Commerce launches investigation into imports of coated flat-rolled steel

Steel Dynamics Inc. (SDI), Nucor, U.S. Steel, Wheeling-Nippon Steel, and the United Steelworkers (USW) union filed petitions on Sept. 5 requesting duties be imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant (CORE) steel. The petitions cover zinc and aluminum-coated steel sheet products, including galvanized coil and aluminized sheet products.

The petitions allege the selling of CORE flat-rolled steel imports below fair value by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Vietnam.

Domestic petitioners also contend that producers in Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and Vietnam are receiving illegal government subsidies.

Note that SDI and Nucor are the only petitioners seeking duties on Canadian CORE products, and SDI is the only one requesting them against Mexico.

Alleged dumping and subsidy margins

The alleged dumping margins in Commerce’s case initiation announcement on Thursday, shown below, differ slightly from the ones alleged in the original petition.

Updated alleged margins

Cumulation of imports

The petitions ask the International Trade Commission (ITC) to cumulate CORE imports from the named countries when making its injury determinations.

SMU understands the ITC must cumulate import volumes if petitions are filed on the same day and the same product against two or more countries, as they were in this case.

As the World Trade Organization notes on cumulation, “Since such analysis will increase the volume of imports whose impact is being considered, there is a greater possibility of an affirmative determination.”

Calls for case dismissal

There were also objections and requests for the case’s dismissal prior to Thursday’s decision.

Several interested parties, including Ternium USA, Ternium Mexico, and ArcelorMittal Dofasco, had requested Commerce dismiss the petitions without initiation.

Ternium said Commerce should disregard the “petitioners’ unsupported and unreliable industry support calculations,” according to case documents.

Or alternatively, it wanted the department to poll the industry to see if there really was enough domestic industry support for the inquiries.

In its request for dismissal of the petitions, ArcelorMittal Dofasco called the petition against Canada “unusual” because of the lack of support from other US producers. It accused petitioners of “spinning their estimates” in their favor.

“Given the demonstrated imprecision of the estimates that were used for this purpose, it would be simply unconscionable for Commerce not to poll the industry,” it stated.

Their comments were not enough for Commerce to dismiss the case without a proper investigation.

Next date to watch

The timeline Commerce provided for the case aligns with the schedule previously provided by SMU here. Note that any case delays and postponements may, and often do, extend the investigations.

The next big things to watch for are the ITC’s preliminary vote on Oct. 18 and preliminary injury determinations on Oct. 19. A negative initial injury diagnosis would terminate the corresponding AD/CVD investigations. Affirmative injury findings would keep the cases moving forward.