China starting Tuesday
The Trump administration will implement 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on China, according to a White House fact sheet and executive orders circulated on Saturday. The administration said that it would tariff “energy resources” from Canada at a lower rate – 10%. The tariffs will go into effect at 12:01 ET on Tuesday, according to an executive order. The White House documents made no mention of exemptions.
Canacero claims ‘surge’ of US steel exports, backs retaliation against potential tariffs
Mexican steel trade association Canacero said US steel exports represent “a threat to the Mexican steel industry.” Canacero also backed retaliatory measures if President Trump enacts 25% tariffs on Mexico by Feb. 1.
Updated timeline for coated steel trade case
Less-than-fair-value investigations The US Commerce Department has agreed to postpone preliminary decisions in the corrosion-resistant steel (CORE) antidumping duty (AD) investigations. Commerce said in a Federal Register filing that it will now issue initial AD margin determinations by April 3. The deadline had previously been Feb. 12. The extension comes after domestic petitioners requested earlier […]
Trump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico as soon as Feb. 1
President Donald Trump said on Monday evening that he was considering placing tariffs of 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico. The president said the tariffs could go into effect as soon as Feb. 1. President Trump threatened the tariffs as he signed a raft of executive orders in front of reporters in the Oval […]