Trade Cases
USCIT Orders Commerce to Explain Denial of JSW Exclusion Requests
Written by Sandy Williams
August 6, 2020
A challenge by JSW Steel USA to the U.S. Court of International Trade regarding the denial by Commerce of its slab exclusion requests has prompted CIT to order Commerce to provide further explanation of the steps taken in the denial process.
“Remand of all twelve exclusion requests is warranted because Commerce’s denials are devoid of explanation and frustrate judicial review,” said CIT in its decision. “The court cannot be certain what record evidence, if any, Commerce relied upon, when both the BIS decision memoranda and ITA recommendation memoranda do not explain what information the sub-agencies considered, how it was weighed, or why the evidence compelled denial.”
CIT further ordered that Commerce 1) identify and correct all deficiencies in the existing administrative record, and 2) fully reconsider or provide further explanation of its denials of all of JSW’s exclusion requests.
In 2018, JSW Steel submitted 12 Section 232 exclusion requests for alloy and non-alloy steel slab imports—six from India and six from Mexico—explaining that the steel slabs it requires for manufacturing steel plate were not available in the U.S. Nucor, U.S. Steel and AK Steel objected to JSW’s request and contested the claim that sufficient slabs were not available domestically.
After a rebuttal by JSW and surrebuttals by the steel mills, Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security a year later denied the exclusion requests. BIS stated that the requested steel slab “is produced in a sufficient and reasonably available amount and of a satisfactory quality” and “that no overriding national security concerns requires that this exclusion request be granted notwithstanding the domestic availability.”
JSW submitted a complaint on July 30, 2019, to the CIT regarding Commerce’s denials stating they were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” In updated filings, the company asserted that certain information regarding the decision was missing from the record and noted that the Inspector General had warned Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that the exclusion process was not transparent.
The CIT decision on Aug. 5 added that “although JSW casts Commerce’s behavior as ‘perplexing,’ ‘aberrant,’ ‘certainly suspicious,’ and ‘creating a strong inference of undue influence that suggests the Department’s decisions were not based on the merits of the requests,’ JSW does not allege impropriety that would warrant discovery.” CIT also denied JSW’s request for a privilege log.
Although the CIT order does not provide tariff relief to JSW Steel USA on its imports of foreign slab, it does indicate that the BIS will be under tighter scrutiny of its decisions.
JSW Steel USA and Commerce now have 30 days to file comments and rebuttals.
Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases
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.
Leibowitz: In Trump’s brave new world of tariffs, what will stick and what will courts challenge?
With a chronic trade deficit, the administration will continue to cite more tariffs as necessary. This is in error, as noted above. Yet the base of President Trump’s support does not see it that way. More tariffs are possible. But the only way to reduce the US trade deficit substantially is to close the gap between savings and investment in the United States.