Trade Cases
OECD: Markets at Risk from Excess Capacity and Trade Actions
Written by Sandy Williams
March 27, 2019
Steel markets are facing “considerable downside risk” as excess capacity continues to a be a major challenge for the global steel industry.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that global steelmaking capacity (in nominal crude terms) was nearly unchanged in 2018 at 2.234 billion metric tons, after declining in the previous two years. The gap between steel capacity and production remained high at 425.5 million tons in 2018.
Numerous new capacity investments have been started or are in the planning phases around the world. If those projects are completed, OECD projects that steelmaking capacity could increase by 4-5 percent between 2019 and 2021, in the absence of any plant closures.
At the 86th session of the OECD Steel Committee, Vice Chairman Jai Motwane expressed the committee’s concerns about “low growth prospects for the global economy and global steel markets.”
Market conditions fell sharply in 2018. Global GDP growth forecasts were revised downward to 3.3. percent for 2019 and 3.4 percent for 2020. Accelerated steel price growth fell in the second half of the year, wiping out first half gains. Global production increased while demand softened in most steel-consuming economies.
Steel trade declined in most major steel producing economies in 2018 due to a significant increase in trade actions in the global steel market. In the U.S., Section 232 steel tariffs contributed to a host of retaliatory and protective measures, which multiplied across the globe.
Structural imbalances in the market, like use of subsidies, continue to persist.
Motwane called for the G-20-led Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity to swiftly implement agreed policy actions to eliminate excess capacity and market-distorting support measures.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest 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.