U.S. steel producers Nucor, U.S. Steel, Steel Dynamics, California Steel, AK Steel and Acelor Mittal filed, on June 3, antidumping and countervailing duty petitions against some forms of corrosion resistant steel from China, India, Italy, Korea and Taiwan.
What’s the Potential Impact?
These petitions could result in the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of these products from those countries soon if the investigating entities the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission determine that “critical circumstances” exist. The domestic steel mills are seeking these additional duties alleging that imported steel’s substantial share of the U.S. market and their pricing into this market are the cause of their injury. These filings were the next step in the industries efforts to see price increase and declining imported steel U.S. market share. These petitions may be the forerunner of additional petitions against other forms of carbon steel products and other countries. Previously, the industry commenced efforts to have Congressional action on changes in the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Those changes are in the so-called customs bill (actually the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act) currently before the House.
Overall, these efforts, if successful, could have implications for not only the U.S. steel industry, but also the resellers of imported steel and the customers for domestic and imported steel. Suppliers and manufacturers of those industries should follow developments in the proceedings, and look to means to avoid or offset adverse consequences in availability and pricing.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.